Friday, October 10, 2014

QUOTATIONS for the RIGHT to LIVE and DIE by.


"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both."
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
"Lying is an elementary means of self-defense."

"Europe’s elites, like our own, are in the grip of a delusion that will destroy Western civilization if it is not challenged: that of the interchangeability of populations. They believe a successful society of the European type can be constructed of any human material whatsoever—even with people who have never succeeded in creating any civilization at all. If Homo habilis survived anywhere, our masters would probably be trying to import him as well." - F. Roger Devlin

"(Rand Paul) is no longer the politician who questioned the Civil Rights Act and called for the elimination of birthright citizenship. This is a Senator gone full retard in pursuit of the mythical population of non-White Republicans. And like all characters driven to hunt unattainable objects, his path will end in tragedy." - Michael McGregor 

"If even one Western nation, such as Australia, turned away from its current path of self-destruction and suicide by asserting the legitimate ethnic interests of Whites, there would be a powerful ripple effect throughout the West. And that would be revolutionary." - Kevin Macdonald

"When I was younger, I was angry at the North. I used to like to read about the victorious battles of the Confederacy, but now I don’t even like to read about our victories. Even the victories were tragedies. They were victories only because we were more successful at killing our brothers than our brothers were at killing us."  - Jared Taylor

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Neo-Fascist Notes on God as Inspiration for Expansion of Thought; the Problem of Jews, Identity, and Modernity(atavism and avant-gard or avantavism); and Some Thoughts on THE MIST(directed by Frank Darabont from a Stephen King Novella) , A.I.(directed by Steven Spielberg), INSOMNIA(directed by Christopher Nolan), and POLTERGEIST(directed by Tobe Hooper) PART TWO.


For PART ONE, Click Here.

Topics discussed: Libertarianism and ultra-individualist selfishness,Homosexuality as sexual retardation, Subordination of marriage to decadent individualism,Judaism, Buddhism, philosophy of Nature, mandingo bulls, THE BIRTH OF A NATION, inferiority comfort,black-on-white violence, SPECTACULAR NOW,Monopoly power to coin terminology, glob-blobs or globlobs, WINTER LIGHT, Ingmar Bergman, DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST,Robert Bresson, face/mask of God, Christian sexuality vs Jewish sexuality, Catholicist statism, Protestantist de-centralization,THE FACE OF ANOTHER, MAN WITHOUT A MAP(aka RUINED MAP), Kobo Abe, Hiroshi Teshigahara, science fiction, serious literature, problems of 'serious art', magic, trickery, trick vs truth, House of Games, David Mamet, End of History, liberal democracy as ideal or means, oligarchy over democracy, Jewish oligarchy, artistic genius vs intellectualism, Pier Paolo Pasoliini and the danger of theory, images and sounds as inspiration for ideas, art world, stink or sink,idolatry of art, tension between idea and image, history as selective remembrance AND enforced amnesia, Separation of spirituality and creativity in the West,Renaissance, imitation vs inspiration, Greek/Roman gods, Stanislaw Lem, SOLARIS, power through submission, Buddhism, Taoism, chess, Abraham, circumcision, THE BIRDS by Alfred Hitchcock, white female naivete, Solipsism of Buddhism, True Confession in art, Blonde on Blonde, "Visions of Johanna", high intelligence and intense passion among Jews, war on suburbs, white flight and black blight, auteur theory, Dylan as prophet, DAWN OF THE DEAD, zombification of
Palestinians and white folks, Textual imagery as idolatry in the Bible, Raiders of the Lost Ark, flood of emotions before the creative fishes, modern music and intellect over emotions, moral fallacy deriving from Northern Protestant disdain of natural emotions, Vincent Van Gogh, religious-eous-ness,INSOMNIA by Christopher NOlan, Decadence and coerciveness of Liberailsm and Conservatism after loss of main enemy,Justice vs Rule of Law,Russophobia and antisemitism, Anglo race-ism vs Nazi radical racism,
Jewish Liberal race-ism and Zionist right-wing 'racism'.


Same goes for South Africa where white conservatism focused on the trees but not on the soil. Whites were eager to hire blacks to work the farms, factories, and mines, but as blacks poured so much blood, sweat, and tears into the industries that made South Africa, they claimed everything as theirs and demanded political control over the nation. This is what the Israeli kibbutzers understood all too well. If Israel were to become a Jewish homeland and if Israeli soil were to be made sacred through Jewish blood, then Jews had to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work themselves. And in order to encourage Jews to do manual/menial labor than just white collar jobs, a kind of socialism was necessary so that the all Jews would share sufficiently in the economy so that even the lowest Jew could live with dignity. And indeed, this was behind the idea of National Socialism as well, which is why Hitler detested the kind of capitalism where big money-men tried to keep all the profits for themselves while despising the workers as dirty peons. Hitler felt that all Germans, even the lowliest worker, should be treated humanely and be given a chance to live with productive labor, pride, and dignity. And indeed, National Socialism worked pretty well among Germans. It is when Hitler decided to invade other nations that Germans became nasty and began to treat non-Germans — especially in the East — as slaves and helots. And indeed, Jews have found the same problem when hiring Palestinians to do the labor for them. Jews may prosper in the short term from cheap Palestinian labor, but in the long run, Palestinians are going to feel that they should own the land since it’s their blood, sweat, and tears that made the fruits grow. This is why even ‘lowly’ work should be done by your own people. The problem is that when a nation becomes rich, too many people become spoiled and don’t want to do stuff that is dirty, dangerous, and demeaning — a problem that exists in both West and East — , and so, there’s a temptation to hire cheap labor from abroad. It’s a matter of Blood & Soil versus Sweat & Toil. The problem is that foreign workers may settle and never leave. Worse, if laws permit, they will bring over their numerous relatives and their numbers will swell — just like Jewish numbers swelled in Egypt after Joseph brought over his Jewish relatives who then brought over other Jews and so forth and so on. And as the native population have come to prefer pleasure and good times in the short term over survival and dominance in the long term, they have fewer kids(as their priority is to live for today and for themselves), and therefore, they will become even more dependent on foreign labor. Also, generous welfare benefits may discourage ever poor natives from working, so foreign workers are required to do more of the jobs(as they are willing to work for lower wages and fewer benefits). However viable this may be from a short-term economic perspective, it is a recipe for losing one’s ancestral land to another people who go from helots to the new elitse. For all the PC propaganda about diversity and equality, most people in the West are obsessed about status and privilege — especially Liberals who attend places like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton — , and their snobby attitudes have affected even poor Americans, which is why even poor Americans look down on ‘lowly’ labor. One of the good things about National Socialism and Communism was they valued all kinds of labors — on the factory floor and on farm fields — as essential, valuable, and dignified, which is why they, in their own ways, tried to provide decent living standards for even low-level workers who worked hard; National Socialism did a much better job in this regard. Now, that was being ‘atavisionary’. The problem of decay afflicts both conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism can grow stale and begin to rot because it has a tendency to cling to the product than to the process of life, creation, and growth. So, if fertile soil produces a great tree that produces wonderful fruits and flowers, foolish and narrow-minded conservatives may try to preserve those fruits and flowers as the essence of truth. But fruits grow moldy and flowers wilt and fade. If conservatives try to preserve them by drying them and removing all their moisture, they may last but the moist essence will have faded, and the culture will grow funeral, as with the Ancient Egyptians: a static culture without growth and development. Or conservatives might try to encase and crystallize the perfection of a ripened fruit or a blooming flower — like fossilized organisms preserved in amber — as the Nazis tried to do through art with their concept of ‘Aryan’ beauty, but when an ideal is frozen, it is petrified, stiff, and inert. So, living conservatism must be in tune with the cycles of life, with the birth-growth-death-and-rebirth of things.
Petrified Forest - Dead Mummified Conservatism
As Arthur says at the end of EXCALIBUR, "One day, a King will come, and the Sword will rise... again." One part of history is about cyclical repetitions and variations, and true conservatives must be willing to revolve with the cycles of history. Life is cyclical, with new generation growing from the existing one that will also return to the soil. (In a way, maybe a strain of libertarianism can be tweaked to serve the agenda of natality against fatality. We tend to associate libertarianism with fixation on the here and now. Because ultra-individualists tend to be hedonistic, they find the idea of family to be burdensome. If one’s tied down to family, there’s less time and money for indulgence with gambling, drugs, arts, entertainment, travel and etc. This could be one reason why so many libertarians have a soft spot for homos. Most homos spend most of their time on stuff that makes them feel good. Though ‘gay marriage’ has been made a major issue, its ultimate goal is actually anti-marriage as it subordinates the very meaning of marriage to individualist foibles & fetishes instead of subordinating individualist peculiarities for the sake of marriage. The idea of marriage is, to a large extent, about surrendering some of one’s individuality for the greater good of family, love, producing a new generation, and raising the kids right. The whole feminist notion of ‘having it all’ is bogus. Though one can juggle marriage with other things, one cannot be 100% with everything. If you decide to major in physics, you’re not gonna be as good in biology or French literature. I suppose there might be super-geniuses who may be exceptions to the rule, but for most of us, taking on a certain task means we can’t do other things or other things as well as we would like. If a creative person decides to spend the next year writing a book, he’s not gonna have time to become an expert pianist. Even Superman discovered he couldn’t do it all. Because he tried to save California from a nuclear attack by Lex Luthor, he failed to save Lois Lane — he saved her only by cheating through a strange kind of physics that makes no sense. Even Superman has only two hands and can only be at one place at a time. If there’s someone drowning in the Atlantic Ocean and another drowning in the Pacific Ocean, Superman can only save one of them. The idea that he should try to save both is nuts. He would end up saving no one, like in the Aesop tale about the dog that wanted both the bone in its own mouth and the bone reflected in the water and lost both. It’s like the Rolling Stones song that goes, "You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just find, just what you need." Or, it’s like the Stephen Stills song that goes, "Well there's a rose in the fisted glove/And eagle flies with the dove/And if you can't be with the one you love honey/Love the one you're with." Only a selfish & childish fool expects & demands everything and bitches & whines when he/she can’t have it all. Anyway, people with genuine respect for marriage accept it on its own terms. They recognize the biological, social, historical, cultural, and moral basis for marriage. So, their approach to marriage is to sacrifice some of their individuality for the good of community & society since marriage has provided human community with meaning, both horizontally and vertically, for thousands of years. But vapid libertarians think everything exists to satisfy the peccadillos of individuals, especially rich, successful, and powerful individuals — after all, we don’t see any libertarians supporting ‘incest marriage’ since it’s not associated with wealth and privilege as the homo community is — , and so, if the notion of ‘gay marriage’ makes homo individuals oh-so-very-happy EVEN THOUGH most homos don’t even have any interest in marriage, then libertarians must force ‘gay marriage’ on society. So, the notion of ‘gay marriage’ — biologically useless, morally corrupt, socially meaningless, legally coercive — makes marriage bend over to individualist decadence. True, homosexuality exists in nature, but then, so does mental retardation. While we shouldn’t insult or make life miserable for mental retards, we shouldn’t pretend that mental retardation has the same value, biologically and intellectually, as normal mental abilities. Homosexuality is, in essence, a form of sexual retardation. Some guys are sexually retarded enough to want to smear their penises with fecal matter and have their bungholes be porked by other mens’ penises. Lesbians have sex by struggling to screw a vagina with another vagina. That stuff is sexually retarded. Some people are born sexually retarded like some are born mentally retarded. We should acknowledge this fact of biology — how it’s filled with defects and dysfunctions — , but we should not pretend that mental or sexual retardation is of the same value as mental and sexual health & normalcy. Homos should perhaps be called ‘retardo-sexuals’ or ‘sextards’; or if we wanna be somewhat sensitive, ‘sexually challenged’, especially when it comes to reproduction as, to this day, I haven’t heard of a single case of a life-form being produced by male fecal-penetration or female mutual-beaver-to-beaver-munching. Anyway, because libertarians are fixated on the here-and-now, they see family and community as hindrances to their self-centered adventure for pleasure. But suppose the libertarian egocentrism could be made to expand on its sense of self. Suppose libertarians could realize how short life is, how fast youth passes by. Genuine adult youthfulness goes from 18 to 35 — though some might say, up to 29. Up to 18, you’re learning to be adult, and after 35, you better look to the future because in ten years, you’ll be 45, which certainly isn’t young. And in the scale of history, let alone biology, human life is just a blip in time. So, you really mean nothing on your own, and the only way your essence can last and survive is by producing an heir, a word we don’t hear too often these days. We take for granted that humanity will go on whether we have kids or not because there seems to be people all around us, but when so many people feel the same way, they will all leave it up to others and fail to produce their own heirs. It’s like in volley ball where a ball is coming to your side but no one hits the ball because everyone thinks someone else is going to do it. Because everyone, even libertarians, in modern society is part of a large social order, we tend to loosely identify with others and assume that our essence will survive down the ages even if we ourselves don’t have children. Because our minds are focused on ideology and culture than on biology and genes, we feel it doesn’t matter if we don’t produce heirs as long as others produce children who will be raised with the values we agree with. But such a thinking is dangerous for it places the ideal before the real. And such thinking is also behind mass white suicide in the West. Too many white folks think it won’t matter if the West is majority non-white as long as non-white majorities in the West of the future speak Western languages and uphold ‘progressive’ ideals — though even that seems unlikely as many non-whites have failed to assimilate properly; in France for example, African immigrants are assimilating to globo-hip-hop-jigger-jiver culture than to French high culture. They’d rather listen to Rap music than read Racine; they’d rather dominate sports, beat up white guys, and hump white girls than become literary critics of the French comedy of manners or scholars of French schools of philosophy. If ideals and ideology are more important than reality, you shouldn’t complain if you’re replaced with another person as long as this new person shares your ideology or values. Suppose space aliens come to France and zaps every French man into dust and replaces him with Pakistanis or Africans on condition that they speak French. Would that be alright? Or, suppose I drug you, kill you, and erase you from the face of this earth, but I give your house and job to another person of another race who, nevertheless, believes what you believed in. If ideology and ideals are what matter most, what does it matter if you live or die as long as the person who replaces you is ideologically/idealistically rather similar to you? If you believe it doesn’t matter if your people in your nation fail to produce enough heirs to keep control of their nation as long as foreigners taking over the nation share the values of your people, then you yourself might as well be replaced with someone else... as long as he shares your values, more or less. How about if some people drive you and your family out of your house but keep all the possessions and flip through your family albums and wear your family clothes and jewels? Since they pay some interest to your family history and belongings, would it be the same as if your family is still in the house? Using that logic, white folks and black folks playing at American Indians are just as good as real American Indians. We might as well say the Washington Redskins and Hollywood actors with painted faces are just as Indian as real Indians. This is what happens when ideology takes over reality. Even before there was any ideology, a race of people developed in Europe for tens of thousands of years with particular gifts, beauties, temperaments, and features. This wasn’t the product of ideologies but of the realities of geology, geography, nature, struggle & survival, and myriad other factors. This reality that was 10,000s of yrs in the making is now being threatened of being wiped out because white folks have become infected with a filthy Jew-ideology of PC that is less than one hundred years old. A race created over 10,000s of years on sacred soil is willing to sacrifice the genetic memory/inheritance of eons of reality for the trashy fad of ideology and why? Because they’ve come to worship scummy Jews, a vermin race of people who look upon goyim as cattle to control and exploit. Just to assuage Jews, there’s no limit to which white people will go to debase and destroy themselves. Jews have used the mind-drug of ideology to benumb gentiles of the truth of reality. Anyway, if libertarians could be made more aware of the span of time, maybe their sense of ‘I’ could extend beyond their own life-spans. Instead of using ‘I’ to mean only ‘me here and now’, the ‘I’ could come to mean the wider-and-broader sense of Epic ‘I’ that connects one to the past and the future. It’s like the Viking ‘prayer’ in THE 13TH WARRIOR: "Lo there do I see my father, lo there do I see my mother my sisters and my brothers, Lo there to I see the line of my people back to the beginning. Lo they do call to me, they bid me take my place among them in the halls of Valhalla where the brave may live forever. ‘I’ exist because other ‘I’s before the currently living ‘I’ — you, me, he, or she — produced future ‘I’s and ‘I’ will exist into the future because I will produce my ‘I’s who will produce their ‘I’s. That’s the true ‘I’s on the Prize. We would be more aware of this if we lived in a small community, as the Amish do. If you lived in a tight community of, say, five families, it’s be easily apparent that if all the parents in the community didn’t have kids, it wouldn’t only mean no kids but no more community. The community will just vanish since parents didn’t produce heirs. But because big cities have so many people, even if a whole bunch of white folks don’t have kids, there’s the sense that the city/humanity will go on because there are so many other people. In truth, if too many people thought like this, the city will begin to die and be starved of people... which is why advanced nations with low birthrates have become do dependent on foreign labor and immigrants. Why should one’s ego be limited only to one’s short life in the here-and-now? That be like Vito Corleone having no kids, but Vito was no dummy. Like ">he said, "a man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man." He could have made all the money in the world, but without kids, he would have been just a hit song than a hit album, a 45 than an LP. Without continuity, even a great life is a dead-end. Incidentally, some idiots think Don Draper of the worthless MAD MEN is a ‘patriarch’, but he is no such. He’s just a silly playboy. Vito Corleone, now that is a true patriarch who command respect and the sort of man every guy should emulate, at least when it comes to family life because gangsterism is pretty loathsome — unless it’s used against Jews who are the biggest gangsters in the world.) It’s like the end of ZARDOZ when the cyclical balance of life has been restored. Thus, true conservatism must always be somewhere between nature and culture. Without culture, men are like brutes and will succumb to Negrotics. But if humankind chooses only culture and totally separates itself from nature, race, soil, and etc, it is reduced to either petrified menopausal dogmatism or sterile fads & fashions blowing in the wind. Thus, just as life is about the constant cycles of life, growth, death, and rebirth, a living culture must constantly be reconstituted, revived, revised, revitalized, and re-birthed. Indeed, what was one of the greatest cultural events in all of human history? It was the Renaissance that was at once reactionary and revolutionary. Artists and thinkers of the Renaissance looked to the forgotten past for inspiration and sought to recapture the glory of Classical Europe, but in doing so, they found wholly new inspirations, methods, and ways that even surpassed the achievements of the Ancients. Renaissance looked to the future by looking to the past. This is what a lot of conservatives fail to understand as they rigidly, even timidly, cling to the ‘truisms’ of the past or conventionality. The reason why China began to fail and decay was because its ultra-Confucian elites ignored biology and separated themselves from the natural process. Of course, they had sex and produced kids, but their culture became one of fancy-pants learning, pompous putting on airs, silk gowns, turning healthy dogs into hideous-looking Pekinese, and ‘binding’ & crippling women’s feet so that women would be refined, dainty little creatures without ‘big ugly natural’ feet. Chinese did to female feet what Japanese did to the bonsai tree. This is why Russian, German, and Japanese forms of conservatism were healthier in some ways because they never lost their sense of reverence, attachment, and association with nature. Jews are somewhat strange because, in some ways, no people have removed themselves more from nature than Jews did. According to the Genesis, nature became sinful with the Fall of Eden. And therefore, the ultimate path of man’s salvation was to reconnect with the glory of God. In this sense, the story of Adam and Eve is similar to Buddhism that also sees the world as sinful, ugly, hideous, cruel, and monstrous. But there is a key difference. According to Buddhism, nature was always horrible and any Edenic view of nature could only have been a falsehood. The Buddha story says that Siddhartha was raised in Edenic splendor by his father who did everything to shield his son from cruelty, death, disease, aging, and etc. He was brought up in a garden setting than a nature setting; garden is essentially nature selected, pruned, arranged, and enclosed by man to create the impression of serenity that is lacking in real nature in which leopards and tigers routinely feed on spiritual pilgrims who will likely freak out and shit their pants than find peace of mind.
Man-eating Tiger: 'You seek enlightenment, I seek lunch.'
Temple of the Golden Pavilion - Kyoto Japan - Illusion of Nature as Oasis
But then, Siddhartha caught a glimpse of reality outside the oasis bubble created by his father, and the illusion was pricked in an instant. So, there was, is, and can never be any kind of Eden according to Buddhism. If anything, the horror of the world is ironically the product of a holy vision of the world. When consciousness wants something beautiful and wonderful, it creates an illusion of paradise, but that very desire for beauty and wonderfulness creates vanity, narcissism, competition, and possessiveness. And then, consciousness comes to hate and destroy all the things that stand in the way of what it desires; and indeed, the violent forces of nature reflect such ruthless competitiveness. To claim one’s own eden, one must crush other edens in endless cycles of competition. If you want a tasty dish of pork ribs, an innocent pig must be cruelly slaughtered. Most of life sustain themselves by devouring other life. So, the only escape in Buddhism is the Nirvana, the very extinction of consciousness itself through meditation that dissolves all the vestiges of illusions that clutter and infect our minds. What happens in ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SUNSHINE MINDis like partial neuro-surgical nirvana that wipes clean the attachments to certain images and emotions that bring pain and suffering to certain individuals. Buddhist Nirvana goes much further of course, to the point where the meditative process un-weaves the entire fabric of consciousness until there’s nothing left. Though Judaism also has a very dark and depressing view of nature, it nevertheless begins with a vision of a perfect nature where God, man, plants, and animals were all part of the same harmony. It’s possible that Buddhist pessimism arose from an over-abundance of life whereas Jewish pessimism may have been the product of scarcity of life. In India, someone like Siddhartha would have noticed dense jungles where countless animals and plants devoured one another all the time without end. Life was being produced everywhere, but it also meant suffering, death, and decay were everywhere as well. So, even or especially in a world of plentiful life, there was endless cycles of pain and cruelty. In the drier Middle East, Jews might have been more aware of insufficient water and the harshness of conditions that limited the varieties and quantities of life. So, maybe Jews thought that if trees and animals were to repopulate the region, it would be like the restoration of Eden. But Buddhists knew better since they were surrounded by tons of life but only saw misery and death and disease. Siddhartha saw too much life and associated too much life with too much suffering and death. Jews saw too little life and maybe thought more life would restore the paradise. So, we have to be careful about what Jews really meant when they spoke of ‘nature’. They most certainly didn’t have jungles and dense forests in mind. They had in mind the mostly dry, craggy, and sparse landscape of the Middle East — though, to be sure, the Middle East was more fertile thousands of years ago. So, whereas Buddha was against all of nature and all of reality — since the reality he knew was surrounded by bountiful animals and plants of nature devouring one another — , Jews dreamed of a restoration of Eden-like nature where they could be one with God again. Even so, that could only be in the future when God may finally forgive and bless the Jews again. For the time being, Jews held a hostile view of nature(especially as the dry and craggy nature that they knew seemed ‘fallen’ and ‘cursed’) and concentrated on abstract concepts and values that were divorced from nature and its processes. And yet, there was one area where Jews were obsessively attached to nature, and it had to do with sex and blood. Because the great Covenant between God and the Jews involved the Jewish pud and something about how a kid is a real Jew only if he or she was born of a Jewish mother, the Jewess’s hairy bush — and some Jewish women got serious pubes — became like the great fertile Edenic forest for the Jews. Thus, Jewish religion and culture are both very anti-nature and very pro-nature & pro-biological(in a very limited way). Though both Buddhism and Judaism/Christianity take a very negative view of the physical world, Buddhism believes there’s no way to redeem man, life, and the world — all must be rejected and unraveled of their false illusions — , whereas there is always a sliver of hope in Judaism and Christianity that there might be reunion of God and man in a world blessed once again. Judaism awaits the day when the true Messiah of the Jews will arrive to defeat the enemies of the Jews and when Jews will finally be washed of their wicked ways so that God will love them again, and then and only then, the rest of humanity may be blessed through the redemption of Jews. Christians believe that the true Messiah already arrived and spread the Gospel for mankind, so mankind has been provided with a time period in which to spread this Holy Truth so that mankind will be prepared when Jesus returns again. This kind of longing is found in the story of the Holy Grail in Arthurian legends — at least from what I gathered from EXCALIBUR — where the king is a being between divinity and mortality. It is through him — "You and the Land are One" — that the world can be redeemed and saved once again. There was a time when God, Man, and the World had been One in Eden, but the unity was lost. Though mankind got all the blame, there’s a hint, as in the story of the Holy Grail — if the king is to be seen as a metaphor for God — , that the fault lies as much with God as with man. After all, Arthur gives into despair and summons his knights to seek the Holy Grail; similarly, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, He, instead of forgiving Adam and Eve who really didn’t know any better, let the world fall to condemnation and despair and pretty much left it all up to humanity to restore balance, order, and holiness in the world. In this sense, Perceval can be seen as a kind of Jesus-like figure. The king had lost interest in the world, and it was too much for the people of the kingdom to restore the world and make flowers bloom again, so Perceval had to serve as conduit between Arthur and the world. Similarly, humanity couldn’t by itself restore the lost order of the fallen Eden, and so, the figure of Jesus Christ had to arrive to serve as a conduit between God and man so that we could believe in the hope that ‘God and the World are one’. Of course, in many of these stories, there’s the problem of women and sexuality. Uther loses his kingdom because he gives into uncontrollable lust. Arthur isn’t so wild, but he cannot control his love for Guenevere. Love/romance may be more elevated than animal lust, but it’s just as or even more powerful on the human psyche. (At the very lust, there’s no illusions about lust. It’s on the level of Beavis and Butthead going ‘boing’. You see it, you want it. A man sees a woman as a ‘ho’, or a woman sees a man as a hunk, and that’s that. In contrast, love tends to be dreamy, so the man has a tendency to romanticize the woman as damsel-ish sort, and the woman has a tendency to see the man as a ‘white knight’. Uther had the hots for Igraine, and that was about it. In contrast, Arthur love for Guinevere was filled with hope. He saw/dreamt in her what wasn’t there. Lust is getting turned on by the smell of pussy juice or manly sweat. Love is being inspired by the misty scent of perfume.) And against Merlin’s warnings, Arthur marries Guenevere who’s actually a passionate woman who’s turned on by power and studliness; she’s actually more like Uther in her desires. So, even though Arthur is the king and the man of law, Guenevere has the hots for Lancelot the mightiest knight of the kingdom. Well, at least Lancelot was white. It’s far worse today. In the past, the candidate for the ‘strongest man in the world’ was someone within the domain since most people lived in isolated communities. So, white women were turned on by the toughest white man in their own little world. But today, all the world is globalized via mass media and tons of Negroes have made their way to the West through the slave trade in the past or massive immigration or illegal migration today, and white race is haplessly surrendering to the Big Negro. It’s gotten so bad that not only are white women are turning into mudsharks but it also turns out a href="http://www.details.com/sex-relationships/sex-and-other-releases/200703/meet-the-mandingos">white males are getting off watching their own wives be rammed by Negroes. And you thought things were pretty wild in EYES WIDE SHUT — it is indeed funny as hell that the password is ‘fidelio’, ironically alluding to Beethoven’s opera about a wife’s supreme loyalty, indeed so great that she goes under guise to save her husband, whereas in the film, the wife has profoundly unfaithful fantasies, and the guy goes under guise to ‘spiritually’ cheat on his wife. This is what has become of ‘racial progress’. Nicholas Wade wrote TROUBLESOME INHERITANCE dealing with stuff like I.Q. but a far more troubling but necessary book would be titled TROUBLESOME INTERCOURSE: HOW THE WHITE RACE IS BECOMING SEXUALLY CONQUERED AND DESTROYED BY THE BIG ASS NEGRO. And according to the above-linked article, the lunacy is indulged by rich white guys — judges, lawyers, C.E.O.s, etc. — who get off by watching their own white wives be pummeled by Negroes on beds in their own bedrooms. It goes to show how degenerate the white race has become. (Incidentally, the article still places the burden of ‘racism’ on white males. It sees no ‘racism’ in white women who regard black males as the racial-sexual superiors to white males. It sees no ‘racism’ in black men finding white women to be racially-sexual superiors to ugly black women. It sees no ‘racism’ in black men taking delight in conquering white women and humiliating white males who’ve been reduced to psycho-sexual slave status. It sees no ‘auto-racism’ on the part of self-loathing white males who degrade themselves this way. Clearly, if any group is the ‘victim’ of such an arrangement, it’s the white male. I mean what can be more humiliating than a man willingly allowing another man, especially of another race, bang on his wife on his own bed? Can you imagine black guys having guys of another race bang their women, especially on their own beds? But the Jew-dominated paradigm says white males must be held accountable and accused of everything. It’s like the Omar Thorton case. Omar killed a bunch of innocent whites, but the Jew-run media discourse was ‘did those whites deserve it because they were racist?’ So, even when white males are sexually humiliated and conquered by ghastly Negroes, the burden of ‘racism’ must be on white guys. So, never mind that they’ve surrendered and turned over their wives as sex meat for racial supremacist Negroes who look down on white males as ‘faggoty ass white boys’. White guys are still the ones suspected of ‘racism’ because their terms of surrender may not be pure-of-heart enough. So, it’s not enough that white guys surrendered sexually and lost. For them to be truly cleansed of ‘racism’, they must surrender with total happiness and devotion, with the happy dopey countenance of someone like Ken Burns, who makes my skin crawl. As Winston Smith learned to love Big Brother totally and completely, white males must totally love Big Brotha who is humping their white wives on their own beds. But then, is this any different from Ted Cruz the so-called Christian’s sucking up to Jews even though Jews have caused the most harm to both white Christians and Arab Christians? It’s Jewish power that is suing Christian bakers for not making ‘gay wedding cakes’ and forbidding chains like Chick-Fil-A from operating in many cities. It’s Jewish power that unleashed the massive crisis in the Middle East that led to the demise of so many Christian communities there. White males now exist to sexually put out to Negroes and politically put to Jews. It’s downright disgusting. White race is a disgrace.) On the one hand, white males get some kinky pleasure from being pussifed by the bigger Negroes whom they worship in all those NFL and NBA games. But their view of humanity has been reduced to animalism. So, Negro studs are ‘bulls’ and their wives are to be ‘mated’ with the bulls like dogs in a kennel. And white wives are addicted to super-size-me cumbaya orgasms. With hedonism as one of the primary values in our culture, pleasure isn’t enough; you must find superduper pleasure, and if white women have bigger orgasms with Negroes and if white guys get bigger orgasms while whanking off to Negroes doing their white wives, I guess it all makes demented logical sense in a libertarian sort of way. We went from utilitarianism to you-titillation-ism. White guys get off from feeling both pussified and ‘empowered’. "Empowered how?", you may ask. I guess they feel like humans watching their wives and Negroes ‘reduced’ to wild animals. It could be that some rich guys married women for their looks, and these women are really trophy wives, possessions; they are like horses and dogs you put out to mate. Also, paradoxically, those who seek the most money, most privilege, most power, and most status are likely to be most obsessed with the game of ultimate power and ultimate pleasure. Even though they’d like to win in all categories, they are obsessed with power even when they’re at the losing end. When worship of power becomes the ultimate end in and of itself, a man prefers to worship even the power that crushes and humiliates him than to defend his own power and hono. A power-mad person not only wants the most power for himself but wants to be associated with and/or bow down to the greatest power. Since these power-mad white guys cannot defeat the Negro and feel humiliated and belittled as a result, they still want to worship the greatest power, and in sports and sex, it’s the Negro. For the same reason, many whites prefer to ruled by Jews in business, finance, law, and government since they just worship the greatest power, and in intellectualism, it’s the Jew. But then, this shouldn’t be too surprising since the West abandoned all its indigenous gods for the greater or greatest God of the Jews. As many rich white guys attracted trophy wives with money and success than with raw manhood, they are bound to feel a degree of insecurity over the fact that, if they were to be judged by the yardstick of pure ‘manhood’, they’d be nothing but a bunch of piss-ant Jerry Quarry’s and Gerry Cooney’s flattened on the floor by stronger Negroes who would then sexually conquer their white women. People who are really obsessed with power try to get the most power for themselves, but when they come upon power that is greater than their own, they initially try to resist it but may eventually come around to kneeling down before and begging to be allowed to suckle it toes. There was a time when white guys were threatened by black rise in sports and resisted it, but in time, white guys accepted and worshiped black athletic power that destroyed and humiliated whites on the ring or the field. So, it was only a matter of time before this worship of the power of the Negro stud would enter the bedroom. Of course, since white women want security and money, they’d rather settle down long-term with richer white husbands, but they drool over the Negroes who be dominating sports, pop music, and porn; it’s like white homo couples may settle together but they also have big Negromos or homogros come over and ram their partner in the ass. Also, rich guys like to show off what they can afford for their wives. They take pride in providing their wives with the best of everything. In the past, it was about how they could buy jewelry, fur coats, and fancy coats for their wives, but today, some rich guys like to brag that they got their wives what they really want: a bigass Negro.
Mr. Ed for Marnie
In MARNIE, Sean Connery’s character was proud and glad to buy his wife, Marnie, a big black horse, but today, some rich guys are getting big black ‘bulls’ for their wives. Yet, some of these demented freaks are members of the elite! Is it any wonder that what passes for the biggest moral issue of the day is ‘gay marriage’? In moral terms, US has moved into the decaying phase of the Roman Empire. ZARDOZ was prophetic in this regard. As in so many stories in the Bible, mythology, legends, and history, the power of lust-love-sexuality is proving to be the most unstable force in the story of man. Indeed, it’s all the more so today since the borders are dissolving and the West is being inundated with the tide of color. At least sexual problems of the past were mostly within the race. Whether Uther lost or Arthur won, the power was within the race. But today, entire Western nations are being invaded by millions of Africans who want to mate with white women, and most white guys have been raised with PC and don’t even have the guts to fight for their race and land. And their women are being applauded for being race-sex traitors because Jews run the New World Order. And finally, white guys are getting off watching not only women of their own race — but their own wives — get humped by Negroes. In a way, the title of the movie THE BIRTH OF THE NATION was very significant. Though used metaphorically, a nation is indeed literally born and perpetuated through the actual childbirth of its women. After all, if United States upon its founding had only consisted of intellectual men who were into ideas and values, it would have gone extinct after all the founders and their contemporaries grew old and died. But the Republic lived on because the Founders and most other white men humped white women who produced many white babies from their white vaginas. No race can survive, thrive, and remain true to itself unless males of the race mate with females of the race. Thus, the nation is REBORN or RE-BIRTHED with each generation, and if white folks are to hold onto their ancestral lands, white males must mate with white females — mostly anyway. And D.W. Griffith understood this, and he understood perfectly that the threat posed by the Negro was essentially sexual in nature. The movie is almost universally attacked and derided today by PC-castrated ‘faggoty-ass’ white boys, but Griffith understood and defended the truth of his race and culture. For his people to survive, they must do something about the Negro, and they must keep white women away from the Negro. People who attack the movie are essentially calling for the genocide of the white race. They are, in effect, saying that white men don’t have the right to defend their honor and boner against the racial-physical-demographic-and-sexual threat posed by Negroes. Critics of the movie might as well say white guys should just hang themselves after offering their women to Negroes and Jews. Incidentally, the politics of 300 and the remake of RED DAWN is hardly different from BIRTH OF A NATION, so why did they get the green light? Because outrage over ‘racism’ is purely selective, entirely a matter of ‘who,whom’, which is why Israel is allowed to get away with just about anything and why hateful Rap music is hailed and promoted by the music industry, even though, ironically enough, Rap culture presents Negroes as wild uncontrollable animals beyond anything depicted in white ‘racist’ propaganda in the past. Even the worst blacks in THE BIRTH OF A NATION are civilized compared to the Rapper image of black-hood. RED DAWN remake stokes yellow peril ‘paranoia’, and that serves Jewish interests in distracting Americans from the reality of Jewish power. And 300 can be used as Neocon war porn to promote more Wars for Israel. One place where white gung-ho-ism is approved is in the Middle East where Jews can use it to wreak havoc on Muslims and Christian Arabs.
(I find it hilarious that the very people who are offended by THE BIRTH OF A NATION are less offended by GONE WITH THE WIND. Both have scenes where a white woman is threatened with rape. In THE BIRTH OF A NATION, white women are pursued by black men, and white men come to the rescue. Today, we are told it is so ‘evil and racist’ for white people to notice that blacks pose the main threat as thugs, for white males to feel protective of their women, and for white women to seek white male protection from black thugs. Instead, white folks should be ‘good’ and ‘anti-racist’ and see blacks as either saintly Magic Negroes or righteously angry victims — violent only because of the trauma of ‘slavery’ — , white males should feel no protective warrior instinct for their own women, and white women should be ‘progressive’ and see white males as potential rapists who promote a ‘rape culture’; that is the Jewish idea of what constitutes ‘good white people’. In GONE WITH THE WIND, a white woman — Vivien Leigh — is approached by a nasty-looking white guy who’s about to rape her... but she is saved by a noble and dutiful Negro who, of course, had no thoughts of sex — especially with a white woman — on his mind. So, it’s evil to show blacks as rapists but it’s just wonderful to show white guy as a would-be rapist and a black guy as the noble hero who defends white women by beating up the white rapist. White guy saves white woman from black rapist: BAD. Black guy saves white women from white rapist: GOOD. When fantasy becomes fact, print the fantasy. Look around the world today. How many instances of white women being saved from white rapists by noble black guys do you see? If anything, there are so many black-on-white rapes that any sane person should recognize THE BIRTH OF A NATION as a great prophetic movie, but it’s dismissed while fantasies like THE GREEN MILE are spoon-fed to all white suckers.
GREEN MILE - Moutain-sized Negro who luvs a little white mouse. Dang, I bet he luvs cigars too.
It’s natural for any man to defend his territory and his woman/women. In the original STRAW DOGS by Sam Peckinpah, David Sumner — Dustin Hoffman — uses extreme violence to defend his turf and woman from thugs. So, why shouldn’t white guys in THE BIRTH OF A NATION have used violence to defend their women from ghastly Negroes? Of course, Hollywood is run by hideous Jews, and the remake of STRAW DOGS features white southern thugs as rapists of a white woman when, in fact, the epidemic of rape — especially interracial rape — in the South is perpetrated by disgusting apelike blacks.) The two races are not the same, and indeed, the Negro is much stronger and more muscular than whites. Though there’s much emphasis on the big penis of the Negro, that’s not the main threat to the white race. After all, Jews like Ron Jeremy have big schlongs, but no white guy ever felt threatened by such a flabby funny-looking Jew. The real threat is muscular, as when Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali destroyed and humiliated so many white guys. If a muscular white guy with a ‘Greek dick’ — the relatively small ones on Ancient Greek sculptures — beat up a flabby black guy with a big ding dong, women will revere the white guy. Some might argue it’s perfectly okay for whites to admire the likes of Johnson and Ali since US is meritocratic; as Patton said, Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Purely from a individualistic viewpoint, this is true enough. If indeed most whites and blacks were equal in athletic talent, and if, by some chance, black guy happened to be champion, it’d be no big deal as there would be a good chance that some white guy will take back the championship. But the racial issue isn’t about individuals because there are GROUP-BASED DIFFERENCES between whites and blacks. So, it’d be stupid to see Johnson or Ali as a black INDIVIDUAL who happened to be champion. No, their power was representative of overwhelming black superiority over whites in sports, and as such, their victories signified a collective threat/danger posed by most blacks on whites. Thus, for whites to worship the Negro athlete isn’t merely to admire a particular individual who happens to be black but to worship the entire black race, indeed even to the point of being honored to have some black guy do one’s wife. Obama is the New Birth of a Nation where the New Ideal is for a white woman to reject a white guy altogether, open her poon to a masterful Negro, and push out of her disgusting and foul mudshark poon the hideous mulatto baby that looks, crawls, and fouls the earth as Obama and his fellow mulatto ilk do. That is the interracial future that is being birthed from white vaginas all across America and Europe, and yet, the biggest moral issue among white millennials is ‘gay marriage’ instead of their racial survival. US is still rich and has technology far beyond other nations, but when a people lose their grip racially and morally, they are doomed to failure. The moral priority of any group should be survival and power; all else is gravy. White men have forgotten how to be like Vito and Michael Corleone who, for all their faults, were upstanding husbands and fathers. Of course, even as white males succumb to Negro power by having their wives be rammed by Negroes, they will still be made to carry the burden of ‘racism’. They will be accused of regarding Negroes as sexually maniacal beast-studs than as complex human beings, or they could also be accused of ‘sexism’ for regarding their own women as nymphomaniacs. But then, don’t the wives often initiate the idea? Aren’t they the ones who go to their white husbands and say they’d like to get it on with a Negro? And it’s not like these Negroes are slaves who are being forced to act against their will. So, the racial stereotyping goes both ways. While some white guys may do get a kick out of regarding Negroes as sex-hungry beasts and their white wives as horny ho’s, Negroes surely see the white guys as a bunch of soft, slow, and ‘faggoty’ white boys who can’t even arouse their women; and white wives see their own husbands as racially-sexually inferior losers compared to black guys. But according to PC, it’s only the white guys who should be blamed for racial stereotyping. How can anyone avoid noticing the stereotypes since the whole arrangement is indeed based on genuine and general differences among the races? Talk about Liberal cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, it praises interracism for its open-mindedness but then feigns shock that interracism works according to the logic of actual racial differences.
This is especially tragic for poor white males because they lack the socio-economic advantages of rich white men who can at least compensate for their sexual defeat/surrender with their considerable money and status. So, even though they’ve been reduced to watching Negro ram their wives, they can at least flatter themselves that they’ve hired the ‘bulls’ or Negro ‘bucks’ to do sexual circus tricks. And even though their wives sexually get off Negroes, they know they better stick with their white husbands who have the financial power and social privilege. After all, according to the magazine article, the Negroes are screened and must perform by the rules set by rich white people. Rich Romans in the Ancient World did the same thing. They figured the rich and powerful are deserving of the very best and the greatest pleasures. If Negroes could give their wives the greatest pleasures, then their wives must have it, and they, in having hired the Negroes, could take pride in being able to afford the very best for their wives. Anyway, since Negroes know that rich white folks have money, connections, and status, they must play by the rules even as they hump the white guys’ wives.
But what about poor white guys? They have no money, status, and connections for any kind of protection from the Negroes. With rich white couples, Negroes bang the wives and then go back to their crib; and rich white couples can go on living in their white neighborhoods and carry on as if nothing happened; and their kids won’t know anything about it. But among poor whites, Negro males whup white guys and turn them into pussified white boys; Negro males are flagrant in their sexual moves on white girls, and white girls, having lost all respect for pussified white boys, go with Negroes and turn their vaginas into mulatto-making machines. The defeat and conquest are total. Rich whites can do the interracist thing as an act, but for poor whites, the interracist conquest becomes an everyday reality, especially as blacks can so easily whup white boys. This is why Jews in the media are so eager to cover up all the black-on-white violence in integrated neighborhoods. This is why Jews use their power of media to maintain the impression that southern whites are oppressing blacks when, in fact, the reality has black thugs robbing, raping, and murdering whites — and whupping white boys and taking white girls who are turned into mindless mudsharks. But don’t expect anyone on the American Right to sound the alarm since mainstream American Conservatism is into the Magic Negro myth of Dr. Ben Carter and Allen West — as if all Negroes could become like them one day — and since the so-called ‘alternative right’ sphere is filled with all these ridiculous neo-Nietzscheans who see themselves as tough-and-proud-white-guys-with-the-balls-to-stand-up-to-Negroes when, in fact, they’d get their white ass whupped in a second by most Negroes. With excess pride, the truth died. And then, there’s all this dry and tiresome stuff about IQ differences, as if all those whites are being beaten, robbed, raped, murdered, or pussified because of Negro Forrest Gumps!
Anyway, in any ideal order, the elites should be leading the masses. So, the white elites should care about the white masses. By noticing that white masses are being victimized by Negroes who rob, rape, and murder whites, white elites should step up to the plate for the white masses and guide & inspire them. But what are white elites doing today? Collaborating with Obama the Jews’ boy and even inviting Negroes to come and hump their wives. The Romney family hasn’t gone that far yet, but as they’ve adopted some African baby. In a way, it’s just as bad as the Negro piece of shit will surely grow up to marry some whit girl and have mulatto kids with her. If it’s not "Hey Negro, have my wife", it’s "Hey Negro, take my daughter." White race, what a disgrace. In any racial community, men are supposed to lead and the women are supposed to produce the next generation. But among whites, the men are embracing their pussy-boy role and women are dreaming of having kids with Negroes. And of course, Jews are laughing like hyenas at the sight of these pathetic white idiots in America and EU — and Jews are now working to destroy Russia as well so that it to will be ruled by Jews who will use their control over the media, education, and government to turn Russian guys into ‘faggoty’ SWPL dorks and Russian women into worthless mudsharks. This is why they are ‘dirty Jews’.

Anyway, a kind of ‘inferiority comfort’ seems to be coming into place in the white community. When the white man is faced with the Negro man, he’s bound to feel some degree of inferiority complex since the raw power of the Negro is so overwhelming; it’s like how a weaker dog feels in the presence of a stronger dog. Though Woody Strode played John Wayne’s ‘boy’ in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE — and the movie was set in a time when black men had no choice but to be subservient to whites — , if the two were matched head-to-head in a naked boxing-wrestling match, Strode would have whupped and ass-fuc*ed the Duke in two minutes and then would have raped all of Wayne’s women from mother, wife, sister, and daughter.
LEGEND: White male alpha & black beta sidekick / FACT: Black male alpha & white beta sidekick
So, the white man’s fear of and anxiety about the Negro is totally natural, normal, and healthy, and indeed there’s nothing that is morally shameful about THE BIRTH OF A NATION. But as Jews have filled the white race with all this bogus moral crap about ‘white guilt’ and Eternal black sainthood and victim-hood, white guys try to repress any negative emotion toward blacks. So, even rational fear and anxiety about the Negro is considered to be ‘bigoted’ and ‘racist’. But, the fact is there is no racial equality between whites and blacks. Blacks are tougher, rougher, thicker-voiced, and harder-muscled. And more aggressive and wilder. So, it’s problematic for white folks to feel easy about the black threat. If Negroes were to rampage through rich white neighborhoods, white folks would be forced to wake up, grab their guns, and fight like the hero-warriors of THE BIRTH OF A NATION. But since rich white folks live in their own safe bubble of privilege and safety, white guys can slowly ease their inferiority complex into a kind of inferiority comfort vis-a-vis the Negro, whereby they become accustomed to the fact that they are a bunch of pussy boy dorks in contrast to black men. (Also, since privileged whites don’t have to deal with the black reality firsthand, they can edit and select only the kinds of images of blacks they prefer; or Jews who run the media and academia can do the editing and selecting for them to stoke their white masochism. It’s like most whites in the North didn’t know anything about the Negro, so they could make believe that Harriet Beecher Stowe’s UNCLE TOM’S CABIN was a honest and compelling depiction of the Negro soul. Joyce Carol Oates, who’ve turned herself into Harriet-Beecher-Stowe of our time, is a privileged white woman who can shut out the reality and only choose to believe in the Noble Negro of her dreams. In one of her stories, a white woman finds herself being chased by a Negro... and the Negro turns out to be an angel. ROTFL.) Indeed, the psycho-social move towards inferiority comfort isn’t only happening in elite circles but among the lower orders, as depicted in SPECTACULAR NOW(starring Miles Teller, Shailene Woodley, Brie Larson/directed by James Ponsoldt), which presents a racial situation where a white boy is lauded for being graceful, understandable, and cool about some big tough Negro stealing his blonde girlfriend who, by the way, tells to his face that she had the biggest orgasm with her new black boyfriend. But the white boy, Sutter, being a goody-goody PC-castrated boy, seems okay with his inferiority comfort. (To the extent that SPECTACULAR NOW features a genuine social trend, it cannot be faulted because the purpose of art is to make us come to terms with truth and fact than dwell in fantasy. So, the film, as with THIRTEEN by Catherine Hardwicke, is more honest about racial/social matters than most movies about youth. But SPECTACULAR NOW is far from an honest movie. While it shows us the pussification of the white boy at the hands of a black dude, it sugarcoats the racial angle in various ways. For instance, a good many positive authority figures — teacher and doctor among others — are black. Of course, there are decent black teachers and doctors, but I find it hard to swallow that a white kid who happens to be so dysfunctional is aided by upright black citizens who seem to be everywhere. Furthermore, the black dude who steals the girlfriend is made something of a figure of pity. In one scene, he goes to the white guy and makes a threatening move, and the white guy steps back like a wussy beta dog. So far so honest as such things happen everywhere. But then, the black guy puts on a sappy face and says he, yes he, is jealous of the white guy because he, the black guy, can’t connect with the white blonde girl like white guy could. You see, the black guy has the muscle but he’s not as cool and funny, and he wants to know what magic the white guy used to make the white girl so happy. So, even though the black guy took the white girl from the white guy and is physically threatening the white guy, we are supposed to feel sorry for the black guy because, gee whiz, the white guy was better at making the white girl laugh. So, the white guy, who’d just been threatened by the black guy, puts on nice big smile and offers some pep talk to boost the Negro’s ego and morale. White guy tells the black guy that he, the black guy, should be so proud because he’s the star athlete AND the star student of the school. So, let’s see... the black guy is supposed to be the star football player, one of the best students in class[also to be aided by affirmative action to be sure], and humping the hot blonde girl of the school... but he, the black guy, is deserving of our and the white guy’s pity because... he doesn’t make the white girl laugh enough. It’s like Mandingo Party for juniors. As for the white girl, even though she’s a mudshark traitor to her own race and went off with a Negro stud for her own pleasure/interest, we are supposed to look upon her with admiration because she’s so soulful and still worried about her former white boyfriend she so unceremoniously dumped. So, even though she shits on her own race, we are supposed to feel sorry for her feeling sorry for the white guy. Well, isn’t she so kind? The sexual message of the film seems to be that alpha gorgeous white girls will now go with alpha stud Negroes; and white boys should find inferiority comfort in their defeat and settle for homely beta white girls. Even so, SPECTACULAR NOW has some good acting and is many times more honest than the most youth movies in the 80s and 90s. And for a few moments, it achieves the status of art when the white guy visits his estranged father. The scene could have been wrenched for cliched emotions but delivers the pangs of being stabbed in the heart for the first time.) Of course, inferiority comfort is much easier with rich whites since they have the money and power to devise their own step-by-step program to ease into their inferiority comfort according to their chosen pace. In a way, it’s like the ending of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE — Kubrick’s film version — where we are shown a vision of the elites cheering and clapping as Alex the thug sexually conquers a nubile woman. Just as the elites in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE can make a deal with the thugs and buy them off with sex and money, rich whites in America are using their money and position to come to terms with the black racial-sexual threat in their own selective and tempered way. It’s the game rich folks play, and it may be fun for awhile, but, in the end, it spells doom for civilization, and their kind will fall too.

Anyway, if conservatism can rot & decay or become petrified in certain ways, liberalism can succumb to the same problems due to flaws of its own. If conservatives can become overly obsessed with the tree than with the soil, liberals can become so obsessed with the ‘creative’ uses of the tree(chopped into so many pieces) that they may well forget that there had been a tree in the first place, let alone the soil from which it grew. They become so enamored of their own clever ‘creativity’ and ‘brilliance’ that they face the danger of losing sight of their origins and roots. So, Liberals today have forgotten the deeper meaning of true marriage and instead find pride and pleasure with their creative invention of ‘gay marriage’ that is peppered with all sorts of ‘rainbow’ colors. Liberalism can become shallow and vapid, so enamored of the cool and hip fashions of the moment that the fashion becomes the passion. There are great truths and there are gimmicky trivialities, but too many stupid Liberals cannot tell the difference anymore because of their narcissistic conceit of being ‘progressive’ and ‘more evolved’, as well as ‘creative’ and ‘brilliant’. And yet, trivialities don’t last forever. They began to decay rather quickly, and the current American culture is one of reeking decadence despite all its flashiness and colorfulness. Mostly trash really. Fashions being what they are, if they just come and go like the wind, a social order can withstand them even when they are dumb and harmful. But Liberalism sometimes produces its own iron dogmas and a cult of correctness that, in America, have come to be known as Political Correctness. So, some of these ludicrous fashions that arise from the so-called ‘brilliant’ and ‘creative’ minds in the academia/media are disseminated far & wide through the school system, squeezed into the minds of impressionable young ones, and protected with new taboos that degrade and demean who won’t fall for the hype. Since Jewish Liberals control the academic and media, they have a monopoly in coining new terminology that serves as currency in the national discourse. For most Americans — even smart ones — most issues of right-or-wrong revolve around a handful of words and adjectives(and associative images and sounds of electronic media)used in conjunction with them. How many people really gave any thought to issues of race, sex, nation, politics, and etc? In most cases, it’s about slogans and emotive use of terminology. So, someone will be accused of ‘homophobia’, and ‘homophobia’ will be associated with ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, ‘toxic’, and ‘divisive’; and that just about does the trick for most people. How many people were won over to ‘gay marriage’ by a serious moral or intellectual debate? Even before they knew anything about it, they were bombarded with positive media/celebrity images of ‘clean-cut and well-scrubbed happy homos’, had their minds filled with terms like ‘homophobia’, and were threatened with shunning or denunciation if they didn’t agree right away with the agenda being pushed on them. A term like ‘homomania’ is closer to the truth of what’s happening, but how come no one uses it? Because the media/academia are controlled by Jews who monopolize the power to coin and distribute terminology. So, just by controlling the terminology, the Jew Liberals have a decisive advantage over Americans. Even Conservatives have no choice but to use the terminological currency formulated and coined by Jews. If Conservatives had any sense, they would reject the terms and terminologies of debate and coin their own words in rejection of bogus notions such as ‘homophobia’ or ‘racism’, but Conservatives either have shit for brains or are too busy sucking up to Jews to point out that Jews control the media/academia, indeed just like Jews also control the Fed that has the power of money, which is the Jew-monopolized Fed favors Jew-monopolized Wall Street. As long as Jews control the power of the dollar at the Fed and Wall Street, we have to play their game, but the game is rigged so that Jews are favored over the rest of us. The currency of ideas works like the currency of money.

At any rate, despite the all-too-real problems and dangers of atavism, there are intelligent, sensible, reasonable, and resourceful ways by which a people can preserve their sense of blood-and-soil, origins, roots, unity, and sacredness. After all, if the people of Israel, Russia, and China can feel pride of their history/origins/roots but also embrace modernity and progress, who’s to say it can’t be done by other peoples as well? So, it’s a matter of degrees. If a people are responsible with their consciousness of blood-and-soil, it not only does a lot of good but is necessary for the survival and thriving of a race and nation. Though Alex Haley was a fraud as an author, his desire to learn something about his ancestors and trace his roots back to Africa to arrive at a richer, deeper, and more meaningful sense of identity was truly noble. If he’d done it right, he would have been an ‘atavisionary’, but alas, like so many psychopathic Negroes, he was a fraud, lout, and liar. Still, the idea that a person should have racial consciousness, a knowledge of his past, a connection to the origins of his race, and the desire to preserve sacred memory of his people for posterity is what makes a person truly human. Without such a historical and cultural consciousness, we would be nothing more than consumer-hamsters in a globalist cage that run around looking for nothing for yummies and orgasms, and of course, Jews who control the NWO want to turn us into such shallow dummies for shallow dummies without roots are easier to control. Of course, Jews are very ‘atavistic’ about their own identity, origins, past, heritage, race, and nationhood, but they encourage all other peoples — especially white gentile folks — to dismiss their own racial consciousness/heritage and meld with the rest of humanity as one big blob-glob of mindless seekers of pleasures from dumb blockbuster Hollywood movies, stupid inane TV shows, comic books about homo superheroes, and waving the ‘rainbow’ banner at ‘gay pride’ parades, all of which are controlled by and profitable to the Jews. Of course, many historians are Jews, and Jews do teach a lot of history, but notice that their versions of history tend to ignore all the evils done by Jews while highlighting all the evils of Western Civilization. So, most white kids in America see the likes of MLK, Nelson Mandela, Harriet Tubman, Oprah, Obama, and Tupac as the greatest and noblest people that ever lived while hating their own kind. No matter how great a white gentile person might have been in the past, Jews discredit him or her with the charge that he or she was ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’; never mind that by the standards of today’s PC values, everyone that ever lived in the past was guilty of ‘hatred’ and ‘bigotry’. Jews turned white people off and away from their own histories and heritages while turning them onto Magic Negro heroes and flashy-trashy porny-horny libertarian hedonism that, like narcotics, encourages people to seek that which gives them the biggest zing and zap at any given moment(with no thought of yesterday or tomorrow), which is one reason why so many of children’s movies hurtle forth at breakneck speed without any time for a breather, consideration, or reflection. It’s like experiencing the world passing outside the window of a car traveling at 100 mph: strong on motors but weak on ‘emotors’. The basic test-marketed formula assumes that kids must be jolted and zapped every other second or they will lose interest, find it ‘lame’, and become distracted. And yet, the way such movies maintain audience attention is a form of constant distraction since it’s premised on the conviction that children — and their parents — are too shallow and impatient to ponder any deeper meaning to the story and therefore must constantly be ‘distracted’ with a nonstop barrage of effects, funny lines, stunts, and gimmicks. In a way, the thinking behind most CGI-animated children’s movies is like the Luke Skywalker in the final battle of the original STAR WARS flying through a narrow corridor to lob off missiles into the portal connected to the main generator of the Death Star. Luke’s mission was to accelerate within a narrow corridor and fix all his senses on the main objective, which is to blow up the Imperial Space Station. That was just the final part of STAR WARS, but entire movies for children now feel that way — a nonstop hurtling though a world flashing by to hit the blockbuster bull’s eye — , indeed so much so that even a movie like CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and E.T. might be considered too slow and distracting by today’s standards. Lest they be distracted from the main theme, distract them with the main focus composed of hurricanes of tricks and stunts battering and bouncing off all over the place. (Even so, some movies find the right balance of depth and dazzle. Ang Lee’s LIFE OF PI and Alfonso Cuaron’s GRAVITY for instance. Though heavy on effects and spectacle, they are also about mood and meaning. And even their effects are more artful and mythic than usual. Martin Scorsese’s HUGO was made in the vein of LIFE OF PI, but Scorsese, though a greater director than Lee, missed the mark because his sensibility is geared to make children’s films and his self-consciousness about film history made HUGO a bit too precious.)

Anyway, what applies to Negroes & Jews in their search for their roots, identity, & heritage should also apply to white peoples. They too should be mindful of their heritage and history, which shouldn’t either be reduced to dry academism or handed over to Jews to rewrite & denigrate for their own tribal interest, as indeed, most Jews — even much respected academic historians — will reshape white histories to morally and emotionally sever white people from their sacred past. When a people lose a connection to their sense of history and heritage, they are no longer a people; they are generic globalist-blobs or ‘glob-blobs’ or ‘globlobs’. Do you want to be a globlob? Jews emphasize how America is special because Americans always reinvent themselves, but then, if reinvention(even to the extent of racial/cultural suicide)is so great, why don’t Jews give up their Jewish identity and ‘reinvent’ themselves as Scientologists or something? Of course, Jewish communists once tried to smash Russian history, culture, and identity, thus forcing all Russians to be reinvented and re-branded as good little commies ordered about by the likes of Stalin and his Jewish henchmen, but thankfully, many Russians nevertheless regained their sense of sacred history. Putin, whatever his faults(and there are many) is a man who dearly loves and feels connected to motherland; he’s not a mere cynic playing the nationalist card. Yet, foul Jews who feel no love for Russia believe that they have some divine right to take over Russia, gain control all its elites institutions, and turn Russians into what have become of white Americans, a bunch of morons who vote for the likes of Obama, invite Negroes to hump their own wives on their own beds, support ‘gay marriage’ as the greatest moral crusade of our time, and sheepishly vote for politicians who are nothing but whores & running dogs of the globalist Zionist Jewish cabal. (It must be emphasized that loyalty to one’s sacred past doesn’t mean that one should reject or despise other peoples and other cultures, just like love of one’s family doesn’t mean one should disrespect the bonds within other families. Every people should be like a lake that is connected to other lakes through rivers and streams. The rivers and streams among the many lakes make for cosmopolitan exchange of ideas. But if all the barrier among the lakes are removed and all lakes are merged into a single ocean, there’s no more distinctness, no more specialness. McNations aren’t what the world needs.) Indeed, what kind of Negro do you respect more? A stupid shallow Negro who only knows rap music, current fashions, and is a slave to his animal lusts OR a Negro with a sense of roots, a sense of where his people came from(i.e., that his ancestors in Africa weren’t named Leroy Jackson but Cucumunga Chimpongo), and a knowledge of the cultures and experiences that came to define Africa and the lives of blacks in the New World? Similarly, what kind of Lithuanian-American would you respect more? One who has almost no knowledge of his ancestry, has no sense of the culture & history of his people, and doesn’t even know a single word of Lithuanian while being excited about all the latest trashy fads as well as being brainwashed by PC OR one who has a profound knowledge of the history & culture of his people, of the triumphs & tragedies that took place on the land of his people, and can speak Lithuanian as well as English? I’ll bet most people, deep down inside, will prefer a man with a sense of roots, identity, and heritage. Not because it’s ‘hip’, ‘cool’, or ‘sexy’ but because it’s deep, meaningful, and authentic.
Of course, the consciousness of identity must be tempered with individuality because wholly burying one’s individuality in one’s identity would make one no better than all those mindless Nazi and Japanese soldiers during World War II whose only meaning and obligation were to serve Der Fuhrer or the Emperor — as the embodiment of the highest national spirit — and never think critically or rationally on one’s own. Indeed, the great power of Jews owes to the dual sense of identity and individuality. And yet, Jews would deny both to the white race. Jews fear the rise of a powerful white identity since white people will, on their own and without permission from Jewish elites, may define their own meaning of identity and shape their own destinies. But Jews also seek to rob white people of their true individuality, one that is rational, critical, and skeptical. The kind of bogus and politically correct ‘individuality’ that Jews promote for white people is one where white people are constantly swayed by fashions and fads of whatever happens to be ‘cool’ or ‘hip’, and of course such fashions and fads are usually defined and disseminated by the Jewish powers-that-be that control the TV, movie, and music industry. Or Jews try to convince white people that support for ‘gay marriage’ is all about individualism since it’s about one’s own ‘freedom to marry’, but if marriage should be redefined in any manner according to individual whim, why not also push for ‘incest marriage’ and ‘multiple marriage’? And if this ‘gay’ agenda business is only about individualism and freedom, why are there all these laws that penalize, fire, and blacklist anyone who, as a free individual, feels that homosexuality is gross and ugly instead of healthy and wonderful? Why are Christian bakers being FORCED to make ‘gay wedding’ cakes when the New York Times isn’t forced to run dildo ads — even though dildos are legal consumer items? Isn’t that ‘discrimination’ against a certain business that wants to advertise in the NY Times? Jewish-controlled PC denies both our identity and our individual freedom to think our own thoughts and say our own say in accordance to the dictates of our individual conscience.

Anyway, the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism owed something to Catholicism’s ‘masking’ of God and Protestantism’s ‘unmasking’ of the ‘masks’ of God. For the sake of clarification, we need to make a distinction between the notion of ‘unmasking of God’ and ‘unmasking of the masks of God’. No Christian of any kind would dare unmask God Himself since no man could ever know the ultimate truth of God or stare directly into His ‘face’ that cannot be seen, and if it could, would surely make one’s eyeballs explode like with the Nazis in the penultimate scene in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. What Protestantism sought to do was to remove the ‘masks’ placed upon God by mankind itself — and this included the overly idolatrous Catholic Church. In removing these ‘false’ masks, Protestants had no illusions about seeing God in His full truth & glory for the essence of Godliness shall always remain a mystery. And yet, in removing those masks, Protestants felt they could FEEL the presence and power of God more truthfully, purely, and fully than sensual-centric Catholics could. There would be greater emotional/spiritual communion with the purity of God’s true meanings and intentions. But this created as many problems as it solved. If the ‘masks’ are removed but the face of God still cannot be seen, what is one left with? Is there greater clarity or greater confusion without the mask? Though the Catholic Church’s ‘masks’ of God were many, varied, and contradictory — especially between the ethos & practice of Christianity — , they did offer something to fixate upon as tangible manifestations of God’s holiness and truth. In removing such ‘false masks’, a Protestant has nothing between himself and God. One might say he has a direct connection to God without the artificial obstacle of the mask. But God still wouldn’t reveal Himself and would remain silent.
THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY - Ingmar Bergman
And so, the Protestantist films of Ingmar Bergman are heavy on the themes of silence and de-masking, indeed even when the issue isn’t particularly religious or spiritual, i.e. even the psychologies of Bergman’s universe are heavily inflected with Protestantist habit of mind. What if, in removing the ‘masks’, the surfaces, and distractions, one is left not with the presence of purity and grace but with loneliness, nothingness, barrenness, and even greater confusion? What if one is left feeling desolate, isolated, and abandoned? The moments of quietude in THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY and THE SILENCE offer no clear meaning, peace, or resolution; one’s psyche only festers with doubt, anxiety, and finally, even madness.

Still, at least the old Protestants had faith and conviction that they were on God’s side and God was looking out for them. But in the modern world defined by rationalism, science, individualism, and the cult of progress, what if one just barely clings to faith like a button hanging by a thread from the fabric? Such a figure is the is the leading character(as the pastor of small community) in WINTER LIGHT(or THE COMMUNICANTS), which, though only 85 min, is one of the longest-seeming and difficult-to-sit-through films in my viewing experience. While Robert Bresson’s DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST could also said to be ‘bleak’, sparse, and desolate, it isn’t necessarily severe and depressing because there’s an element of depth and grace in the stubborn faith, however awkward and expressionless, of the terminally ill main character. Even though he fails to connect with the people of the town who mostly regard him as a necessary nuisance — he seems inept even for the role of saint or martyr — , there is something about his mulish commitment to God and vocation that makes his life radiate, however dimly, with the stuff of sanctity. Because he is so inexpressive and frigid — if not necessarily rigid — , people tend to project their fears, anxieties, and prejudices onto him. To schoolgirls, he’s just a dullard ripe for ridicule. They don’t think he can be hurt because he doesn’t seem capable of emotions. A rich man’s adulterous wife feels hostility toward the priest not only because he bore witness to her infidelity but because she assumes his frozen expression amounts to harsh condemnation and judgmentality. But it’s really a projection of her own fears, anxieties, and bitterness onto him, and indeed, for all we know, the priest’s feelings could have been as forgiving and understanding as judgmental(indeed, what good is any priest without some degree of judgmentalism? After all, Christianity is about moving toward the Judgement Day, not the Do-Whatever-You-Want-For-All-I-Care Day). Of course, the rich woman’s contempt for the priest could also be social and status-related. If not for his robe, the priest would be a social nothing and a nobody, especially as he seems so colorless, charmless, and possibly even witless. She might not have felt so derisively towards him if he were tall, handsome, and articulate — she might have felt genuine shame in her adultery under the gaze of such a man — or if he looked the part of a mighty patriarch with God on His side. If one must be judged and condemned for one’s moral lapses, let it be someone with the kind of authority — in looks, expression, and disposition — that can really command the fear and respect of the sinner. In a way, the woman’s ill feeling toward the priest could have been the combination of her suspicion of his judgmentality AND her perception of his feeble inability to judge(and forgive). His spiritual authority doesn’t seem to jibe with his persona/social worth. Just as one would rather be judged & condemned by someone worthy of authority, one would rather be understood & forgiven by someone worthy of respect. And it just so happens that the country priest, in terms of his social style and demeanor, is a total failure in those regards. To the rich woman, he’s just some poor sod, and to the townsfolk, he’s just someone appointed to fill the post in the local church.
The Eraser-head-like main character of THE DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST by Robert Bresson
There’s some similarity between the minister in WINTER LIGHT and the character in DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST to the extent that both seem incapable of connecting emotionally or spiritually with the local community, but the crucial difference is that the man in WINTER LIGHT is essentially a man without faith who continues to go through the motions whereas the priest of Bresson’s film is stubbornly faithful to the end, even if it means he shall save no soul but his own. The minister in WINTER LIGHT is somewhat like the character of Watanabe in the early parts of Akira Kurosawa’s IKIRU. The bureaucratic chief in IKIRU no longer believes in anything he’s doing; he’s just marking time and waiting for retirement as he’s too old and has no hope of embarking on a new life. Likewise, the minister in WINTER LIGHT, though not as old, is too mature in age to start a new life. And if he quits his role as minister, it would mean he’d given his entire life to a meaningless calling. Besides, even though he can barely connect with his parishioners, some in the local community have come to rely on him for reasons of their own. So, like the priest afflicted with doubt in THE EXORCIST, he finds it difficult to just call it quits and walk away. At least the priest in THE EXORCIST was young enough and lived in a city lively & vibrant enough for him to embark on something new if he’d so wished, but the character in WINTER LIGHT has nothing to look forward to. He would forfeit the meaning of his entire life if he turned his back on the church, and yet, he no longer has any real faith left. He goes through the motions without the truth of emotions.
Without faith, there’s no more need for spiritual guilt, but feelings of guilt could be as personal, psychological, and social as spiritual. And even as one denies God, one could still feel guilty for having denied God. But if one no longer believes God exists, to whom does one feel guilty for having rejected God? If you betray a friend, you feel guilty for having betrayed a friend. But if you betray God by disbelieving in Him, why would you feel any need to feel guilt since you don’t even believe that the God you betrayed ever existed in the first place for you to betray? And yet, the workings of human psychology aren’t so simple. Even if one denies God — rejects the notion that some force called God governs the universe — , a sense of God could linger and affect the soul in many ways. It’s like even after loved ones and pets die and literally vanish from the world, we are still haunted by their presence, indeed almost as if they’re watching us, judging us. (Consider the movie FLATLINERS where the various characters, upon contacting the repressed ‘other worlds’ of their subconscious, cannot shake off the ghosts of the past even though such apparitions exist only in their minds.) For Bergman, God and his father became deeply entwined, and just like the man in WINTER LIGHT couldn’t be free of God even as/after he lost his faith, Bergman couldn’t be free of the haunting presence of his parents, especially his father. Indeed, even in his old age, he wrote screenplays about his parents as if they were still alive and affecting him.
WINTER LIGHT - Ingmar Bergman
Anyway, in so many ways, Protestants came no nearer to understanding God than Catholics did because the removal of the ‘masks’ didn’t so much reveal God but a vast dark emptiness, which was perhaps darkest in the vision of John Calvin.

When confronted with great mystery, mankind goes about two ways of coping with it. One is to imagine and devise manifestations of its essence into appearances and turn them into objects of holiness and sanctity. The other way is to remove as much of the barriers between mankind and the mystery as possible so as to gain a direct emotive access to the mystery. But what if the mystery can never be accessed or understood? What if the most mankind can do in relation to the mystery is to stand outside the gate of that mystery? There’s something like this in Franz Kafka’s THE TRIAL where, in a way, Joseph K., even as he tries to get through the gate, has a need for the gate(to keep him out)because the gate functions as the stable signifier between himself and the mystery. Just because we enter the realm of mystery doesn’t mean we will understand it any better; the men in Andrei Tarkovsky’s STALKER make it to the House but remain baffled, perhaps more than ever. And yet, we cannot know the mystery by standing outside either. So, the gate or the mask becomes crucial in our relation to the mystery. The gate/mask serve as the portal or pathway on which to fixate our attention. And even if the ‘mask’ has to be removed in order for us to grow nearer to God, it has to exist in the first place to be removed in the first place. It’s like, in order for us to break down the gate and storm the castle, the gate has to exist in the first place. So, even as we go about demolishing it, we have a need for its existence to be demolished for it has become the portal to the inner sanctum.
The same goes for the human soul. As much as we like to tell ourselves that the face is merely a skin-deep mask and that the true essence of the person is within his or her inner soul, we rely on the face/mask as a portal to the person’s soul. Even when we read an author whose face remains unknown, our minds automatically begins to search for a face to affix on that person. Even when we read about characters in a novel who are barely described in physical terms, our minds begin to give them shape and form.
In the opening montage of PERSONA, we see close-ups of a sheep being slaughtered and its head being skinned to reveal the inner skull, but is the inner skull the truer form of the sheep than its outer skin and fur? The outside is meaningless without the inside, but the inside is also meaningless without the outside. The body is useless without the soul, but the soul is useless without the body — except maybe in the afterlife according to certain religions. (One could also say God or gods are useless without the mind of man, without which He or they would not exist. Mind is the face of God.) Indeed, the arrival of Jesus as God in human flesh speaks to the tensions in Judaism and Christianity between their emphasis on pure spirituality and their acknowledgment of how spirituality seeks manifestation in the world of men. Even if idolatry is prohibited, God must, at times, make His presence powerfully felt through the forms of the world as mankind exists in a world of materiality and is made of matter himself. So, God at one point had to send manna from Heaven since man cannot live on spirituality alone. Oddly enough Judaism, while denying the fleshly manifestation of God in the form of Jesus, has been heavily and blatantly obsessed with sexuality and fleshly matters, whereas Christianity, while acknowledging that the Son of God walked among mankind in the flesh of Man, has ideally been far less comfortable with natural processes, especially of sexuality. Perhaps, Jews had fewer hangups about sexuality — as long as it didn’t violate the taboos in the Old Testament — because they made a clear distinction between the world of God and world of man. God was pure spirit and had nothing to do with flesh; therefore fleshiness was purely within the realm of man. Since mankind propagated and perpetuated the bloodline through the meat-must-meet or loins-must-join between men and women, there was less need for shame among Jews in the co-mingling of Jewish schlongs and mutersheyds. God did His business in spiritual ways, and mankind did its business through physical ways, and as long as Jews obeyed the moral rules of God, there was no need for for Jewish guys to feel shame in slinging their schlongs around their Jewish wives.
But in Christianity, God was manifest in the form of Man, and therefore, He too was equipped with the thing that guys have. And yet, because He was the Son of God and therefore God, a pure spiritual being, He couldn’t do what other Jewish guys did with their things; He had to fight off all temptations as it would have been a betrayal of His pure spirituality if He acted like horny Jewish guys. And since He lived and died this way — and presumably His Disciples did likewise — , it inspired an anti-sexual cult where all good Christian men should, at least ideally, try to suppress their sexuality and lead the lives of pure-hearted & saintly spiritual beings, which is why the Catholic Church requires its priests to restrain from having sex — and even wanking — , and this explains why so many Catholic priests are rather funny in the head as all the jism clogging up their testicles go bonkers and play funny games with their emotions.
Boing - Anthony Weiner, incorrigibly horny Jew
Anyway, as Catholicist forms of ‘idolatry’ came to be forbidden in many parts of Protestant Northern Europe, the essence of Christianity became darker and grimmer, especially since the northern regions were indeed cloudier, mistier, gloomier, and colder than the South. If the northern parts of Europe had remained Catholic, they might have enjoyed more music, lights, colors, and pictures — the idolatries of faith — through the long winter months, but as Protestantism forbade and/or frowned upon such things, believers were left with the cold and darkness in spartan-furnished churches, especially through the long winter months when daylight was a precious commodity — especially in places like Sweden. Thus, the notion of God could become heavy and depressing, and yet, the advantage of this was that some people were pressed to find the meaning of God within their hearts and souls than through the coloring book ‘idolatry’ of Catholicism. And since the meaning of God had to be found within one’s soul without the meddling and/or assurances of the often corrupt Catholic clergy(that often doled out favors in accordance with what amounted to bribes), one was more likely to be morally serious, earnest, and committed. And with fewer colorful distractions within the church(in both the literal and figurative sense), the thing to do was to carry out God’s work in the real world; the real was favored over the ritual. Sincere commitment toward doing good work and helping others was very much a part of Northern Protestantism, and this principle was shared by all, i.e. the church wasn’t just the officially organized institution but the heart of every person. (In the Catholic world, the Church was expected to do the good work. Indeed, the Church jealously guarded this socio-moral obligation. It’s instructive that Fellini’s NIGHTS OF CABIRIA was criticized by the Church because it has a scene where some seemingly secular guy hands out free clothes to poor folks. The Catholic Church took umbrage at someone other than an official Church person doing good work. Since only the Catholic Church was the proper venue for ‘doing good work’, the social impact was the creation of a mind-set where people expected ‘good works’ to be done for them than doing ‘good works’ on their own for other folks. It’s like Liberals leave it up to the government to fix and solve the problems, therefore they tend to give less to charity and volunteer less to help others; most so-called ‘progressive’ organizations get together to gripe, rant, march, and demand that government do more. In the Liberal mind, ‘doing good work’ should be monopolized by the state though, to be sure, the concept of N.G.O’s have caught on recently. But then, given the close corporate-government collusion on so many things, what goes by the name of ‘non-government’ is rather like the notion of ‘non-profit’: Bogus and in-name-only. Anyway, if Catholics believed it was up to the Church and not themselves to ‘do good work’, then more of them were likely to sit on their ass and expect ‘good works’ to be done for them by the Church, thus creating an un- or under-productive populace accustomed to taking favors and handouts. This could explain why Latin-Americans are so shameless in taking handouts from the government or any other organization that is willing to give. Just look at all those Puerto Ricans.)
Even though Northern Protestant folks were more sincerely committed to doing ‘good work’ for others, they were also prouder and hardier folks than the people in the South, and therefore, they were less likely to be in need of help and charity. As Protestantism encouraged every follower to be true to God and tough on oneself, a larger number of Protestants took morality and work seriously; they worked harder and acted more responsibly, and therefore, fewer needed the aid of charity. Paradoxically, when more people are willing to work and give, there are fewer people who need to keep taking and taking.
In contrast in the South, Catholicism spread a culture of superstition and corruption among the populace as so much of the practice came to revolve around relics and rituals that weren’t much different from palm-reading and astrology. Therefore, Catholic folks looked more to ‘tricks of the trade’ than into their own hearts for the solution to their problems. Also, as the Catholic Church was more grandiose and expensive to upkeep, it needed to raise a lot of money and have lots of bureaucrats to maintain all the magnificent Cathedrals adorned with lots of fancy treasures and stuff. So, even as the Catholic Church did expend a lot of time, energy, and resources on charity and good works, much of the system was also geared to maintaining the grand facade of the Church and its own vast networks(on a universal and international scale).
Catholic Cathedral
Protestant Church
In contrast, Protestantism tended to be either national or denominational. So, even though every Protestant denomination sought to convert others to its own credo, its scope was generally restricted to a nation(that adopted a certain form of Protestantism as the official religion of the state) or limited to a particular world-view that competed with many others. Though every Protestant denomination thought it was right, it was willing to make peace with other denominations and co-exist or compete according to a set of rules(and this might have aided the North in the development of the Rule of Law). In contrast, Catholicism was like a spiritual empire where Vatican played the role of the most holy city.
Though Catholics eventually came to recognize and make peace with Protestantism(and even non-Christian religions), it wasn’t until recently that it forsook the notion that the Catholic Church is the one and only true Church of God, outside which everything else was wicked and heathen-ish. (Ideally, the Protestant denomination might say "We are right, and you are wrong, but we acknowledge your right to be wrong and misguided about God", whereas the official line of the Catholic Church was "We are right, you are wrong, and you have no right to be wrong." Catholicism was like Moscow-centered communism that tolerated no Marxist-Leninist heresy.) Unlike Catholicism, there was no holy world capital to Protestantism as Protestants believed the only spiritual center was God and the only true center for each person was his or her own heart. Thus, the upkeep of Protestantism needed not be so lavish, extravagant, and world-wide as was the case with the Catholic Church And even within a particular Protestant denomination, de-centralization was the rule, so that one bunch of Lutherans need not necessarily follow another bunch of Lutherans or even obey the central Lutheran authority. Though not all Catholics have agreed nor obeyed the decrees of the Vatican, the essential idea of Catholicism is that Catholics all over the world should derive their truth from the decisions made within the Vatican by Pope and the Bishops. So, a kind of gargantuan form of ‘statism’ came to define Catholicism, and the negative effect of this was that it made many Catholics feel that they couldn’t do anything by themselves and should seek the approval, aid, and counsel of the Church. But surely, anyone with an honest pair of eyes could see that even the Church operated according to the corrupt rules of politics and business — especially in a place like Latin America — , and so, Catholicism led to a culture of despondency and dependence.
In contrast, the teachings of Protestantism emphasized that each person should look into his own heart and purify his own soul before God without much intervention of the Church. Sure, the Church would guide, preach, remind, and reprimand, but the ultimate decision had to be made within the soul of every individual. And so, a sturdier kind of individualism developed in Northern European Protestant societies. Nevertheless, it was not a spirited individualism but a very gloomy one fixated on notions of sin and guilt. Therefore, Protestant individualism wasn’t anything like today’s libertarianism that urges people to live for one’s own glory and pleasure but an intensely moral-spiritual individualism that pressured each person to purge his or her soul of wickedness, give himself or herself to God, and do good works.
In time, Northern Protestant nations became societies where many people wanted to DO good works, whereas Southern Catholic nations became societies where many people wanted to be DONE good works. Of course, there were many poor people who needed help in northern parts of Europe well into the 20th century, but as the Northern European Protestant soul prefers to help others than seek help from others, once Northern Europeans gained a modicum of well-being they no longer sought help since permanent dependence on the good works of others would have been an affront to their sense of moral and spiritual pride. In contrast, many people in the South came to believe it’s only right that they should be taken care of by others forever.
Indeed, even social-democracy in the North works differently from social democracy of the South. In the North, the objective has been to create and uphold a socio-economic system where most people work hard, contribute to the system, and share in matters of common good.
Thus, it wasn’t conceived to be parasitic but co-productive. The Northern way was to work hard at producing more so that those with less could have a little more; it wasn’t about everyone trying to work less and suck out more from the system. In contrast, forms of social-democracy in the South — even in France to an extent — have turned into cynical games of ‘how can I take most from the system while contributing least to it?’ It’s no wonder that the finances of Spain and Italy are well behind that of a place like Germany and Sweden. Germans are like a school of fishes pulling together whereas Italians, especially Southern ones, are like a bunch of leeches sucking for themselves.
Germanic fishes
Latin Leeches
And yet, the danger of Protestantism is it can fall apart and lose its core conviction/confidence faster than Catholicism since the essence of Protestantism is formless. As Protestantism is really about the matters of the heart, once the heart fails or changes, the entire meaning of traditional Protestantism can be lost. If the ultimate truth of Protestantism rests in the heart, what happens if Protestants lose their self-discipline, lose faith in traditional moral values, lose their sense of racial/ethnic identity, and fall under the spell of something like ‘gay marriage’? What if Protestants, under the influence of Jewish-controlled academia and media, come to genuinely and ‘purely’ believe in the sanctity of ‘gay marriage’ and see homosexuals, inversexuals, or retardo-sexuals as a bunch of neo-saints? Then, neo-protestantism will become totally corrupted almost instantly.
In contrast, because the Catholic Church has an elaborate system of hierarchy, rituals, dogmas, relics, and imagery(that serve as its lifeboats), it has the greater power to withstand shifting fads and fashions. (If you change the heart/mind of a Protestant, you can mold him to be anything since his sense of truth developed through centuries of Protestantism revolves around a sense of purity and rightness. In contrast, even if you change the heart/mind of a Catholic, he would still be bound, as a Catholic, to all the rituals and customs of the Church that keep him grounded in some rich & deep connection to the past.) So, even though there could be as many Catholics who are for ‘gay marriage’ as there are among Protestants, they are still bound to a Church that will not budge on the issue since its Eternal Truths are determined within the upper echelons of the hierarchy than by the common laity whose hearts bend this way or that way according to whims of fashion. Thus, paradoxically, the very factor that made Protestantism less corrupt than the Catholic Church can also make it more vulnerable to being corrupted by shifting fads and fashion. Indeed, there were signs of this even centuries ago when the main reason for King Henry VIII’s switch to Protestantism was gain permission to divorce his wife. Protestantism, at its best, means the freedom and right of every Christian individual to seek, understand, and obey God in his or her own way, but at its worst, it means any dufus changing the meaning of Christianity according to individual whims at the mercy of a corrupting secular culture controlled by hideous Jews.

Anyway, returning to the original point of this piece, how may have religions helped to expand and broaden the though processes and possibilities of man, especially when we, as modern people, have come to associate religion with irrationality, dogmatism, rigidness, closed-mindedness, childlike faith, and all such modes that seem antithetical to thought. Of course, some might argue that religions, despite their dogmatism and rigidity, offered some kind of structure for thought. Just as water has to be held in a container for people to carry, maybe thought required that kind of vessel as well, and religions in the past were merely one of ways that human thoughts and emotions could be contained. Though restrictive and even rigid, religions gave shape and form to certain ideas, visions, imagination, and emotions.
Protestantism at its worst - Homo freak fashion cult
At any rate, let’s get around to the main point of our discussion as we’ve wasted too much time on extraneous stuff. It’s something we are all familiar with in science-fiction: the expansion of possibilities and meanings through heightened exploration via the logic of imagination. There’s idle imagination that makes no sense and has little rhyme or reason, and but then, there’s rigorous imagination that lays down certain basic premises and then goes about logically & creatively examining and pondering the (sometimes infinite)permutations developing from those premises, often in relation to the individual, society, past-present-future, and the nature of power.
In this sense, science fiction is the most remarkable of all genres since it can encompass just about any subject and every mode, from the subtlest to the most outlandish, from technological hardware to psychological software, from the atomic to the cosmic, from the distant-past to the distant-future, from the mundane to the outlandish. All Westerns have to be set in the West, and dramas are mostly about real people in the ‘real world’. Love stories fixate on man and woman, though deviants and perverts might go for different combinations. Horror has many possibilities, but it’s mostly about scaring the crap out of folks. And comedies are about making us laugh. But science fiction could take place in the near future — A CLOCKWORK ORANGE — and speculate about technology that seems within our grasp, or it can be set in the distant future ruled by technology unimaginable to us, as in the final part of A.I. Science fiction can even operate only within technological bounds known to us, as in GRAVITY. Science fiction can, oddly enough, even be set in the past when there was no technology: Consider the beginning of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. This suggeststhat science fiction isn’t necessarily about science or technology per se but about a ‘state of mind’. Even if all of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY had been set in the world of primitive apes, it might still have qualified as a work of science fiction because Kubrick’s perspective was cosmic-‘spiritual’ than natural-realistic.
Science fiction can be set in our own world. THE FACE OF ANOTHER by Hiroshi Teshigahara is arguably a work of science fiction. The only special technology is an artificial mask, but it raises profound questions about the nature of identity, not only how it pertains to every individual but how it may serve as a metaphor for modern Japan that underwent several ‘scarrings’ and re-constitutive ‘surgeries’ since the late 19th century through war and peace. Can one gain a new face and remain the old self, or will the new face also change the self? Teshigahara’s next film THE RUINED MAP(aka A MAN WITHOUT A MAP) — also based on a novel by Kobo Abe — reversed the situation whereby the main character retains his face but, suffering from amnesia, is forced to gain a ‘new soul’. THE RUINED MAP lacks even the smallest element of science(that is found in THE FACE OF ANOTHER), but it too feels like a sci-fi work, or a psy-fi work.
FACE OF ANOTHER
MAN WITHOUT A MAP(aka RUINED MAP)
This also applies to PERSONA and SHAME(by Ingmar Bergman) to some degree, and there’s no doubt that Fellini’s 8 ½ was also inspired by the concepts of science fiction; indeed, the main character is said to be working on a science fiction spectacle, and Fellini later made FELLINI SATYRICON in the spirit of science fiction and urged critics/audience to approach it they did 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, a film he much admired.
Though science fiction isn’t to be mistaken for real science — and most works of science fiction are ridiculous and almost totally worthless — , it has expansive and intellectual possibilities far beyond any other genre. Though the only book I’ve read of Philip K. Dick is DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? and didn’t much get much out of it — I prefer BLADE RUNNER — , he appears to have been a man of lots of ideas, and it’s difficult to imagine how he could have been so creative, strange, and outlandish with any other genre. And though I never read Robert Heinlein, many vouch for him as one of the most interesting literary personalties of the 20th century, and there was even a cult that developed around his imagination. Professor Carole Cusack explains, the author of INVENTED RELIGIONS: IMAGINATION, FICTION, AND FAITH explains: "There was the Church of All Worlds, which was founded in 1962 and based on Robert A. Heinlein's novel STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. And there've been a whole lot of groups that have been based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien." (Fantasy can inspire lots of imagination too, but its rules are less vigorous and more arbitrary. BUBBLEGUM CRISIS and LAPUTA: CASTLE IN THE SKYare science-fiction. SAILOR MOON and POKEMON are fantasy.) Of course, the meaning of ‘science fiction’ isn’t always clear since it usually applies to popular works that serve various fan bases, some of which have become well-established franchises. When something is thought to be genuinely substantive or intellectual, it is usually categorized as something other than science fiction even if futuristic technology and other trappings of the sci-fi genre are present. So, George Orwell’s 1984 is satire, whereas Ray Bradbury’s FAHRENHEIT 451 is science fiction. Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD is satire, whereas ENDER’S GAME is science fiction. Other than the gulf in authorial talent — Orwell and Huxley were true masters of the literary form — , one could argue that for Orwell and Huxley, interest in futuristic technology was incidental than essential, i.e. sci-fi elements were used to make a larger statement about humanity. (This dichotomy of high-satire vs low-science-fiction seems to have faded in recent years, what with well-established serious authors — David Mitchell, Kazuo Ishiguro, etc. — producing sci-fi-satires; it could also be due to the fact that the internet and other high-tech devices have made it impossible for anyone to live apart from all pervasive technology that keeps advancing and morphing at hectic pace.)
In contrast, most science fiction writers are first and foremost obsessed with the idea of futuristic technology(and vicarious experiences of it), and even if their works aren’t devoid of social or political significance, the main appeal lies in transporting the reader to outlandish or out-of-this-world alternative realities. (Dystopia-as-satire is truly frightening or unnerving whereas dystopia-as-science-fiction is often cool and inviting. We would not want to visit the dystopia of Orwell’s 1984, but many of us wouldn’t mind visiting the far-out dystopia of BLADE RUNNER, TRON: LEGACY, or BUBBLEGUM CRISIS.) It’s telling that most of Orwell and Huxley’s output had nothing to do with science fiction — they used the ‘vice’ of a ‘lower’ literary form as a counter-veiling device against the utopianism of sci-fi like modern ideologies ranging from Communism on the far left to National Socialism on the far right — , whereas most science fiction writers stick to writing nothing but science fiction, just like most mystery writers and most horror writers stick to their genre-specific craft. But then, there are writers who seem to be situated somewhere in the middle, i.e. generally regarded and referred to ‘science fiction writers’ but are often more interested in either ideas or literary technique than the ultra-technologies of the alternative universes. Philip K. Dick and Stanislaw Lem seem to have been stand-outs in this regard. Their reputation as ‘genre writers’ denied them the kind of accolades reserved for ‘serious writers’ like William Faulkner, Marcel Proust, and James Joyce, but their obvious intellect, brilliance, and strangeness set them apart from most other science fiction writers who basically stuck to conventional formulas. (As for a handful of figures like Isaac Asimov, they had the talent and imagination to be genuinely substantive authors but often wrote below their ability and dignity to appeal to the sci-fi audience. Asimov’s FOUNDATION could have been a masterpiece, but its excess of nerd-pandering stuff brought it down to the level of grammar school lit.) And yet, even though such writers may not be literary heavy-weights, they may actually be more creative and brilliant in ways that have eluded the more ‘serious’ writers. When a writer is labeled as ‘serious’, he or she is burdened with lofty expectations, the downside of which can weigh down on free-flowing creative energies. It’s like Guido in 8 ½ feels restrained every time the serious intellectual-collaborator presses him to serve a higher purpose or meaning. Though the ideal that art should commit itself to the truth — in contrast to genres that wallow in fantasies — is an important one, it can restrict the breadth of truth that can, after all, be mythic and playful as well as realistic and sobering. There’s the truth of the ways of seeing, and this truth can apply to even the apparently outlandish and ridiculous since everything is processed through the circus of the mind. (This may explain why Franz Kafka came to be such a giant of modern literature. More than any author, he shifted the focus of literature from people and things to the way of seeing people & things and oneself in relation to them. He did this by dissolving the barriers between the subjective and the objective. The walls between spaces and the border between the mind and material lose their authority.) When we are presented with something that purports to be the truth, we are left to focus on the veracity of the claim of truth(and not much else), but when we see something that isn’t or can’t be true but has the power to engage our minds, we are much more likely to interact with our mental and sensory processes that are the final and often faulty arbiters of what is ‘true’. If I place a peanut under a cup and move it around and remove the cup and the peanut is still there under the cup, I have shown you a truth. And you will have seen the truth and find no reason to give it much thought. This is why a lot of movies about the ‘reality of life’ can be awful banal and dull. They may be truthful, but so what? Such reality is seen all around us every day. But suppose someone puts a peanut under a cup and moves the cup around other cups and then lifts the cup, and there’s no peanut. Now, you know that you’re not seeing the truth since trickery has been involved. The peanut that should be under the cup isn’t where it should be, and therefore, your eyes, senses, and mind have been tricked. Thus provoked, your mind becomes more engaged. The truth has been hidden from you and you’ve been ‘played’, and yet, the trick switched on the bulbs inside your head.

Of course, all true artists know this, which is why, even as they’re committed to exploring and exposing the truth, they rely on the masterly tricks of the trade to engage the reader. Even so, ‘serious’ artists feel that they should usually stick to what is true in the world(realistic people in realistic situations), and furthermore, trickery shouldn’t go beyond serving the truth. But certain other writers, such as Philip K. Dick, not only play with the trickery of craft(to serve the truth) but the trickery of perception, even to the extent of undermining the very notion of truth. Since the world tends to warp according to whims of the mind in his works, they might be called ‘psychedelic-fiction’. One could argue such an approach is too tricky or trickery-bound for their own good, and if indeed they’d been written by a more lucid(and sane) author, they might have amounted to little more than mind-games or mind-puzzles, like a literary Rubik’s Cube. But because Dick was borderline cuckoo-bananas, his admirers appreciated his works as an unpredictable-yet-oddly-destined navigation through the strait between Scylla of irredeemable reality and Charybdis of unsolvable unreality. They interweave logic and illogic, sanity and madness, and consciousness and subconsciousness as if existence itself is a troubled sleep. Dick’s vision may appeal to the creative sensibility intuiting that art slip through the corridors between reality and unreality, between clarity and confusion, in order to steal hot coals from the gods or seal a Faustian Pact with the devil. Also, there’s a sense of completeness and closed-ness to the renowned masterpieces — the almost universally recognized ‘great works of art’ — that either renders them forbidding or ‘too perfect’, enforcing awed interpretation than inviting playful interaction. But if a work is considered provocatively ‘incomplete’(or even ‘flawed’) — finished in story but with open and loose ends — , the reader may feel more engaged, as if the fuller meaning of the work depends on the active participation of the reader.
Of course, there are some artists with the power to create something very complete and closed — who would dare to change a single detail of something as ‘perfect’ and exquisite as VERTIGO or BARRY LYNDON? — yet also endlessly open and provocative, but it’s often true that many well-established ‘great works of art’ by ‘serious artists’ tend to encourage admiration than spark imagination, and this explains why many people will watch or read some ‘great works’ and appreciate them but may not necessarily revisit or rethink them. And yet, some interesting B-film or eccentric ‘pulp novel’ by an oddball ‘alternative’ personality can tease the imagination in unexpected ways. Not because they’re necessarily worthy, let alone worthier, works of art but because their peculiar & curious sense of playfulness(often combining childlikeness with adult raciness) frees up creativity to run wild and free. (This may explain why some of the most memorable literature were written in the form of children’s stories. Take GULLIVER’S TRAVELS and ANIMAL FARM. Though clearly sophisticated works of satire, the conceit of "telling a children’s tale" freed up the imaginative and expressive possibilities of the authors. And take ALICE IN WONDERLAND by Lewis Carroll. Paradoxically, it’s worth as serious literature owes to its ‘playful’ mode. I can’t vouch for the HARRY POTTER stories, HUNGER GAMES trilogy, or TWILIGHT tetralogy, but at least when it comes to Stephanie Meyers, she did better to play loose than play serious. Of course, lacking in literary talent, she wouldn’t have made it as a serious writer at any rate, but even if she had writing talent in spades, I doubt if TWILIGHT would have been possible if she’d committed herself only to seriousness. And though her books don’t succeed as literature, they dug up enough of imaginative material from the sandbox of her mind to inspire some very good directors to make them into some of the most remarkable movies in recent times. When children are made to learn/do serious stuff, they are generally not very interesting. They may be acquiring valuable skills, but they’re submitting to an ideal that isn’t their own; like Amy Chua’s first daughter, they’re burying themselves to conform to a ‘higher standard’. It’s also true that children aren’t particularly interesting when they’re doing what they want to do: run around in a playground, eat ice cream, watching TV, and etc. They are most interesting when they’re using their minds and being ‘creative’ with things that genuinely engage them emotionally and viscerally, things that don’t necessarily have to be ‘serious’. And it’s this quality that defined the superior science fiction authors. This was also the advantage of Jazz over modern ‘serious’ music in the 20th century. The ‘serious’ stuff may have been intellectual, complex, sophisticated and stuff, but their academism required the artists and their admirers to bury everything that smacked of spontaneity and playfulness; they engaged the mind but froze the rest of the body. In contrast, modern Jazz, at least for a time, set up shop in that playful area between intellect and intuition.) And this is why magic is fascinating to us, why trickery can be more interesting than the truth. For example, anyone well-grounded in reality knows that it’s impossible for a rabbit to conjured out of a magician’s hat. That is the absolute truth, and you know it and I know it. But, it’s also a dull and boring truth, and once you know the truth, it is what it is and nothing more. But what about a magician who can conjure a rabbit out of a hat? We know it can’t be true since truth says magic is just a trick. But the fact remains that the magic trick still fools our eyes and makes the impossible seem possible. And to create such an impression, it requires considerable skills — indeed, the originators of such tricks tend to be geniuses, even if shallow ones. An inventor of magic tricks has the POWER to make the unreal seem real, the untrue seem true. And that is what’s fascinating about not only about the trick but everything about/around us and the world we live in. After all, politicians, businessmen, entertainers, hustlers, con-men, think-tankers, pundits, preachers, leaders, prophets, artists, and yes, even intellectuals and professors all rely on the trick to sell the truth(to the extent that sometimes, we don’t know which is which, i.e. are we being tricked into the truth or being sold the trick as the truth?) Trickery can make us believe what is untrue is true or what is true is untrue. But trickery can also make what is true seem, feel, or register truer. Suppose two poets write about the beauty of flowers, and what they describe in the literal sense is more or less the same. And yet, the superior poet will use the right choice of words in just the right arrangement that will make his truth much more powerful than the truth of the inferior poet. Or consider the use of music in a movie. As music doesn’t accompany lives in the real world, it’s a form of manipulative trickery, and yet, the right kind of music heightens truth of the moment: consider the use of "Sounds of Silence" and "Everybody’s Talkin’" in the respective opening scenes of THE GRADUATE and MIDNIGHT COWBOY. It’s like, while makeup has the tricky power to make the ugly look good — or at least better — , it also has the power to make good look ever better. So, trickery is everywhere. It is used against truth but also to enhance the truth, like spices bringing out than burying the flavors of a dish. (The mountain-sized Negro who wuvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE would be like using makeup to cover up an ugly face. It is trickery employed to hide the ugly truth about Negroes behind the fantasy facade of the Magic Negro. THE BIRTH OF A NATION, in contrast, may play loose with history but uses the powerful medicine of cinema convey the very real truth of the racial-sexual threat posed by ghastly Negroes on whites.) Since much of truth is unpleasant, brutal, crude, frightening, disturbing, troubling, and etc. people rely on trickery to hide or suppress it OR to make it seem less harmful and threatening, more ‘significant’ and ‘meaningful’. (This can also be said of religion. As the main character says in LIFE OF PI: "I've told you two stories about what happened out on the ocean. Neither explains what caused the sinking of the ship, and no one can prove which story is true and which is not. In both stories, the ship sinks, my family dies, and I suffer." "True." "So which story do you prefer?" "The one with the tiger. That's the better story." "Thank you. And so it goes with God.") No politician ever came to power by telling the truth and nothing but the truth. FDR promised one thing but delivered another. Hitler knew when to play ‘moderate’ and when to play hard to rise to the top. Stalin could act like a colorful loyal bureaucrat all the while plotting to take out his rivals. So, the world isn’t about a simple dichotomy of Truth vs Trickery but the strange game between Truth and Trickery, possibly the main thematic obsession of David Mamet. If you want power and if you want to know the nature of power, you better not just demand the truth but master the art of trickery, because truth is to trickery what insect is to spider web on which it’s caught.
Steven Pinker is a truth-teller and a trickster. As a liberal Jew, he has his tribal and political biases, but as a scientist, he is also interested in the deeper truth. The scientific part of him can see clear as day that new data in genetics is lending credence to the biological basis for human differences, whether the differences are among groups or individuals. He knows that in the long run, this truth cannot be denied. And yet, he faces opposition from the Liberal Political Correct wring of the academia/media, so he has to use trickery to make his critics feel that his ideas and findings are mostly compatible with the ideals of a ‘progressive’ society. But there’s another element of trickery in that Pinker is trying to appropriate many ideas and views that have long been the intellectual staple of the ‘political right’. But then, it must be acknowledged that notions such as ‘the races of man’ and ‘eugenics’ came to be associated almost solely with the ‘racist right’ due to the trickery of the media and academia controlled by Jews. In truth, good many liberals, leftists, and ‘progressive’ intellectuals/scientists believed in the scientific basis of race — so did Franz Boas — and in the benefits(and even necessity) of eugenics, and it was only through the academic/media sleight-of-hand in the latter part of the 20th century that such ideas came to be associated entirely with groups like the Nazis and the KKK.
Negro Chimp and SWPL Bonobo
Indeed, even without conscious/intentional trickery, the world itself is tricky, which is why we don’t notice the ‘trick’ even when it’s front of our eyes. Consider the Bonobo Paradox. So many white Liberals love bonobos because they are said to be the nice, gentle, non-aggressive, peaceful, kindly, cooperative, and friendly apes. (To be sure, they can fight and be nasty too, but relatively speaking, they are indeed nicer than chimpanzees and gorillas.) So, white Liberals think we should be more like bonobos than like chimpanzees. But it turns out bonobos are relatively nicer because they live isolated in parts of the jungle that have no chimpanzees, gorillas, and many of the dangerous predators that feed on apes. So, the paradox is that in order for bonobos to be ‘liberal’, they must live in an environment that is ‘conservative’. Bonobos are, after all, ‘xenophobes’ and ‘isolationists’ who keep to themselves in a world of their own and don’t want to mingle with chimpanzees and gorillas. And indeed, if bonobo territories were to be open to wild-ass Negro-like chimps and gorillas, bonobos either would be slaughtered or would have to adapt toward being nastier, stronger, and more aggressive in order to defend themselves and secure their survival. Also, bonobos are nicer and gentler than chimpanzees not only for reasons of environment but genetics — some scientists consider them a species different from the chimps — , and that means there is a genetic basis to group differences between even two groups as genetically similar as chimpanzees and bonobos. As any talk of genetic differences is considered ‘racist’ and ‘right-wing’ in our culture, white Liberals fail to realize that what they adore so much about bonobos owe to ‘conservative’ factors.
The same thing can be said about white folks in general. The safer and more isolated they are from the black threat — and the tide of color — , the more they are likely to be ‘liberal’, i.e. the more ‘conservative’ — homogeneous and white — their environments are, the more ‘nicer and liberal’ they are likely to be. This is rather troubling for white and Jewish Liberals since, even though they promote ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’, many of the affluent and ‘liberal’ communities in America tend to be overwhelmingly white — or at least non-black. Since a community that is ‘too white’ is considered to be ‘conservative’ and ‘right-wing’, the most convenient and easiest way for white Liberals to spice up their communities with ‘liberal diversity’ is stir up a lot of fanfare about the ‘gay agenda’. So, even though most of the successful homos are white, white homos in ‘gay pride’ parades dress up in bright colors and look more diverse than they really are. Even though most birds in the affluent ‘liberal’ community are white, they don fancy feathers to lend an impression of being part of a community of ‘color’. White homos may not be the ‘people of color’, but they are people-of-colorfulness, especially as they’ve claimed the full spectrum of the ‘rainbow’ for themselves(with the full support of the Jewish elites). White homos are the new ‘rainbow coalition’. It’s Liberal trickery, but so many people, being dupes and idiots, mistake the trickery for truth.
Homo fruitkins, the white 'people of colorfulness'
Many people are surely sick of all these trickeries and want to fight back with hammer blows of truth, but for one’s truth-telling to be effective, one needs the power to reach millions of people, but how does one gain such power? To have the means of speaking the hard truth to millions, one must have power over the media and government. But does anyone get rich by telling the truth? No, you get rich by tricking people to buy stuff they don’t need or believe stuff that makes them feel good; indeed, even ‘white guilt’ that causes white self-loathing is sold as a feel-good product to white Liberals who feel so sanctimonious and morally superior by showing off their ‘progressive’ conscience. ‘White guilt’ among white Liberals is really a form of moral narcissism. You get rich by telling people what they want to hear than what they need to hear.
So, it will always be the tricksters who control the wealth, the institutions, the industries, the government, and etc. And why would such people-of-power give a truth-teller the podium to reach millions of people through the media that they control? So, even to tell the hard truth to millions of people, you need billions of dollars to control/own the media platform, but then, you don’t make billions of dollars by doling out the truth to people. (It’s like you don’t make money off and gain power/influence over countless ugly women around the world by telling them the truth that they’re ugly. You do it by telling them they’re beautiful and could become even more beautiful by listening to you and buying your products.) Of course, truth applies to how science and technologies work, but power in the social-human realm works not according to the matters of truth but the mastery of trickery.
And those who know the nature of the game and how to play it will always beat those who don’t know or don’t know how to play(even if they do know). It’s like in David Mamet’s HOUSE OF GAMES. Even though the con-man — Joe Mantegna — did trick the woman, he played it according to the rules of the game, the game being the game of trickery. He’s an con-artist and a trickster, so naturally, he played her like an accordion and took her money. So, even though he did something wrong, he did it right by the rules of his world. He is a cheat, but the rules of a con-man is the art of the cheat. Even though the woman gets her righteous revenge, she is, in some ways, the bigger cheater since she uses a gun. Also, she wasn’t angry with him because he stole money but because he stole her money and her heart. After all, she went along with a con of his because it turned her on and made her feel special, made her feel ‘in the know’. Her final act, the bloody revenge, is personal than moral. Though she is triumphant in the end, she is the cheater of both the game and morality. She initially tricked him but ended the game by using a gun, a most crude and vulgar act of a barbarian. Besides, she’d been morally untroubled with his con as long as she was playing the game with him and other people were their victim. She became morally righteous again only because SHE was made the fool. The relation between truth and tricker is funny this way. Perverse too.
HOUSE OF GAMES by David Mamet
The skill behind trickery cannot be denied, and this explains why film directors like Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Sergei Eisenstein, and Stanley Kubrick have been held in such high regard. Whether one likes their films or not(or accepts the truths of their visions), anyone who knows anything about cinema cannot deny their art of trickery.
In contrast, an artist like Robert Bresson, though masterly and expressive in his own way, must be appreciated with a measure of faith. What makes an artist like Bresson or Antonioni special cannot be ascertained ‘objectively’ through mere demonstration of talent. At some point, we have connect meditatively with their works and feel a degree of faith in their vision of truth. While anyone who cares about art and cinema should be able to appreciate an artist like Bresson and Antonioni, their greatness isn’t as demonstrable as the kind of mastery seen in films of, say, Welles, Kubrick, Spielberg, or Kurosawa. Though the slowness and stasis of the films of Bresson and Antonioni are meticulous and deliberate in their own ways, at some point the viewer must ‘believe’ in the vision; the pair of eyes must fold together like hands in prayer. For those who make the leap of faith, the films of Bresson and Antonioni can register as works of depth, meaning, and/or beauty. But for those who cannot make the leap — Welles who could never stand Antonioni — , it’s just a lot of dull and dreary straining by a phony or pompous-ass who takes himself too seriously.

The difference between trickery and (meditative)faith is like the difference between juggling and taichi. Whatever one thinks of juggling, the skill involved is real and irrefutable. It’s an awesome display of coordination, balance, and acrobatics. Even if one thinks it all pointless and stupid, one cannot deny the juggler’s feat. But what about taichi where a bunch of Chinese guys move slowly as if their limbs are drifting like the mist? It doesn’t take any genius of trickery to do taichi. Indeed, even children and old folks can get into it. So, is it just some bogus lazy exercise? Purely on the physical level, it could be seen that way. But those who do that stuff may believe that they are spiritually communing with the harmony of nature, the cosmos, or whatever. Whatever the validity of such an outlook, it requires a degree of faith in the both the practitioner and the observer. As not much trickery is involved, the worth of taichi is largely internal and ‘spiritual’. It is like the films of Bresson. If you are willing to believe, it can be very rewarding, but if you choose not to believe, it’s just bogusness. Even among admirers of Bresson, there are those who believe his earlier black-and-white ones are masterpieces whereas his later color ones are just zombie-like exercises in soulless poeticism or deadbeat nihilism. My first impression of LANCELOT DU LAC was weary-dreary, but its poetry and beauty affected me on my second viewing years later. Same film but seen with different heart-and-mind-set.
LANCELOT DU LAC by Robert Bresson
A Zen Buddhist who sits quietly and meditates could have attained an amazing state of mind, but we would never know. We have to take it on the matter of faith that such a thing is possible for some people(even though, to be sure, one could argue that it takes some degree of ‘trickery’ to create the impression that some kind of grace can be achieved through means elusive to the five senses; a Zen garden creates a masterly trick of illusion in this regard; it makes us see and sense more than is actually there). In contrast, when a great ballet dancer does amazing things with his/her body, one cannot deny the talent whether one cares for ballet or not.
Then, there are cases where a matter of faith can be realized through the worst kind of trickery of the mind. A good example of this is the vaunted position that Chantal Akerman’s worthless JEANNE DIELMAN holds in the film canon. So, why did such a dull, dreary, pointless, imbecile, and ridiculous film come to be admired by so many young cinephiles? Because many clever film critics used brilliant-sounding arguments to argue that Akerman is an artist of the highest order, therefore, many impressionable young cinephiles mindlessly felt they must appreciate Akerman to prove their worth in the eyes of the community, especially since the power of PC — a trickery of the mind in its own right — has convinced young fools that they must automatically praise the works of someone who happens to be Jewish, lesbian, Marxist, feminist, and ‘radical’.
A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: Hobby as Calling
Anyway, returning to the original point of this piece, let’s consider the ways by which religions and mythologies expanded man’s horizons and dimensions of thought. First, we need to remind ourselves that for most of human history, people didn’t have much in the way of empirical facts with which to think about and analyze the world rationally. Of course, with the rise of modern science, there’s been tons of data collected on just about everything, so a specialist in any field could pore through the data using the scientific method to arrive at a conclusion that is closer to the truth.(Of course, this produced its own set of problems. Because there are so many books, studies, and materials on so many things, we can easily fall into the conceit that an diligent student could ‘master’ a certain subject with utmost expertise; and of course, titles like ‘professor’ make academics and intellectuals feel real special. Or, even more problematically, scholars may come to believe that book-truth is of greater value than the actual truth on which it’s based. So many cultures fell into such trap of intellectual fetishizing, especially as those who become scholars tend to be those who prefer the realm of theory to the reality of people. Consider all those academic grinds who read so many books and stored so many facts & figures in their minds but have a very weak grasp of the real world and how real people act. Also, the scholarly conceit that conflates books with truth sometimes fail to realize that, even in a free society, the institution of knowledge operates with some degree of taboos and enforced values. Thus, books hold filtered and warped truth — and even a good deal of falsehoods — than truth-as-truth. So, even though a scholar may think he or she’s gaining ever greater knowledge/truth by reading more books, it could be he or she is actually becoming ‘dumber’ with more study. How else can we explain why so many top students in elite schools who read so many books are so clueless about the social and racial truth? They read and studied a lot... of PC bunk. Also, scholarship comes with a set of codes revolving around dignity and wisdom, and therefore would-be-scholars not only want to gain knowledge but seek approval from the community of their esteemed institution. Thus, they may unwittingly sacrifice certain truths and conform to the false dogma IF their dignified standing within the community requires such a sacrifice.) But since mankind for most of its existence had no access to such data and no scientific method to speak of, they had to rely on other ways of thinking to gain some degree of truth about themselves and the world around them. If indeed mankind from the beginning had only limited itself to thinking about things that could be verified through its senses and direct experience, it would never have thought of or imagined anything beyond its very limited factual awareness of the world around itself. And yet, much of human progress came about because of mankind’s ability to imagine things that aren’t. It’s like what the semi-mad scientist Professor Hobby(William Hurt) to David says in Steven Spielberg’s A.I.:

"Until you were born, robots didn't dream, robots didn't
desire, unless we told them what to want. David! Do you have
any idea what a success story you've become? You found a
fairy tale and inspired by love, fueled by desire, you set
out on a journey to make her real and, most remarkable of
all, no one taught you how. We actually lost you for a
while. But when you were found again we didn't make our
presence known because our test was a simple one: Where
would your self-motivated reasoning take you? To the logical
conclusion? The Blue Fairy is part of the great human flaw
to wish for things that don't exist. Or to the greatest
single human gift - the ability to chase down our dreams.
And that is something no machine has ever done until you.
"

(Incidentally, even though David is the ‘child’ of the scientist, he’s been programmed to see Monica as his ‘mommy’. I suppose this is like how Europeans are the children of their pagan ancestors, but they’ve been programmed by Christianity to see the Jewish God as their Father and to regard the history of the Jews as their own history.)

If we were programmed — by nature or by scientists — to be only factual, rational, and realistic with verified knowledge, we would only be able to deal with things as they exist. We would not imagine things that aren’t real or actual in the world we find ourselves. But without imagining what isn’t real, we wouldn’t bother to try new things to make them real — we might not even ponder possibilities, true or not, that may lead us a greater and deeper understanding of the reality around us. (Suppose we know very little about our world and touch something that turns out to be painfully hot. Suppose we don’t know why it’s hot and it’s very difficult to discover the reason as to why it is hot. To discover the truth of hotness, advanced science is necessary, but we only have the most primitive of tools. If we are programmed/conditioned to only deal with facts, we would say the thing is hot, so we shouldn’t touch it anymore. And there would be nothing more to be done since the mystery of its hotness is beyond our ability to solve or understand. But if we are programmed/conditioned to imagine what we cannot ascertain and may not even exist, we can begin to ‘theorize’ about what makes the object hot. Our reasons could be spiritual, magical, mythical, superstitious, metaphysical, philosophical, or whatever. They could be totally wrong and fanciful. But at least in energizing our minds to ponder the possibilities, we would be guiding ourselves toward a greater and deeper understanding of the forces around us.) And even if our fantasies and dreams could never be materialized in reality, they could lead us to think, feel, and imagine the world in interesting ways.

It just so happens that certain ideas, concepts, and mental habits are more provocative as ‘mind games’ or ‘mind puzzles’ than others are. For the time being, never mind God or gods. Let’s just imagine people. Suppose someone tells you to imagine how four different persons might see, sense, and think about the world. One person has an IQ of 80 and don’t know much. Second person has an average IQ and has general knowledge about the world. The third person has above-average IQ and knows more than most people. The fourth person has an IQ of 190 and knows 10 different languages, has read many books, and has been around a lot. Suppose you are told to imagine the thinking processes, emotions, and ideas of the four persons. Suppose you yourself range somewhere between the average and above-average spectrum, have a B.A. from college, know two languages — English and whatever you learned foreign language class — , and have been around but haven’t done anything extraordinary. Which person would be the biggest challenge for you to ‘figure out’ through your imagination, empathy, and speculation?
You’d likely feel that the person with an IQ of 80s is pretty much ‘duh’ about life. The person with an average IQ might be like most people: Joe Schmoe. A person with above-average IQ and college degree might be more of a challenge but still wouldn’t be anything special. But the person with super-high IQ, lots of knowledge, and interesting ideas about the world — like Henry Kissinger, for example — would be a real challenge for your imagination. You wouldn’t be able to understand him with mere conventional thinking(accustomed to dealing with mostly average people in mundane situations). To get underneath the skin of the supers-smart and super-knowledgeable guy, you would have to think beyond your own capacities. Of course, no matter how much you try, you will fail because your IQ and knowledge-base would only be between average and above-average. No matter how much you try to understand how a super-IQ mind works, you won’t be able to because of your mental limitations. And yet, in straining to understand a case of IQ-and-knoweldge-base much bigger than your own, your power of imagination and speculation will have been stretched and possibly even strengthened. (It’s like David Bowman doesn’t understand what’s happening to him in the Stargate sequence in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but his confrontation with the infinite has surely inspired him to think and imagine beyond the conventional.) It’s like if you’re told to reach for low-hanging fruits, you only need to stretch your limbs or jump a little. But if you’re told to pick the fruit at the top of the tree, no amount of effort will suffice; nevertheless, your constant jumps, futile though they were, will have strengthened your legs, whetted your appetite, and increased your curiosity.
So, even though most of us can never understand the mental processes of someone like Albert Einstein — though we can gradually come to understand the products of his great mind — , our attempt would be a far more interesting challenge as a mental exercise than imagining what goes inside the heads of the likes of Dan ‘Potatoe’ Quayle or Sarah ‘Moose’ Palin.

This is what fascinates us about books, paintings, films, and music created men of genius. It isn’t merely about the pleasure of appreciation but about the portal through which we may try to ‘enter’ into an inner realm of creativity beyond anything we are capable of. And art is special in this regard because it involves genius that is accessible sensually and emotionally even to those without creative genius. Even those who haven’t a clue as to how it was done can enjoy how it is played. In contrast, in order to appreciate math and science at a genius level, one has to be either a well-trained genius or a non-genius who’s devoted many years toward mastering difficult theories. Of course, there’s a degree of this in art appreciation too, especially with modern art where something will likely make much sense only to the ‘initiated’ who understand the theories as to why something that may seem random or confusing(to the general public) may actually be an ‘important’ work of art. In some cases, Modern Art is something of a fraud, i.e. you’re made to feel ‘smart’ with stupid, illustrating how certain kinds of stupids can only be intellectualized.
Without some degree of ‘intellectual’ training, it’s hard to imagine anyone appreciating Andy Warhol or Chantal Akerman. Or consider the ludicrous Chinese Confucian Exam System where one’s intellectual, moral, and cultural status was measured and defined by how well one performed on the ludicrous ‘eight-legged essay’. There are lots of thought systems that are designed not so much to select and promote real intelligence, especially in relation to truth(which is never convenient to the powers-that-be), but to make one FEEL smart and part of a special club of extraordinary people. So, one clings to his/her intellectual and ideological justifications in seeing value in the films of Akerman. Even though the so-called ‘radicals’ take pride in their supposed non-conformism, they are nothing but conformists in their consensus with near-obligatory likes and dislikes that serve as conditions of their membership in the club. So, you MUST like JEANNE DIELMAN and you MUST join the tiresome chorus that denounces THE BIRTH OF A NATION and fascism; and such programmed robots saunter like zombies through every college town or art school.

In a paradoxical way, ‘radicals’ are bound to be more conformist and narrow-minded than even moderates and conservatives because they conceitedly reject everything that is supposedly ‘mainstream’ and mindlessly commit themselves to seemingly fresh(but actually recycled and repackaged)purist causes. But if you reject the views and values that seem most natural and normal, you’re likely to feel lost and confused. Therefore, you are more likely to cling to anything ‘new’ and ‘progressive’ that promises absolute truth, righteousness, and purpose. Consider the German radical left in the 60s and 70s. In having rejected everything about German society(as they even conflated German middle class values with Nazism and the Holocaust), they found themselves directionless and confused, and so, they committed themselves totally and mindlessly to whatever cause that came along with the ‘cachet’ of ‘radical’, ‘freedom-fighting’, or ‘anti-establishment’. Of course, as their revolution failed, and ‘radical’ boomers and ‘generation X-ers’ entered the cultural and academic institutions, their supposedly ‘radical’ ideas became part of the Establishment and were imposed mandatorily on all the young for whom PC was the only ideological game in town. (Though the New Left railed against capitalism, oddly enough the anti-intellectualism of hedonist-and-materialist consumer culture worked in the New-New-Left’s favor. The rise of hedonism meant the main passions of young people would be popular culture and instant pleasure. Hooked on stereophonics, most young people had no use for books and ideas. Thus, their entire world-view was likely to never venture beyond what was mandatorily taught them in the schools. So, if schools pushed PC, most young people had PC as their modicum as ideas/values, especially as they were too busy looking for new pleasures. If our culture was less consumer-hedonist-materialist-oriented and more intellectual-cerebral-ideological, even those raised on PC might look to other venues to further the debate about issues and ideas. People who truly love ideas wanna seek out more ideas, even different ideas. But if most young people just wanna listen to pop music and shake their booties, their ideas-and-values will never venture beyond what was fed to them in schools. Though Francis Fukuyama spoke of End of History of Ideas, with Liberal Democracy being the big and eternal winner, what he missed was that the real winner was not so much liberal democracy but the cult of power. Liberal democracy had intellectual/moral cachet during the Cold War since it was upheld as the white knight in shining armor against grey, drab, dreary, and oppressive totalitarian communism. But the fall of communism brought an end to grand and genuine ideological struggles. Liberal democracy had been a true ideal, even a precious one, because most nations were not liberal-democratic and because the free West seemed to face a genuine threat from the totalitarianism from the East. Thus, liberal democracy was valued not only for its greater production of wealth and power but for its principles. But with the end of the grand threat and with the democratization of much of the world, liberal democracy is something we can take for granted. And people don’t think about what they take for granted. Instead of valuing liberal democracy as an ideal/principle in its own right, people now value what can be gained and won through liberal democracy; and of course, most people want more money, more privilege, and more power. The film THE COUNSELOR by Cormac McCarthy and Ridley Scott powerfully portrays such a post-ideological world where the value of everything is determined by money, power, privilege, sex, intelligence, ruthlessness, cunning, and etc. Consider how Jews had once been genuinely progressive in their struggle for more freedom and liberty as higher principles. They were indeed on the side of liberal democracy as a good in and of itself — at least the anti-communist liberal Jews were. But look at Jews today. They care only about power, wealth, and privilege. They keep accumulating more and more of money and power through a system of liberal democracy, but as every group and every person scramble mainly for more power, privilege, pleasure, money, & advantages, how long can liberal democracy survive as a higher principle? Indeed, if indeed Jews really value the Rule of Law over Rule of Power, shouldn’t they be outraged by America’s favoritism of Zionist occupiers over the Palestinian occupied? Shouldn’t they be outraged by how Wall Street Jews got their boy Obama to ‘bail out’ the ‘too big to fail’ banks that played loose with rule of law to amass huge fortunes under Clinton & Bush II and then played even looser with the rules to get favorite treatment from the government even though their bad behavior was the main reason behind the financial meltdown? And how did a guy like Marc Rich get pardoned by Clinton? So much for the principles of liberal democracy! Liberal democracy was a higher principle when Jews didn’t yet have supreme elite power in the US and when the West felt compelled to morally demonstrate its superiority against totalitarian communism. [Though Western values are still invoked, the notion of restarting a New Cold War on the basis that Putin is New Hitler and Russia’s banning of homo pride parades constitutes the new holocaust is downright ludicrous, a travesty of history and morality.] But liberal democracy is no longer valuable as an ideal or principle since it’s the defacto system of the richest and most powerful nations on earth. It’s only useful as an instrument, tool, machine, and weapon to get more money, gain more power, and monopolize more power for oneself and one’s own group. [Though whites are constantly reminded to think ‘beyond race’, the rise of multi-culturalism has emboldened Jews, homos and non-whites to think and act increasingly in tribal terms of ‘what is good for us?’ than in the citizenist terms of ‘what is good for all of us?’ With whites being demographically eclipsed by non-whites in the West and with most Jews and non-white groups thinking in terms of ‘what is ours?’ than ‘what is all of ours?’, liberal democracy is all but dead as a principle in the West. Jewish War on Whites work on two levels and fronts: narrow Jewish tribalism in cahoots with vague libertarian universalism. So, one bunch of Jews will insist "Jews must think in terms of Jews, Jews, and Jews" and another bunch of Jews, such as Bryan Caplan, will say "whites must think beyond whiteness and embrace the entire world." So, while whites are admonished to hug the world, Jews busily hug only themselves.] Only a fool would say American Jews serve the principle of liberal democracy than making liberal democracy serve the Jews. As liberal democracy continues to be used more as a means of power than a thing of principle, it will become less liberal and less democratic. It will favor those with superior skills at exploiting the rules of liberal democracy for their own benefit — like the Sicilian-American immigrants who used the protection of law to break the law. And with ever greater power, the new elites have turned their world in a new kind of oligarchy. Look at US and EU today, and they operate essentially as rule-by-oligarchy. In that sense, US and EU, though still stronger on rule-of-law, aren’t fundamentally different from Russia, China, and Brazil. A recent Princeton study said that US is essentially an oligarchy than a democracy. The democratic rules are still in place, but the true power is held by those with the connections, money, and control of elite institutions. What the Princeton study failed to mention is that US is less a corporate oligarchy than a Jewish oligarchy. As the honorable Brother Nathanael pointed out, the power that is even more powerful than the corporate oligarchy is the Jewish oligarchy. If corporate oligarchies do indeed comprise the ruling class in America, Exxon Mobil would fulfilled its contract with Russia. Instead, even a corporate mega-giant had to cave to the demands of the Jewish oligarchy that is waging The Jewish War on Russia. If this keeps up, liberal democracy will fail also, if it hasn’t already. So, it seems the real End of History is not political-and-economic-freedom-in-the-form-of-liberal-democracy as an ideal/principle but as a means/practice by which every group tries to gain the most power and money for itself. Liberal democracy in the West basically serves Jewish tribal gangsterism operating on a global scale. Indeed, what kind of a liberal democracy do we have when GOP hopelessfuls grovel before a casino gangster like Sheldon Adelson whose bright foreign policy idea is to drop a nuke on Iran? How does he get away with such a thing, and why hasn’t a single GOP candidate denounced him for it?) Indeed, there’s nothing more tiresome and dreary than listening to a bunch of so-called ‘radicals’ who parrot the same mantras with drone-like predictability colleges, cafes, and social-networking sites.
Anyway, of course it’s far from true that all of Modern Art was crap — though, because of Nazism and its attack on Modern Art as ‘Jewish culture’, there’s been a tendency to conflate anything Modernist with originality, genius, brilliance, and etc. when, in fact, most Modern Art, like most of anything, was imitative, stupid, pointless, and/or ugly — , but because it generally went against the grain of what people naturally felt about or had become accustomed to expect from art, it needed some degree of ‘intellectual’ argument and justification for it to be ‘properly’ understood and appreciated.
However, if a mathematical or scientific truth has nothing to do with how we may feel about it — even if certain dogged passions may have inspired scientists and mathematicians in their respective fields — , appreciation of art cannot be separated from the emotions and sensualities inherent in the work. In the end, art has to seem, feel, and sound ‘true’. It’s like, in the end, food and wine have to be compel the senses and not just the mind.
Though ‘intellectual’ justification can persuade us to see meaning and even find pleasure when they aren’t to be seen or found(by any sane or honest measure), there’s a limit to how much we can be fooled. (For instance, if Chantal Akerman made JEANNE DIELMAN RETURNS where the woman peels potatoes and shines shoes for 20 hrs, even the suckers-for-Akerman will begin to see through the charade.) Also, something that isn’t pleasing immediately still has to offer some kind of pleasure down the line. Bread or pasta isn’t as immediately gratifying as cakes or sweets but rewarding to the taste-buds soon enough. Similarly, even though a more ‘difficult’ musical piece, film, or book may not be immediately pleasing as a pop song, blockbuster movie, or a Stephen King novel(I never read one), it may gradually reveal its depth and complexity and win you over, indeed more than something that is easy and direct.
This was true enough of many great Modern works of art. The problem was Modernism had a tendency to favor displeasure in its own right, as if a work had greater value for its power to offend or upset(the bourgeoisie, often the the straight man and straw target of Modernism). Even if the purpose of a work is to subvert our conventional expectations of pleasure, shouldn’t there be some kind of reward, some effect other than to upset or offend? Some kind of meaning, some kind of insight, some kind of vision, some kind of lesson? Because if something is just ugly, putrid, and displeasing, what value does it have beyond the immediate impact of raising eyebrows? If that’s the essence of art, we might as well stand around a garbage dump and look upon the mess and inhale all the foulness as the hell we deserve — like the tattered-and-fallen bourgeoisie in the post-apocalyptic wasteland in Jean-Luc Godard’s WEEKEND. Or spend a few hours down in the sewer. Or look at homos like George Takei and his ‘white boy ‘lover have ‘gay’ sex via fecal penetration.
Kandinsky
To be sure, many works of Modern Art are neither pleasing nor displeasing; they hardly elicit any kind of emotional response from us. They are clever or creative uses of space, dimensions, or cross-cultural references. Some provoke thought and expand creative possibilities, but many leave us feeling high-and-dry, especially as Modernism, in time, became so ubiquitous in art galleries, art schools, and contemporary art museums all around the world. So, if we wanna dispense with the BS, a truly remarkable work of art has to engage our senses and emotions; it cannot rely on ‘intellectual’ justification alone, especially as nothing in Art — especially in the Modern Era — can be proven ‘objectively’.

Even though ‘intellectualization’ of art may strike some people as impressive and daunting, it is, more often than not, a disingenuous attempt by uncreative mediocrities to gain an advantage over truly creative individuals whose genius is untouchable. After all, there are many more very smart people — and even more not-so-smart people pretending to be smart — than there are artistic geniuses. Even though great artists tend to be pretty smart, creativity and visionariness aren’t merely about the intelligence/intellect. It’s about the power of imagination, alternative ways of seeing, feeling, and hearing. In some ways, too much intellect can work against creativity since intellect tends to analyze and interpret what has to be ingested and processed through the sublime realm of the subconscious for it to take shape as art. This is why Susan Sontag, as smart as she was, didn’t have it in her to become a film-maker. This is why even the most intelligent music critics wouldn’t be able to write a decent song, let alone a decent symphony. Since artistic genius is untouchable, it’s convenient for the non-artistic(generally critics, scholars, political activists, and sometimes moral crusaders) to formulate ‘intellectual’ and/or ideological conceits about creativity so that one’s ‘intellect’(or set of values) may take precedence over something-of-genius that defies and overwhelms the logic of the mind or the matter of the heart. Once one’s preconceived idea-of-art is culturally made to take precedence over the sublime power of genius, one can invoke the idea to promote something-of-correctness over something-of-genius: Nazis promoting their tawdry neo-classicism over great works of Modern Art, especially by Jews, Communists promoting ‘socialist realism’ over ‘individualist adventurism’, politically correct idiots favoring MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET over IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE because the former as a single-mother, moronic feminists favoring Chantal Akerman over Lina Wertmuller, etc. It’s a form of aesthetic puritanism that insists on correctness-of-the-mind over the power-of-the-senses. It’s easier to fool the mind that something ungreat is great than to fool the senses that something that great is ungreat. Whatever one thinks of Disco as a whole, your honest senses will have to recognize Bee Gees’ "Staying Alive" as a great song.

Whatever you think of Negroes, you have to repress your senses to deny the genius and beauty of Marvin Gaye’s "What’s Going On".


But then, ‘intellectualism’ can also useful to genuine artists since artistic genius is rarely long-lasting. Even most great artists produce genuinely great(as opposed to merely superior) work only for a short duration. It’s like Paul McCartney was on fire as a Beatle from 1964 to 1970 but only a talented pro afterwards. It’s like Robert Altman was on fire with MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER and NASHVILLE but ranged from very good to very bad with the rest of his output. It’s like the bulk of Hemingway’s reputation is based on his first few novels. It is the rare genius, who like Beethoven or Kubrick, cranks out one masterpiece after another over a long period. So, once a genuinely great artist loses his muse, all he has left to fall back on is his legendary reputation and the diehard support of his ‘intellectual’ acolytes who employ all means of sophistry to hail his new work as ‘significant’ and ‘important’ when it’s likely to be forgotten sooner than later. Bob Dylan used to get this treatment in the 70s and 80s, with some music critics ‘intellectually’ twisting themselves into knots to convince the world that Dylan produced yet another great one when, in fact, with the exception of BLOOD ON THE TRACKS, Dylan was lucky to have released a decent album, like PLANET WAVES, DESIRE, INFIDELS, and EMPIRE BURLESQUE.
(In some cases, certain artists seem willfully self-destructive in their preference for intellectualism over sensualism and sense-ism. Though Pier Paolo Pasolini was never one of the great masters of cinema, he made two memorable and powerful works in ACCATONE and THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. He also made some interesting works like HAWKS AND SPARROWS and MAMMA ROMA. But then, he adopted silly theories about film-making and began to dispense with acting & other ‘conventions’ and mostly ordered his camera man and actors to wander around aimlessly, resulting in one dull film after another that may have seemed interesting enough on paper but arrived stillborn on celluloid. It’s telling that Pasolini hated Bertolucci’s sensual-and-powerful LAST TANGO IN PARIS and offered the highly intellectual/theoretical SALO as a kind of rebuttal. SALO is one of the most unwatchably vile, pretentious, and stupid things ever made. It’s so awful that even Pasolini’s fans have a hard time coming to grips with it and with Pasolini’s sanity at the time. Dennis Hopper’s THE LAST MOVIE and Peckinpah’s BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA, nutty as they are, are models of sanity and professionalism in comparision. SALO is that horrid.) In the end, no amount of ‘intellectual’ justification can sell us on the worth of an art work if it fails to engage us on some emotional/sensual level. PERSONA is a great work because its ideas have been transmogrified into images and sounds; or, one could argue, the images and sounds that overwhelmed Bergman during his bout of illness have been shaped into semblance of ideas. (Roger Ebert argued that books are better conveyors of ideas whereas cinema is essentially an emotional/sensual art form, and while he is essentially correct, it’s also true that images-sounds-emotions can be pregnant with ideas and thoughts, i.e. while some images/sounds excite us as merely impressive images/sounds and some emotions affect us as merely heartfelt emotions, others have the power to inspire ideas, indeed more so than words do. This is clearly true of many modern paintings. Most traditional paintings have a pictorial quality that is easily processable. While one can pore through them and analyze them, the immediate response is sensual and/or emotional. We may be impressed by their beauty, grace, horror, etc. We may feel inspired, moved, blissful, or saddened. In contrast, there’s an intriguing quality to much of modernist paintings that, first and foremost, provoke questions in our heads. The images suggest at something that elicits ‘intellectual’ participation. Even though they aren’t conveyed in words, they inspire the use of words on our part. This is also true of certain religious works, such as Buddhist mandalas that serve as guides to meditation and thought. In cinema, this was especially true of Sergei Eisenstein, Stanley Kubrick, Alain Resnais, Luis Bunuel, Jean-Luc Godard, Michelangelo Antonioni, Raul Ruiz, and Hiroshi Teshigahara — also, to an extent, Orson Welles and Ingmar Bergman. When we watch a David Lean movie, we may or may not choose to think about it. But even if we choose not to, we aren’t missing much since its power essentially derives from pictorial and emotional qualities. But one cannot approach the full measure of the greatness of works like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and BARRY LYNDON without thinking about them — besides, thought processes can involve visual cues, as in IQ tests based on shapes and patterns, or board games like Go and Chess, which are like images + math + strategy. As wondrous and impressive as the images may be, there’s an unnerving quality suggesting at a truth that is more-than-meets-the-eye and more-than-can-be-felt. Of course, ideas-conveyed-through-intriguing-ness-of-images-and-sounds cannot be as lucid and articulate as ideas-conveyed-through-words, but paradoxically, that’s why the former can be even more powerful. Whereas ideas-conveyed-through-words can only mean what is clearly stated, ideas-conveyed-through-the-intriguing-ness-of-images-and-sounds can suggest infinite variations of an idea. This is why Arthur C. Clarke’s novel version of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is less thought-provoking than Kubrick’s film version. Same goes for the novel version of THE SHINING by Stephen King in relation to the film version by Stanley Kubrick. To be sure, words are often used suggestively through imagery, metaphors, symbolism, and etc. Words can be used to suggest various and even contradictory ideas within a single element, and the masters of fiction, such as Franz Kafka, were experts at this. Also, if an image can suggest many different ideas, a word can suggest many different images. We can read any number of ideas into an image, but we can see any number of images in a word. If TWILIGHT the movie, Bella only looks like Kristen Stewart, but in TWILIGHT the novel, Bella can look like anything the reader chooses. At any rate, while Roger Ebert was right that words are better are expressing ideas[at least in a clear, rational, and logical way], images-and-sounds may actually be just as or even more effective than words in suggesting ideas. Sergei Eisenstein and other Soviet masters, especially Dziga Vertov, understood this principle about the power of images from the start, which is why their films weren’t only visually impressive but intellectually evocative. They seemed to simultaneously show and say something despite the near absence of words.) PERSONA’s ideas have been turned into ‘erotics of art’ — Sontag’s coinage — through Bergman’s magical mastery of the medium. This is why, in the long run, no one will give a shit about the likes of Chantal Akerman, Hou Hsian-Hsien(how many are talking about him today), Bruno Dumont(forgotten already), and Theo Angelopoulos(the constipated Greek). In the long run, it’s Resnais MURIEL that will be acknowledged as a masterwork, along with VERTIGO and L’APPARTEMENT. Time will tell.
Barbara 'Freddy' Kruger. Your 'art' sucks donkey dick.
Paradoxically, ‘intellectualism’ in art often leads to the cult of faith because ‘intellectualism’ is often served to promote worthless or pretentious stuff AND because there’s no way to ‘scientifically’ prove any intellectual argument in art. A math problem can be intellectually proven; a scientific theory can be intellectually demonstrated in the lab. But no matter how impressive and convincing an intellectual argument the realm of art may be, it’s a matter of persuasion than proof. Genuinely great works of art don’t need much intellectual justification since their greatness should be apparent to most people with a sound pair of eyes and good sense. Therefore, intellectualism is often exercised to defend or promote works that most people fail to recognize as great. An intellectual promoting an obviously great work of art may come across as insignificant, unnecessary, and even parasitic. Who needs him for us to notice and admire the work’s greatness? And isn’t he trying to have some of the work’s greatness rub off on him via ‘intellectual’ association with it? But an intellectual who comes to the defense of an ignored, forgotten, obscure, or maligned work can pose as a kind of hero, a savior of a ‘neglected masterpiece’ victimized by our collective ignorance and a redeemer of our benighted souls by finally making us see the light. But when something that is truly stupid, boring, retarded, demented, and/or just plain moronic is the object of ‘intellectual’ defense and promotion, one can’t help hearing the sirens of the bullshit detector. But then, one may still hunger for recognition and approval from the esteemed cultural community(dominated by ‘progressives’ and establishment ‘radicals’). Thus, one may embrace with FAITH the ‘intellectual’ argument in defense of the work in question. And this explains why so many people have been duped into claiming — pseudo-intellectually, of course — that JEANNE DIELMAN is a great and important film. The matter of ‘intellect’ has become a matter of faith. And this kind of neo-puritanism will not tolerate any honest emotion/intuition that sees and smells the stale baloney for what it is. It’s like trying to convince people with all sorts of bogus ‘intellectual’ conceits that a very ugly person is actually beautiful. But of course, since one’s honest senses/emotions still can’t help noticing the ugliness, he or she will have to rely on the power of faith in the ‘intellectual’ conceit.
Indeed, isn’t it ironic that the so-called rational secular community relies so much on faith as to the supposed greatness, beauty, meaning, and truth of so many things? But then, only faith can convince their naturally skeptical minds & senses to accept all the PC nonsense that clutters the media and classrooms. (One prominent fact of the art world is the obvious sophistry of certain critics and ‘experts’ who hold sway over so many dupes who, being mindless, choose to be fooled and over so many cynics who, being savvy, choose to play along to use art as an investment portfolio; like the stock market, the art world is a lot more profitable for the sharks if it’s dominated by hearsay, rumors, opacity, and hype than by careful & patient assessment of value.) Many people prefer faith in certain critics, experts, and scholars than the independence of their own emotions about films, books, and etc. (But what’s truly galling about the current state of affairs is that so much of what amounts to consensus-thinking is sold as ‘independence’ and ‘individuality’. Notice all the feminists who spout the official line of Salon.com but pretend to be free thinkers. Think of all the mindless sheep who go along with the homo agenda but think they made up their own minds. This is the genius of the Jewish oligarchal control over us. The more the Jewish python winds around us and suffocates the air out of us, the more we think we are being freed and released.) Many people are afraid of honest/independent thinking since it has a way of going against the taboos and dogmas of any age, and most people are too chickenshit to think, feel, and say anything that might get them ostracized and shunned. (But then, people don’t like to feel cowardly before oppression either. It leaves a bad taste in their mouths. So, the Jewish trick has been to pressure and intimidate people but also make them feel that their submission to Jewish pressure/intimidation is a kind of liberation and independence. Though Political Correctness is snuffing out freedom all across the Western World, we are told over and over how we should be so happy to live in a ‘liberal democracy’ that is supposedly especially ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’ precisely because people in the West are more likely to bend over to the demands of Jews and homos. In other words, we Americans are so free unlike the oppressed people of Russia because, whereas Russians stand for majority rule and Russian pride, we Americans have rejected white majority pride & power in favor of bending over to homos and getting on our knees to suck the Jew. How free are we! It’s pathetic watching John McCain, a shameless running dog of the Jew, barking loudly at Putin as if he himself is a free spirit while Putin is a slave to the old Soviet ways.) And if intellectualism is too much for some people, they suck up to the ‘popular critics’ whose chumminess with film-makers, colleagues, and theirs fans is often sugary and sickening.
(Though there’s a lot of bad art out there — and worse, crooks and liars rule and rig the art world — , we mustn’t throw out the baby with the bath-water because there are still lots of fine artists. The problem is, as the art world has really become a branch of finance, the kinds of art that garner the most attention are those geared to generate the most buzz, and buzz is created by ‘controversy’. Since few things are genuinely controversial anymore — in a world where transgender males use the women’s washroom — , the buzz relies on ‘ironic hype’, an artificial form of ‘controversy’ akin to man-made ‘lighting inside a plasma sphere. So, we have make-believe controversy for make-believe hype for make-believe artistic value for make-believe financial worth. As such ‘art’ has no permanent value — except as artifacts of economic history — , their worth is in the trading than in the preserving. If someone owns a Van Gogh with no intention of selling, its artistic value remains intact. But something by Barbara Kruger, Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, or Jeff Koons only has value as a commodity of made-up controversy among cynical/narcissistic insiders, corrupt/vapid connoisseurs, and active traders/investors. Once the buzz and trading die down, it has no value, which is why Hirst went from a nobody to king and then back to nobody again. As the value of art is determined by the venue of hype and since so much money chases after just a handful of works that fetch the highest prices, most of the buzz centers around unscrupulous ‘artists’ who are really little more than sociopaths adept at playing the game; and of course, there’s something like insider-trading in the art world, e.g. the well-connected could buy something worthless for peanuts and then the worthless item could be hyped in significance and value by curators, critics, and academics who are all part of the circus; and then, the insider-investor made a killing. As for artists of genuine worth who quietly devote their lives to their craft, they get little recognition since art no longer commands the kind of public respect as it did long ago. When was the last time a work of painting was a genuine cultural event? Though Picasso and Dali were savvy businessmen, their devotion to art was genuine and they did produce masterpieces. And their significance would have been recognized even if they hadn’t made a single penny. Today, there is no interest in art in the culture-at-large; traditional art strikes most people are ‘boring’, and the avant-garde novelty of Modern Art has been passe for nearly half a century. So, the only active interest in the arts is financial and status-oriented. If the motto of the academia in the 80s was ‘publish or perish’, the motto of the art world is ‘stink or sink’. Of course, the nature of the ‘stink’ is carefully regulated by the powers-that-be. Hirst and Emin had the right ‘stink’ and got noticed. Though there are many decent artists out there, they won’t get any notice unless they stir up some ‘stink’ by turning their art into some kind of stunt or circus. But then, how did the homo agenda get so much notice? Homo have a knack for making a stink, and the Jew media mixed it with a lot of fancy perfume — just like Wall Street Jews took worthless mortgages and processed them into AAA-rated investment products to peddle all over the world; just like Jordan Belfort sold junk behind the Wasp facade, today’s Wall Street Jewish oligarchs sold junk all over the world by branding their garbage with the American label of reliance & responsibility built up by Wasps. Furthermore, even if an artist wanted to get noticed via controversy, he or she faces two problems. It’s difficult to be controversial in our libertine society. Furthermore, being controversial isn’t as important as being favored by the controversy-generator that is controlled by the elites. After all, what attains the label of ‘controversy’ is usually a matter of selection by the powers-that-be in the media and academia. If one does something controversial but is ignored and/or suppressed by the powers-that-be, the controversy-generator, it will all have been for nought. Something said to be ‘controversial’ becomes part of the national/cultural/social dialogue only if it’s approved and favored as controversy-worthy by the powers-that-be. ‘Controversy’ implies that something is worthy of thought, debate, and argument. If the elites don’t want something to be discussed or argued, it will be condemned as ‘unacceptable’, ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, ‘toxic’, ‘divisive’, and/or ‘hateful’ than as ‘controversial’. So, more often than not, ‘controversial’ amounts to ‘approved for discussion by the powers-that-be’. Jewish powers-that-be don’t even acknowledge people like Rick Sanchez and Jason Richwine as worthy ‘figures of controversy’; instead, such figures are relegated to the ‘unacceptable’ category and must be fired & blacklisted, virtually disappeared from the main venues of discourse and discussion. Though Jews rose in power by expanding the perimeters of what was ‘controversial’, once they gained elite power they narrowed the boundaries, indeed to the point where nothing can be discussed in the US if it displeases Jews and their mini-me allies the homos and mulattos. There was a time when David Irving was a controversial figure; today, he’s virtually a banned figure; there was a time when Solzhenitsyn was a controversial but admired figure; today, his book on Russians and Jews has still not been published by the Jew-run publishing industry. So, if an artist or celebrity wants to be truly controversial by broaching certain issues about race, sex/gender, and Jewish power, he or she will realize that, even as our society has become more libertine in sexual areas, it has also become more constricted and restrictive in political, ideological, and intellectual areas. We are essentially living in a Jewish oligarch-gangster state. As for the art world, it’s nearly hopeless. In the past, the connection between money and art wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. After all, most people had little appreciation and patience for serious/high art, and it was up to the rich class to patronize, fund, preserve, and manage high/serious art for the more cultivated and for posterity. High art needed the protection of money outside the usual mass market forces, as indeed many art museums and opera halls would have closed long ago without government funds and/or donations from rich folks who care about Arts & Culture. But the situation today is different, with corrupt market forces even crazier than on Wall Street raging through the art world and determining the value of art. Big money, instead of protecting high culture from the marketplace, has debased high culture into a game of high prices with no consideration of real artistic worth.) Anyway, the special value of great art lies in its being, at once, elitist and ‘democratic’. We are presented with something far beyond us — something most of us couldn’t achieve in a million years — and yet so accessible to us on the emotional/sensual level. (Is art closer to science or technology? To the extent that art often tends to be exploratory and speculative, it might be said to be like a science. But to the extent that unfathomable genius is used to create something that brings joy to countless people, art is like technology that uses the most difficult scientific laws to create machines of remarkable ease.) When we listen to great music, it is within us, as if emanating from our very souls. When we watch a great film, we effortlessly become part of its universe. When we read a great book, we become immersed in the story and characters. Though more intelligent and educated audiences might appreciate the work with greater depth — though ‘excessive’ knowingness may foster detachment and dispassion — , even most ‘untrained’ audience members could feel the full brunt of its power. Of course, there are some works of art that require a degree of erudition, taste, and sensibility(and sensitivity) for proper appreciation, but many people readily recognize the special qualities of great works that have lasted through the ages. One doesn’t have to be schooled to be awed by the Parthenon or Egyptian tombs. Even an ‘Ugly American’ tourist can surely appreciate the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Even an uneducated Iranian from some rural village will surely be stirred by the ruins of Persepolis or the music of Bach.

Anyway, art sometimes functions like a disposable religion. Like religions and mythologies, art relies on our imagination and suspension of disbelief. Novels, movies, drama, poetry, music, paintings, and sculpture do their magic by facilitating our belief in the illusion. Though a painting is materially nothing more than colors brushed onto a piece of cloth, we ‘believe’ in the image on the canvas, indeed as if we’re staring at a ‘heightened reality’(perhaps one that is ‘more real than real’) of people, trees, stars, animals, or whatever. Often, art makes us focus our attention on things we otherwise might not; food items in a kitchen might not interest us but, if rendered into a painting, might seem significant and meaningful. Though sculpture is really a piece of metal or rock, we ‘believe’ in the forms carved or molded from the material, as if we’re looking at humans, animals, or mythical creatures. Though music is artificially created patterns of sound, we feel and ‘believe’ in the emotions they stir as if those are our emotions, sensations, or spirits flowing out of our souls. Without such element of faith and ‘belief’ premised on the suspension of disbelief and the desire of surrender, we cannot feel the full force of art. What’s the point of looking at a painting while reminding oneself every second that it’s just a piece of cloth with colors dabbed onto it? What’s the point of watching a movie while reminding oneself endlessly that it’s just a projected image on a screen from a film imprinted with still images that only create the illusion of motion by being run through a projector at 24 frames per second? For us to get to the heart of any work of art, we have to let ourselves be transfixed or hypnotized to some degree(and the work of art needs a certain quality that has the power to spellbind us; without that element, it is more an exegesis or essay on art than an actual work of art. Even when art makes us think than feel, our thoughts navigate through the sensations and feelings, i.e. the fascination comes from the fusion of images and ideas and/or from the infusion of contradictory meanings in images and sounds or combinations thereof. An idea offered as an idea merely needs to be rationally processed. It works on the level of the intellect and logic. In contrast, ideas offered, presented, demonstrated through, or infused into images and sounds take on ambiguities and complexities that are bigger than the idea: more confusing, more mysterious, more challenging. DNA is the idea of life, but life in all its varieties are the ‘arts’ of life. We approach the DNA intellectually and rationally, but we cannot dismiss our emotions about all the forms of life that come in so many colors and shapes that we call ‘beautiful’. A work of art that encourages thought is like the tale of the Prodigal Son. It’s as if the artist is trying to recover the pure idea lost through its sensual practice in the world. Eric Rohmer focused his attention on various individuals caught up in complicated relations, and from their actions he sought to derive the idea of faith as he believed it to be or wanted it to be as a Catholic. Whether one believes in religion or science, there’s the sense that the ‘in the beginning was the word’. In the Gospel according to John, the Word was with God, the Word was God. According to science, the ‘word’ is the Laws of Nature. From the pure Word of God came everything and everyone that we can possibly see, feel, and know. From the simplest atoms and the Laws of Nature came countless varieties of matter that constitutes the cosmos, from the giant stars to tiny snails. The intellectual tries to understand truth and reality as a system of ideas, whereas the artist tries to represent, reflect, glorify, or explore truth and reality through the imagination of forms: characters, figures, and things through space and/or time. In this sense, all works of art are profoundly ‘idolatrous’ because the ideas and themes are represented through tangible-seeming people, places, and things. While some people are content to be thinkers while some people are content to be artists, others are primarily thinkers who, however, prefer to explore their ideas through art. Aldous Huxley is prime example. To a lesser extent, it’s also true of David Mamet, whose works are theorems on power and paranoia. Sergei Eisenstein primarily saw himself as a thinker/theorist testing his ideas on images, but the power and poetry of his images transcended whatever ideas he was trying to convey through them. Indeed, art has this power to subsume whatever set of ideas that tries to contain and define it. Consider the symphonies of Dmitri Shostakovich. Though composed to represent specific historical events, the emotions and sensations are deeper, wider, more universal, and more mysterious than the intellectual-ideological-political justification behind them. And then, there are artists like Kubrick and Welles. Do they use images to illustrate an idea? Do they invoke ideas to clarify images? The fusion of idea/thought and image/feeling is so sublime in their works — as in the universe of Franz Kafka — that resolution is impossible). Of course, art, though like religion in some ways, cannot be religion. After all, after our experience with the work of art in question is over, we can dispose of our belief and go on with our lives. In contrast, religion is where your faith remains intact whether you are inside or outside the church/temple, whether you’re praying or you’re playing. If you believe in God or some gods, He or they are always real within your heart. Religion is not like a movie where you have faith in the magic inside the theater but lose it once you’re outside. God or gods are not psychologically disposable like art is — though some works of art or entertainment have a powerful hold on some people: Consider all those creepy STAR TREK fans who even want their cult to be recognized as a religion by the American government.
(There are also works of art/literature that have gained a quasi-religious/spiritual cachet due to either cult devotion and/or establishment support. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE has become like a personal bible for several generations due to both cult following and selection by public education as sacred text for youth. In the case of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, it would likely have been forgotten, but the powers-that-be elevated it to secular biblical status. Indeed, there have been many cases throughout history where the fictional telling became the legend favored over the fact. But then, even real events can be spun essentially into fictions, indeed as Jewish-dominated media’s coverage of recent events in Ukraine has shown. History is defined as a remembrance, study, and understanding of the past, but it is, of course, also a tool of power. And as a political weapon, it relies as much on amnesia as on memory. History remembers not only to remember but to justify or condemn certain groups. As every people seek justification via context, it’s crucial that some things are remembered while other things are blocked into amnesia. After all, if we remember ‘too much’, the side that seeks justification could also find itself accused and condemned. For example, recently the Jewish bosses around Obama ordered monkey boy to bomb ISIS or ISIL in Syria. To the amnesiac, this might be seen as Obama stepping up to the plate to kill some ‘bad guys’ who are spreading terror in the Middle East. But the amnesiac doesn’t know that Syria and Iraq are in such bad shape precisely because the Zionists, Saudi Arabia, and the US have been funding, equipping, and aiding Muslim radicals all over the Middle East in order to destabilize Shia power in Syria, Iraq, and Iran. So, the wider context undermines the Narrative of Obama-finally-taking-action-to-beat-bad-guys. The context reminds us that US helped create the ‘bad guys’. Similarly, consider how the Jew-run media have covered the crisis in Ukraine. All this time, Putin has been forced to react to events that were triggered by globalist-Jewish manipulation and intervention. But since Jewish power/influence is a taboo subject in the Jew-dominated media and think-tanks, we’ve been sold the official history of Putin ‘invading’ Crimea, Russia intervening in Eastern Ukraine, and etc. Because Americans are amnesiac about how Jews created the trouble in the first place, they only see Putin as the ‘aggressor’, the ‘new Hitler’. It’d be like Nazi Germany invading Russia and then bitching and whining that Russians are using violence against Germans. This is how Jews play the game. Their use of history is as much about inducing amnesia on us as about reminding us of certain events. Indeed, the entire history of Jewish-Gentile relations has been rewritten this way by hideous Jews. Jews make us remember all the bad things done to Jews by gentiles but suppress via historical amnesia all the bad things Jews have done to gentiles that might have triggered the anti-Jewish hostility in the first place.) Art is like religion or mythology turned into a fashion where you can ‘believe’ in ‘this’ today, ‘believe’ in ‘that’ tomorrow, and so on. You can juggle various ‘beliefs’ and partake of instant ‘prophecies’ that come and go. In our age of convenience than of conviction, many people prefer something they can put on and take off like articles of clothing. Indeed, religion itself has been made into something more convenient and fun, like an extension of what one seeks in pop music, movies, TV talk shows, and etc.
At the dawn of human culture, creativity and conviction were intertwined as shaman-artists carved and molded objects that were both stimulating to the senses and sacred to the soul; and besides, among the primitives there was no clear borderline between the sensual body and the soulful spirit(or between the world of man and the world of nature). Or shaman-performers carried out songs-and-dances that were thought to be imbued with magical powers, e.g. the American Indian Rain Dance or ritualistic dances of various communities around the world during harvesting times. Among pagan cultures, the entertainment value of creativity need not be an affront to the sacredness of their spiritual order. As pagan cultures generally had many gods of varying dispositions, there could be a god of celebration — and even of debauchery — as well as a god of sobriety and order. So, the Greeks had Bacchus as well as Apollo and Athena. Creativity in the service of spirituality need not even be purely sacred since pagan religions/practices tended to be multi-faceted. It could make room for profane form of spirituality of an almost demonic nature. But in the monotheistic culture of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, creativity was far more problematic because there was faith in only one God who was said to be the one and only God, and the perfect and pure God. So, ideally at any rate, creativity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam must only be sacred and pure. There’s no room for the kind of ‘debauchery’ and ‘profanity’ that were common in Greek mythology and Hinduism. According to Judeo-derived monotheism, the only kind of acceptable creativity is one that pays homage to the greatness of the one and only perfect God. And ideally at any rate, idolatry should be avoided at all cost, and this became central to Judaism, Islam, and Protestantism — whereas Catholics and Orthodox Churches settled for some measure of compromise between the ideal and the idol.

And yet, because creativity became so bound with a restrictive(repressive of the expressive) conception of spirituality, there was a greater impetus for creativity to make a complete break from spirituality in the West than anywhere else in the world. In pagan civilizations, one could be creative in a more free-wheeling, free-flowing, diverse, and multi-faceted way since there were so many gods and spirits to worship, celebrate, pay homage to, and etc. One could build idols to pure gods or to profane gods, one could paint pictures of saintly heroes/heroines or debauched spirits/immortals. Thus, there was no need for a total separation of creativity from spirituality in order for creativity to be relatively free and adventurous. In pagan cultures, one could even creatively ‘celebrate’ and ‘glorify’ the forces of the dark as they too were part of the religious/spiritual pantheon; furthermore, there was no clear division between the pure and profane in paganism, therefore, as often as not, one worshiped the bad with the good. Purity in Hinduism is more ritualistic than moralistic, as can be seen in the film DHARM where the Hindu holy man is more obsessed with Hindu rituals of purity than the moral purity of universal love and compassion. In contrast, creativity in the spiritual world of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity had to take care not to befoul the pure/holy with profanity, i.e. the Godly and Divine were totally pure & good and could not co-exist with anything suggesting less than purity and holiness. (Perhaps, this was why the concept that came to constitute the core of Christianity was offensive to most Jews. While many Jews were willing to accept Jesus as a great man or prophet, the idea that He is the Son of God, therefore God, who got whupped and nailed to a Cross had a way of associating the purity of God with the foulness of the world.) Yet, paradoxically, the more restrictive creative norm in the Christian West eventually led to the explosion of the greatest and freest creativity in the history of mankind. This seems counter-intuitive since one would assume pagan civilizations with more ‘tolerant’ religions — with many gods, heroes, visions, modes, values, truths, etc. — would be creatively more fertile. And yet, because of their relative tolerance on creative matters, there was less impetus among the creative to make a decisive break with spirituality. Since pagan cultures allowed a wider range of expressions in accordance to the multi-faceted nature of their religions — ranging from pure to profane(Hindu god Shiva is a combination of purity and profanity) — , creative people didn’t feel they had to make a decisive break with spirituality to explore and express the fuller spectrum of human imagination. In contrast, Western artists, at some point, realized that they were limited to celebrating only the pure and holy themes within their spiritual order, and therefore, the ONLY way they were going to gain any real creative range was to find some way to separate creativity from spirituality. Perhaps, that had something to do with the rise of secular art in the West.
It’s like if a parent is rather tolerant and permissive, a child may stick with the parent for a long time. Even though full freedom isn’t granted in the house, there’s enough freedom so that the child feels he’s free enough. So, there’s less impetus for him to break free from his parents. But in household where the parents only allow the proper kind of behavior, the child needs to make a complete break from his parents in order to be free. Since his break will have been total, he will be freer than the child who remains in the house of permissive parents who, by the way, still have the ultimate authority over him. So, paradoxically, allowing some degree of freedom may actually dampen the appetite for total freedom, whereas denying freedom outright may lead to a rebellion that leads to much greater freedom. Of course, if the tyranny is powerful enough, the oppressed/repressed doesn’t really have a choice. But if the tyranny is pervasive but far from total, the repressed may choose to make a clean break and find their own way of freedom.
This is why we need to be cautious about democracy-under-political-correctness. Though PC keeps eroding our freedoms and rights away, we still feel ‘free enough’, and that fact dampens our will to rise up and rebel against the system or to make a clean break with the repressive order and establish our own order of freedom. The elites of EU, US, Russia, and China are all, more or less, working along the same principles: allow just enough freedom for us to be ‘sufficiently content’ within the current order. After all, if they decided to take away all our freedoms, we will wake up, rise up, and fight for and demand true freedom in opposition to the globalist order dominated by Jews. Sometimes, your oppressor is a better liberator than your enabler. Your oppressor may leave you no choice but to get off your ass and make a clean break to be free, whereas your enabler allows just enough freedom for you tolerate his domination over you.

Anyway, great art awakens us to a power far beyond what most of us are capable of. Some street musician beating on drums is nothing special. With training, most people could do what the street performer does. But when we listen to the music of a true master(such as Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Burt Bacharach, Carole King, etc), we can’t help feeling it’s beyond the limits of the ‘humanly possible’. Nevertheless, even if we can’t grasp the true essence of the genius(and likely, the great artists don’t know either, preferring to appreciate their talent as momentary gifts that keep on giving until the muse runs dry), it could be argued that our attempt to understand has a broadening and expansive effect on our own power of imagination and wonderment.
What goes for art also goes for religion. When primitive proto-man only felt, behaved, and reasoned in terms of the ‘real’(in direct relation to the physical world all around them), their sense of being could never be anything more than the actual reality around them. And their manner of thought could not expand beyond the limitations of experience.
But when primitive man began to think in terms of spirits, forces, and gods beyond the crude actuality of the human/physical world, his mental horizons also began to expand in terms of his relation to the larger world, which, in turn, may have broadened his sense of potential. (If people only think in terms of the possible in direct relation to the world they know, they are less likely to venture beyond survivalist conventions accepted as the ONLY means available to mankind.) If the world was seen as guided by spirits and great forces, it began to take on a semblance of order and higher meaning. Reality would seem less random and chaotic since one would believe that some spiritual ‘law’ is behind everything. Even though primitive man was ultimately wrong in his ‘theory’ of reality/nature, he began to perceive and participate in the world in a more significant and meaningful way, indeed as if there’s a higher truth/power/principle governing the operations of the world. (Consider the stabilizing & inspiring influence of the concept of the World Tree in Germanic mythology. The world of the Germanic barbarians was dark and brutal, but the idea-image[or ‘ideage’ or ‘imea’]of a great tree that united sky, earth, and underworld provided the Germanic tribes with a profound sense of connectedness to all things natural, human, and beyond-man.) Thus able to feel and think in a more cosmically-ordered way, there was a higher chance that primitive man would create an orderly community from nature and then apart from nature. The human mind increasingly began to work in accordance to the ability to imagine what isn’t than merely in accordance to his ability to assess what is. (This is also true of society-to-society relations throughout history. There is a tendency of a civilization to become overly conservative and arrive at the conclusion that its achievements are the summit of all that are humanly possible. And when such a civilization comes in contact with comparable or inferior civilizations, its self-regarding convictions harden even more. But when the civilization comes in contact with a much richer, more advanced, and more powerful civilization, there could be an impetus toward not only imitation but inspiration. When Japan opened its eyes to the much more advanced West, it wasn’t merely content to imitate the West; Japan also caught the inspiration bug with which to imagine and advance into the future on its own terms — in some areas, even beyond the West. But no people caught the inspiration bug more than Western Europeans did beginning with the Renaissance, which wasn’t merely am imitation of the past but an inspired leaping beyond it. If Western Europeans arising out of the Dark and Middle Ages had merely been good at imitation, they could not have surpassed the Ancients; they would have amounted to a pale shadow of an earlier greater world. They surpassed and went far beyond the Classical World because their power of imagination was sparked and inspired by a vision of a bygone world that seemed infinitely greater than any they could ever achieve on their own. Had the achievements of the Ancients struck them as only moderately impressive, Western Europeans may not have been so inspired. Instead, when confronted with the rediscovery of the Classic World, Western Europeans were so impressed that they believed their own achievements could never match those of the Ancients. And yet, such passion and reverence for the unsurpassable paradoxically energized them with the inspiration and imagination to surpass the Ancients by leaps and bounds in arts, science, math, laws, governance, technology, medicine, and etc. This is something that the Chinese are beginning to figure out. Thus far, they focused on imitation of the West, but it’s beginning to dawn on them that the more important quality they must take from the West is the power of inspiration so that the fire of imagination and innovation will burn within the heart of China itself. Perhaps the fall of Rome and the loss of Classical glory in Western Europe paradoxically strengthened the power of Classical Civilization as an ideal because it was turned into myth, and few things are as powerful as myths. In the Byzantine East, the Classical World lived on and was subsumed by the new Christian order. Though the old pagan civilization was gone, it wasn’t lost and its achievements were visible everywhere. But such continuity made it seem ‘boring’ and ‘static’, mere facts of life and mundane details of their world. In contrast, the sense of tragic loss in the West and the hope of recovery turned the Classical World into a thing of myth, and myths inspire. It’s like Merlin is, in some ways, more powerful when he returns as a dream in EXCALIBUR. It’s like Jews were especially inspired and energized with the idea of Israel because it was like turning a lost myth into recovered reality. Anyway, it could be homos played a key role in the advance of civilization since their unnatural sexual nature and deviant sensibility applied greater pressure to find new expressions and meanings through imagination.) And as mankind grew further away from nature, his conception of spirits took on a more human-form, as most notably with the Ancient Greeks who worshiped human-like gods. Over time, gods became more like ‘high concept gods’, and such gods inspired mankind to think in higher terms; after all, gods not only serve as objects of worship but also as role models. Greater the gods, greater their inspiration to man. Also, worship of gods isn’t merely about making offerings but trying to understand the minds of gods. Since gods are said to be wiser, more knowledgeable, more intelligent, and more formidable than mankind, human worshipers of gods must think harder, imagine deeper, and meditate further to understand the immortal realm of the mind than the mortal one. (To be sure, one could argue that, in some ways, gods are easier to understand than man because, as great as gods could be, they are the products of visions, ideals, and aspirations, whereas even the most ordinary humans are products of reality that is endlessly complex. Religion and mythology, however complex as they may be, are about the meaning we make of the world whereas reality is everything that is meaningful and meaningless. Reality excludes nothing.
As the character of ‘Nixon’ says of the godlike persona of Kennedy in Oliver Stone’s film, "When they look at you, they see what they want to be. When they look me at me, they see what they are." The real Nixon was more interesting than the mythic Kennedy of Camelot. But then, the real Kennedy was more interesting than the Camelot Kennedy. Likewise, the real MLK was more interesting than the mythic Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who’s been elevated into the divine Magic Negro icon to inspire all of mankind. Also, the higher qualities of gods could serve to simplify than deepen one’s search of meaning in the world. This was true of the National Socialist use of mythology where history and politics were reduced to a matter of superior god-like races[Aryans and comparable races]dominating mediocre races and subjugating[and even exterminating]‘subhuman’ races. The neo-pagan Nazi cult of the godly didn’t inspire much in the way of higher or deeper thinking among the demagogues, thugs, and goons of National Socialism. Rather, it cartoonized the world. God or gods can also simplify than deepen one’s sense of morality, and we see this in the character of Mrs. Carmody in THE MIST. Her heartfelt devotion to God has only made her blind and self-righteous. And there are plenty of Christians, Muslims, and Jews who’ve reduced their entire spiritual-moral views into "God’s on our side and that’s that.") Of course, gods never existed, but if a people believe in the existence of great, noble, wise, and awesome gods, they may feel a need to know and understand their gods better since their own destinies are seen to be inextricably intertwined with the power of the gods. To please the gods, to win favor from the gods, and to avoid the wrath of gods, mankind will have to think harder and deeper to understand the animating forces and motivations of the gods(and even behind the gods). Of course, not all gods are alike, and different gods will inspire people differently. If a culture were to worship Beavis and Butthead as gods, the people of that culture need not meditate and expand their horizons much since the highest wisdom of their gods would be ‘boing’ and ‘shut up, assmunch’.

It’s like thinking about a film like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is more challenging and stimulating ‘philosophically’ and ‘spiritually’ than thinking about THE TERMINATOR or GODZILLA VS KING KONG. If a culture has greater gods, its people will be mentally stimulated more than the people of a culture with lesser gods. (It’s like children will be stimulated more in the ‘role-model-like’ presence of adults possessed of superior intellect and knowledge. Though children’s minds cannot match those of adults, children seek the approval via aspiration/imitation of the adults in their lives — of course, as children grow older, these adults include not only parents, uncles and aunts, and teachers, but also public figures seen in the news, celebrities of popular culture, and fictional characters of books and novels; I recall how some Jewish kid in the 8th grade became crazy about THE GODFATHER[after it was aired on TV for the first time as THE GODFATHER SAGA], indeed as if Don Corleone was like his mentor or guru or something). If children only hang around other children and have no contact with adults, there will be far less impetus for them to grow out of their shell of childhood. (Perhaps, one of the problems of youth in the modern era is the loss of the apprentice system, both in the professional and psychological sense. There are few meaningful relationships between adults and youth in our world. Family has been weakened through divorce, rise of single lifestyles, pregnancies out of wedlock, porny view of sex. Also, parents since the end of WWII have been less good at growing up. This goes not only for boomers but their parents, the Mr. And Mrs. Robinsons of the world. Also, as Jews waged war on Wasp elite power in the post-WWII era, there was bound to be less respect among Jewish youth for Wasp adult figures of authority. If Jews had ruled America all along, there might have been less of a generation gap and conflict. The gap widened because Jews had a vested interest in making the boomer youth hate their white parents who still ruled America prior to Jewish takeover of elite institutions. Indeed, notice that there’s greater amity between old Jews and young Jews today than there was between Jewish youths and Wasp elite adults in the 60s and 70s. As older Jews now control the upper echelons of power, younger Jews have less reason to feel resentment toward the new establishment of Jewish displacement of Wasp elites. Elena Kagan owes everything to Larry Summers. And Summers and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook fame also had a mutual understanding, at least according to SOCIAL NETWORK. Sorkin-Fincher’s movie implies that Jews do all the real work because they got the smarts, whereas good-looking and more sociable but less intelligent Wasps[who are A- students than A+ students]have gotten accustomed to the privilege of making appearances and reaping most of the benefits of the actual work done by Jews. To the extent that Wasps had the right look/style in politics and business, there may have been some truth to this, i.e. Jews were traditionally hired to do the brainy stuff while Wasps were favored to be the ‘charismatic’ face of power and even reap most of the rewards. According to SOCIAL NETWORK, Jews have changed this dynamic by fighting to have those who really do the work take the power and reap the most profits: the rule of meritocracy. But if Jews really feel this way, why do they put forth blacks and mulattos as a kind of new Wasp Ideal? How many times have we heard that blacks should be favored for promotion, power, and profits because, despite their lack of brains and knowhow, they have the right kind of charisma and style? So, Wasps were phony with their shallow style and charm, but Negroes are to be praised and promoted for their superficial style and charm as with Obama and Neil Degrasse Tyson the baloney astro-physicist. But then, this goes for ‘muscle fascism’ too. Jews point to the horrors of the ‘Aryan’ ideal of the perfect muscled specimen of Nazi aesthetics, but Jew-run advertising showcases the Negro version of the same thing but promote it as glorious kind of ‘Afro-Aryanism’ that we all worship. Jews are two-faced weasels in everything they say and do. Anyway, the ideal of adult-youth relationship no longer really exists. Fathers aren’t around in many communities. And even when they are, their cultural sense is hopelessly youth-centered. Consider how so many middle-aged critics discuss dance music and dumb blockbuster movies. Or praise silly TV shows as if they’re works of art. Jonah Goldberg the dufus at National Review would have us believe that BREAKING BAD is a great work of art. Francis Fukuyama gushes about the greatness of THE WIRE, especially how it’s so noble to have some Negro fruitkin get his revenge on the thugs. Walter Russell Meade sees world politics through the lens of GAME OF THRONES, some Medieval fantasy revolving around a midget prince. Also, public education has depersonalized the relationship between adults and youth. In the age of apprenticeship, young people learned under craftsman over a long time, and so, there was a personal element in their bond. There is also the problem of progress, especially scientific and technological progress. In a static society where the wisdom and technology remain more or less the same generation after generation, elders will likely know more of everything-that-matters since they’ve been around, learned about stuff, and practiced things for much longer. But in the age of progress, yesterday’s technology is mocked, destroyed, and forgotten — like the old mecha at the Flesh Fair in Steven Spielberg’s A.I. Young people are more adept and fresh at mastering new technologies, therefore they feel little deference to men of old technology that, however awesome it may have been in its own time, may seem laughable to the new generation. Indeed, even the early internet of the 1990s, amazing at it was back then, seems amusing to us today. In politics and the world of thought, men like George Kennan, Leo Strauss, and Henry Kissinger have become dinosaurs. Instead, we see more infantile tantrums of young and young-ish operatives with a know-it-all attitude. Consider the likes of James Kirchick. And does Samantha Powers think she’s still in college? Did George W. Bush ever leave the Frat? What was his biggest regret after leaving the presidency? Trashy rapper accused him of not liking blacks. As Pat Buchanan asked about the ridiculous Donald Sterling case, are we living in a serious country anymore? What passes for higher morality today is ‘gay marriage’. And in arts & culture, fashion has long displaced tradition, so the likes of Lena Dunham get all the attention until some new infantile attention-grabber takes her place, and I think it happened already. We have idiots like Ross Douthat misinterpreting TWILIGHT and fuming at the screen when, in truth, the Cullens tend to be a bunch of mature people. More adults should be like Carlisle and Esme. To be sure, it’s easy to be dignified if you got so much money, especially with the help of Alice Cullen who can see the future, including future stock prices. So yes, the maturity in TWILIGHT is premised on immature fantasies, but then who is Douthat to complain when he’s a big fan of dumb 007 movies? And how did Martin Scorsese revive his career lately? By making WOLF OF WALL STREET, a trashy celebration of scumbag Jordan Belfort. It’s enjoyable, lots of fun, and dazzling, but is this Scorsese’s final testament about humanity? That the power of trick and talent fueled by greed and lust is all that counts? Cormac McCarthy and Ridley Scott’s THE COUNSELOR gets at something similar but presents a truly sobering lesson. Maybe, in some ways, the Rule of Law that still substantially exists in America has a more insidious effect on our souls than the kind of total corruption that exists in Mexico. In Mexico, it’s so disgusting and distressing that we see the clear consequences of a world ruled by greed, lust, brutality, corruption, and heartlessness. It’s hell as hell. But because there’s still some semblance of Rule of Law in the US, we just laugh at the likes of Jordan Belfort as if our system allows some folks to enjoy hells as paradises. We figure that such guys will have a great time and then eventually get their comeuppance, and life goes on. Since the system can withstand such crooks, we don’t really see them as a threat; we see them as celebrities. But look at Mexico, and the lesson is very sobering. If the likes of Belfort do get their way, then the world will be Mexico. And the Belforts of the world, if powerful enough, won’t only steal but slaughter untold numbers of people. Of course, outside the US where Rule of Law is weak, power-lusting Jews do indeed act like gangsters and lay waste to entire regions of the Middle East and now even Ukraine. And just as the borders between US and Mexico have been weakened by Jewish power, Jewish oligarch power has also gangsterized the borders among Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The likes of Bryan Caplan talk a good game about ‘principles’, but deep down inside, there’s no difference between his ilk and Jordan Belfort. They all dish out the shtick about helping the underdog and the little guy, but they are just undermining the system established by white gentiles in order to maximize the power and profits of Jews. One of the negative aspects of the primacy of youth culture is that young people come under less pressure to grow into dignified and mature adults, and as a result, we have so many adults who never matured beyond their teen years.) Olympians, at least some of them, are more advanced and ‘high concept’ than the earlier gods. Olympians, for all their fault, are civilized gods who have tamed and/or gained control of nature and harness & guide its forces whereas many of the earlier gods were inseparable from the tumultuous chaos of nature. So, if one bunch of Greeks were to worship the Olympians whereas another bunch of Greeks were to worship the brutal nature gods, the former bunch of Greeks would have been inspired and stimulated more toward the possibilities of civilization. It’s more interesting to ponder the ‘mind’ of Zeus or Athena than the mind of Uranus or Gaia — though, to be sure, even before the Olympians, Titans had established some degree of order and meaning in the world. Even so, as great as the gods of Greek mythology were, there were essentially superhuman types. The one exception that might have transcended yet to an higher level was Athena, but the Greeks[and later Romans]never fulfilled the potential of transforming their mythology — especially the cult around Athena — into a higher spiritual system. Over time, they grew weary and disbelieving of their gods, especially since the gods were seen as essentially as immortal humans with powers that, though beyond human, were all-too-humanlike in their motivations and dimensions. Things might have turned out differently if Greeks or Romans had found some way to push the Athena cult into a higher consciousness & mystery-mind-game, but once the Greeks and Romans became embroiled in the world of politics, their minds were set more on acting like gods and heroes themselves than expanding the dimensional breadth and depth of the gods. As Greek and Roman elites grew richer and more powerful — and as their knowledge of the world increased exponentially with advances in science, math, and technology — , they increasingly lost interest in the ways of gods. As Greek and Roman gods were essentially human-like, their mystery and awesomeness could never be infinite. And as Greek and Roman elites grew ever more powerful and even built empires, they felt as powerful as the gods, if not more so. Greek and Roman gods were essentially political, economic, and nature gods, and all things political, economic, and natural have their finite limits. Once the power of humans expanded to the point of mastery over the world — especially with Alexander the Great and the Romans creating world empires — the gods no longer seemed so awesome to the Greeks and Romans. Conquerors and rulers of empires can’t help but feel they’ve surpassed the power of the gods.

But such was not the case with the Jews who came up with one of the most profound concepts of God(and who never created an empire, that is until recently by taking over the US & EU and using their powers to dominate the world), though one could argue that Hinduism and Buddhism — and maybe Taoism — are more profound from a philosophical and psychosmic(psychological-cosmic)perspective; the Jewish God is very much fixated on Jewish affairs(and the Christian God is mostly concerned with spiritual morality of the human world). Arguably, the Jewish/Christian God was a useful balance between the far-out psycho-cosmic spiritualities of Hinduism, Buddhism, & Taoism AND the ‘humanism’ of the Greco-Roman mythology. If Greek and Roman gods were too human and thereby limited in their spiritual mystery and awesomeness, the religions of the East were too mystifying and meta-human to be of any use for mankind, i.e. too deconstructive of human dimensionality to be of much use to humans in their practical lives. In contrast, the Jewish/Christian God is wrapped in profound mystery yet intimately linked with the destinies of the Jews and mankind.

An any rate, the profound spiritual conception and premise of the Biblical God provided Jews with infinite mental space to think long, hard, and deep about the meaning of their God. In order to understand God’s laws and His grand plan for the Jews(and even the rest of mankind, especially in relation to Jews), Jews had a lot of spiritual probing to do. Of course, this was a tricky proposition since there is no God and all religions are make-believe. But even when we involve ourselves with mind-games, the nature of the premise shapes the character and the range of our thoughts. If the god we worship is said to be like Big Boss Man or some silly homo, there wouldn’t be much to think about. We would think our god is just some big dumb lug who likes to bash things — like Bam Bam on THE FLINSTONES. Or, if our god was some vain narcissistic fruiter, our image of him would be some silly male deity who dresses like Pebbles. The essence of spiritual morality would be some nonsense like ‘gay marriage’ — and I think the success of ‘gay marriage’ is rather telling about the nature of today’s faux-spirituality shaped by celebrity & Hollywood culture dominated by cynical Jews and rotten fruitkins. Though Paglia is, in principle, opposed to stuff like ‘gay marriage’, the sheer vapidity of her notion of spirituality comes across in statements like: "A woman putting on men's clothes is merely stealing power, but a man putting on women's clothes is searching for God.” So, Chris Crocker and Dennis Rodman are searching for God?
But if you raise the stakes and magnify the premise of the nature of your God or gods, then thinking about God becomes a real mental, intellectual, philosophical, cosmic, metaphysical, and moral exercise. Jews came to conceive of their God as all-knowing, perfect, the creator of everything, the one and only Supreme Being, the all-wise, and etc infinitum. So, their God wasn’t just a mental pothole, pond, river, or lake but a vast ocean of thought, like the mind-ocean-planet in Stanislaw Lem’s SOLARIS. And indeed, SOLARIS is a kind of spiritual-philosophical exploratory novel about man faced with a grand mystery that appears, at once, tangible and intangible. Humans can travel to Solaris the planet and actually come in contact with its strange functions, but they can’t make sense of its deeper mysteries. When faced with the unknowable, mankind tries to make some kind of sense by projecting its powers of reason, speculation, imagination, romanticism, fascination, and resignation onto it.
(Even resignation can paradoxically become a kind of power when faced with unfathomable grandiosity. By surrendering to the great power, one feels a part of the great power. And in rare cases, submission to the great power can serve as a portal to taking over the great power. Jews submitted to the power system created by Wasps but then bore through the system with their drill of Jewish will and took over everything. In a way, power-through-surrender was one of the great innovations of mankind, at least on a large scale for its counterparts exist in nature too.)
Solaris is the sort of place that, as a sci-fi concept, invites & provokes thought, speculation, wonderment, fascination, and awe. We’re far more likely to think about such a planet than, say, one that is said to be made of cheese(as kids were told of the moon). Both are equally fictional, but one stimulates the mind whereas the other just whets a Frenchman’s appetite.
So, encouragement to thought doesn’t necessarily have to do with the truth. Besides, the fascination with magic be more provocative than the fact of matter, at least for most of us whose sense of scientific fact is rather limited. To really work in science at a high level, we need a wide range of knowledge and experience, which most of don’t have. And yet, any of us can play mind-games with even the simplest of rules. While any single rule on its own is rather simple, a combination of even a few rules can make for endless variations and compounds. Indeed, consider a game like chess or Go(Chinese) that are deceptively simple. There are some pieces that you either move around or place on the board, and the rules are simple enough for even a child to learn in a single day. And yet, the possibilities in both games are endless. If chess was just played with one rook vs another rook, it’d be simple enough. But with 16 pieces on each side, variations become mind-boggling. And even though the game of Go only has uniform black pieces and uniform white pieces, no two games are alike just like no two snowflakes are alike. It’s like if you have only two letters, you can form only two ‘word’ combinations. But if you have three letters, there are six ‘word’ combinations. And four, five, and six letters will exponentially yield yet many more. So, lots of things are deceptively simple because the rules seem simple enough; however, the implications and permutations can be virtually infinite. And in a way, the Jewish concept of God is both the simplest and the most complex. The idea that there is only one God is simple enough; but when this God is said to be perfect, all-powerful, especially chose the Jews, and etc., things become very complicated. And then, once one tries to square the message of God — as transcribed in the Bible — with the ways of the actual world, one’s mind is faced with more combinations, complications, and contradictions. This is why even radical atheists end up unwittingly arguing with God in whom they don’t believe. Even as they reject His existence and power, they fall into the mind-web of what God is supposed to be about.
And in a sense, Jews have created a foolproof concept of God that can never be overcome with reason. Even though many people, especially in the Western European world, no longer believe in God, God-ness lives on as a concept, mystery, and idea in the way that pagan gods could not — despite organizations such as Asatru that pretends to honor Odin/Wotan and Thor as living deities.
Anyway, if God has been turned into a fascinating mind-game(even for non-believers), why shouldn’t it be equally true of Taoism and Buddhism, especially since they are, in some ways, even more like mind-games than the Jewish/Christian religion? Perhaps, there’s an emotional element to the Jewish/Christian God that is absent in Buddhism and Taoism, which are both about detachment and seeking of truth through either a ‘radical’ rejection of the world or vague harmony with it. Buddhism says the world is an illusion of pain and suffering, and it must be expunged entirely from within one’s soul for one to attain Nirvana. Taoism says everything is part of some cosmic/natural harmony, but in fact, reality tells us that humanity cannot co-exist in harmony with anything. Man is an animal that, like other animals, can only live in contention and competition with the world. Though Taoism is profound stuff, whoever came up with it surely depended on others to feed him and provide for him. And I suspect the kind of nature he was familiar with was something more like Walden Pond than raw nature that bit off one’s arse. One simply cannot meditate in a forest filled with tigers and arrive at the theory of man’s harmony with nature. (This is where Buddhism is utterly different from Taoism despite their superficial similarities. Taoism promises a possible unity/harmony with nature. Buddha was raised in a quasi-Taoist setting where man and nature seemed to exist in harmony. But when he learned of the truth of nature — a bloody and cruel devouring of life by life — , he couldn’t take it anymore. He came to believe that no harmony could ever exist between the soul and reality. Meditation should be to separate oneself from nature/reality than to find harmony with it. Reality must be seen as an illusion and erased from the soul so that the soul itself will finally disappear without the illusion that tricks it into clinging to ‘reality’.) It’s like if you’re privileged and provided for, you can dilly-dally around with flaky New Age ideas. This isn’t to say Taoism is flaky or superficial but merely to suggest that its passive lack of contentiousness makes it less challenging for the mind. While one may note the poetry of life, one cannot live poetically.
Buddha(with head in Nirvana?)
Lao Tzu(in harmony with bull?)
Moses(as the cowardly lion?)
In contrast to Buddhism and Taoism, the Jewish idea of God wasn’t only profound and mysterious but emotionally and morally graspable in ways that were relevant to real concerns in the real world. And indeed, it is telling that the great Covenant between God and man is both a great transcendental moment and a great ‘scatological’ moment, as when Abraham was required to take his knife to his wiener. It’s almost hilarious in a way. The one and only God, the greatest Being in the universe — indeed the very Creator of the universe — , makes a special pact with a man of special choosing, and the rite involved requires that the man cut off the skin off his schlong. And yet, there is a sense of profound contact between the spiritual and the physical.
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. A 'covenant' between the Monolith and the Ape with bone.
It’s like the scene in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY when the Moonwatcher Ape feels a certain ‘covenant’ with the Monolith and starts to have funny/creative ideas about what he can do with a boner-like bone. It’s like something ‘spiritual’ touched and altered something physical within Moonwatcher’s body. It’s also like the scene in Alfred Hitchcock THE BIRDS where a seagull suddenly descends upon the Tippi Hedren character and nips her forehead, making it bleed(though I’m guessing Abraham’s foreskin bled more). It’s as if a new dimension has been opened up via a perverse psychic contact between the bio-physical and the cosmic-metaphysical.
Tippi Hedren in THE BIRDS on the verge of being 'contacted' by seagull
(As the Covenant between God and Abraham & his bleeding pud reconfigured the entire world to reflect and fulfill the dreams and ambitions of Jews, the psychic ‘covenant’ between the seagull and Tippi Hedren character’s bleeding forehead transforms all the birds into a kind of a projection of the woman’s repressed sexual passions. Of course, the difference is God commands Abraham to bleed his pud in order to emphasize the need for moral control over sexual energy whereas the sexual energies find release through the contact between Hedren and the seagull in THE BIRDS.) We like to believe that man-in-man’s world is distinct from the rest of the world/universe because modern man lives so much apart from nature and also because civilized man — at least prior to the libertine explosions of the 1960s that soon followed the release of THE BIRDS, a truly prophetic movie — had mastered control over his animal urges. So, modern civilized man/woman felt safe from both the nature without and nature within. But in THE BIRDS, following the ‘psychic’ contact/‘covenant’ between the woman’s inner nature and outer nature(as represented by birds), the ‘universe’ itself begins to behave in a threatening mytho-sexual-barbaric manner. Civilized man toes the fine line between animalism within (subconscious urges and drives) and animalism without(forces of nature). But, if the civilized man were to lose control of either or both, his world shall collapse all around him. We have to drive out dangerous animals and beat down on our own dangerous impulses. This is why Negroes are so dangerous. They have little control over their urges, and so, they go around acting like apes, and then, of course, social order also breaks down, and then, wild nature begins to take over. Indeed, look at entire tracts of Detroit. It’s returning back to nature like some parts of sub-Saharan Africa that are reverting back to the jungle. This is to be expected of the Negro since, unlike most other races, he evolved with nature than against or apart from nature until very recently. The wild Negro nature was allowed to boogie-woogie without shame and run around with hippos and hyenas.
Though the Covenant between God and Abraham is thematically related to what happens in THE BIRDS, the effect is the opposite. The contact between the woman’s inner nature and the world’s outer nature leads to chaos and violence. It’s like opening the Pandora’s Box. In the Covenant story between God and Abraham, there’s a similar idea, but the point is to remind Abraham and his people to control their sexual urges and maintain culture and civilization through control of self and the world. Indeed, those with control of self are better positioned to control the world around them. If you can’t control yourself, you will act like an animal, and then social order will fall apart, and wilderness will take over and reclaim territory from civilization — literally. But if you control yourself, you will have social order among your own kind and then your kind can create even greater social order. So, if you want to tame outer nature, you must first control your inner nature — though if the inner nature is overly repressed and controlled(to the point of snuffing out the spark of ingenuity and inspiration), civilization grows static and stagnant like the Byzantine, Persian, Ottoman, and Chinese civilizations became. In a way, it’s significant that God ordered Abraham to do two significant things with a knife. He told Abraham to cut off the skin off his schlong, and He told Abraham to kill his son Isaac. Isaac and Abraham’s schlong are interconnected because Abraham’s son was created through Abraham’s schlong. (What makes Jesus special is He isn’t connected to the schlong of His social father, Joseph. One could argue He is the product of the greatest ‘cuckolding’ in history as Joseph was rendered helpless before and even supportive of God’s having His way with Mary.) In the end, Abraham need not kill his own son because he’d already taken his knife to his own schlong. In a way, circumcision seemed necessary to the Jews because it was too easy for guys to have fun sticking their schlongs into a whole bunch of pooters(and Jewish men are as horny as they come). If women had sex, they got pregnant and had to undergo the horribly painful process of childbirth; besides the first time for any woman was bound to be painful than pleasurable. So, sex wasn’t just fun for women, whereas it could be for any guy. For women, sex was about pleasure and pain. In contrast, sex could be merely pleasurable for men since they didn’t have to have babies. So, to remind men of the gravity of sex — that it’s not just for fun but comes with real-life consequences and esponsibilities — , it sort of made sense that men should suffer pain too in their sexual organs, and circumcision served that role. Being circumcised was like ‘birthing pains’ for men. In the end, Abrahama need not kill Isaac and instead sacrifice a goat, an animal. In a way, it’s significant that Abraham and Sara only had one kid and in old age too. If Abraham could have had lots of kids with Sara, Isaac’s death might have been no great loss. Sara and he could have relied on other sons. But as Isaac was their only child together, it was a really big deal when God told Abraham to kill Isaac. (In a similar way, the figure of Jesus is especially precious because He is the sole exception, the only product of God and a mortal woman.) Abraham became aware of Isaac’s individuality, uniqueness, irreplaceableness, and preciousness. While each child is special even in a large family, there’s still consolation to be found in other kids if a child were to die. But when there’s only one kid, he or she becomes especially special, indeed like a gift of God. Though God’s order to have Isaac killed sounds cruel, it was through such a command that Abraham came to love Isaac all the more. And it was through God’s sparing of Isaac that Abraham came to see that God is a good God who, though He has the power to end the universe in an instant, spared the life of this only son — Christianity takes this line of thought even further by having God sacrifice His only Son. Whatever Abraham may have felt at the moment when God spared Isaac, it was profoundly human, and it represented both a decisive break from wild nature and from nature-centered pagan cultures. If THE BIRDS is about the bursting of the dam between inner nature and outer nature, the Covenant story is about the damming of the river between inner nature and outer nature with sealants provided by God. And it is more important for men to control their male urges since they are stronger than women, i.e. an out-of-control woman can be handled by a man with self-control, but even self-controlled wouldn’t be able to handle the fury of men who are out-of-control. (This is why Negroes are so dangerous. As they’re stronger and more aggressive than white folks, if they get out of control, there’s little whites can do about it, at least under a system of legal equality. The only true way to control out-of-control Negroes is to treat them like how Zionist Israelis treat Palestinians: with utter ruthlessness. But what is permitted to Jews isn’t permitted to white folks who are brainwashed with the cult of ‘white guilt’ by the Jewish elites.) Women can live in a moral order ruled by men with self-control OR women will have to put out to wild men in a wild world. Though women can be moral creatures just like men, if men no longer act civilized and orderly by controlling their drives and lusts, women will just go with the men who are most aggressive and violent. In a wild world, women feel safest with the toughest men, and nice guys mean nothing. In a wild world, only tougher wildness can beat other wilderness, and women will seek protection by putting out to the toughest alpha. Suppose a nice white guy and a nice white girl end up on an island with big tough muscular Negroes. It wouldn’t do the white woman any good to stick with her nice white guy because he’ll be attacked, insulted, and beaten by tougher Negroes. She will come to hold him in contempt and seek out the toughest Negro who will do with her as he pleases but also protect her from other nasty Negroes with designs on her too. (It’s like how Amy in Sam Peckinpah’s STRAW DOGS attaches herself to the toughest thug out of both uncontrollable lust — she finds the white mandingo more sexually satisfying than her dorky Jewishy husband — and need for protection. When another thug attacks her at the end, she calls out for help to the alpha thug than to her own husband. She feels the alpha thug will be the only man tough enough to save her from the other thug. It’s like when Germany was overrun by Soviet troops, many German women sought refuge from mass rape by attaching themselves to especially powerful or high-ranking Soviet soldiers. Better to put out to top dog than all the dogs. As German men had been utterly defeated and pussified — reduced to watching helplessly as gangs of Soviet troops raped their mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives — , German women found them useless — and German men, to this day, haven’t recovered their manhood, especially since their total sense of defeat has been compounded with the cult of eternal guilt. Today, the same thing is happening to white males. Pussified and wussified, they offer no protection to white women who, furthermore, have been brainwashed to hate their own fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons as ‘evil white males’. Of course, hideous Jews are behind this.) Whereas men can force order on weaker women who’ve gone wild, women cannot force order on stronger men who’ve gone wild. But then, there is a problem that comes with the triumph of law-and-order in the modern world. In a safe and orderly society where most people have little to fear, women have peace and freedom and no longer feel dependent on men for protection and provision, and therefore, women no longer value men so much and may even lose respect for them. Much of the modern West is very amenable to white women. Despite all the hysteria about ‘War on Women’ and ‘Rape Culture’, most white women have nothing to fear from white men, especially among the upper and middle classes. Among the lower orders of whites, there are, of course, some scumbags, though their thuggery and brutality come nowhere near those of Negroes.
Paradoxically, the success of law-and-order in the West(that made so many women feel so safe) may lead to greater outlawry and disorder in the future because too many white women take their safety and well-being for granted. Indeed, all this stuff about ‘War on Women’ and ‘Rape Culture’ — that blames white men for violence against women — is a kind of privileged fantasy, rather like the KKK hysteria at Oberlin College. If white women really were terrified, they would focus their attention on real problems, not fantasy problems. It’s like if there’s a tiger in the woods near your house, you fear the tiger, not some bogeyman that doesn’t exist except in your fantasy. It’s because most white women feel safe that they can yammer about the horror fantasy of ‘white male rapists’ prowling the streets and raping the coeds. But because most well-to-do white women feel so safe and can depend on the law-and-order, they can favor the PC fantasy of ‘evil white male’ over the social-racial reality of Negro thuggery. If today’s PC white women were sent back to the 19th century frontier town in the West, they’d lose their PC fantasy/innocence pretty fast. As there’s the very real possibility of American Indians killing their men, raping them, scalping them, and torturing them, white women would wake up to the nature of the conflict. But since the system of law-and-order created by white males have done such a wonderful job of protecting white women, white women have little reason to fear non-whites, especially since neo-law-and-order policies beginning in the Clinton Era made streets safer in privileged white areas where the elites and wanna-be-elites dwell. So, white women can embrace the status-mannerisms of PC, make all the correct noises about the need for ‘more diversity’, take for granted her social safety, and make believe that the biggest threat to her well-being comes from ‘privileged white males(especially of conservative bent)’. But if indeed elite colleges are overwhelmingly Liberal and pro-diversity and if the ‘rape culture’ happens to be a big problem on them, doesn’t it logically follow that the biggest sexual oppressors of women are Liberal males(who make up the bulk of the male student body at places like Harvard, Brown, Yale, Princeton, etc.) or males-of-diverse-colors? But then, don’t expect any kind of logic from PC tards. Anyway, because white women have come to feel so safe in the West, they take for granted the danger of increasing diversity in the West. They fail to understand that the law-and-order they enjoy was created and has been maintained by white males. As white male authority begins to erode further — especially under assault by Jewish, feminist, and anti-‘racist’ forces — , the system will be dominated more by Negroes, browns, yellows, Jews, Muslims, and feminists for whom the only evil male is the white male. White males are the roof over white females, but because white women feel so safe under it, they not only take it for granted but attack it as the oppressive lid over them. But as the holes in the protective roof increase, white women will find themselves hit with stronger winds and rains that come through the holes. It’s like in THE BIRDS where the birds tear a hole in the roof and come storming in. The sheer stupidity and vapidity of white female psychology can be seen in the figure of Joyce Carol Oates who, though safe and privileged thanks to an order created by white males, fantasizes about the noble Magic Negro that is just a figment of the Liberal imagination that is utterly divorced from reality.

Anyway, given the premise of Jewish spirituality and God, Jews had more of an impetus to think harder, longer, and deeper than most peoples, though, to be sure, a chicken-or-the-egg question arises to whether Jewish thinking is the product of Jewish religion or vice versa. Judaism also avoided the solipsism of Buddhism since Jews could have a conversation with God in the way that Buddhists never could since Buddhists didn’t believe in any god or gods. Buddhism was a religion of silence than conversation. Judaism was like a special phone line between Jews and God — like there’s special communications between American Jews and Israeli Jews that we dimwit goyim know nothing about as Jews monopolize the elite institutions — , whereas Buddhism cut all the lines as the only reality was said to be within oneself, but then, even one’s inner reality was an illusion. In Buddhism, one had to first detach oneself from the world, then detach oneself from one’s inner phantoms, then detach oneself from oneself, and then detach oneself from the detachment of oneself from oneself. To Buddhism, everything — outer reality and inner reality within the mind — are all illusions, and therefore even the phantoms of the mind(gods, ideas, and values) are illusions. In some ways, Buddhism was the most extreme form of anti-iolatry-ism ever formulated. Jews denounced idols as wicked for they were either representations of either false gods, defilement of the unique creations of God, or foolish attempts to represent God whose ‘image’ cannot be done justice by the mortal hands of man. Idols of false gods were blasphemous, but even idols representing humans and animals could be blasphemous as mockeries of the creative power of God. Even so, Jews, Christians, and Muslims came to believe in the sanctity — even in its fallen state — of the real world as the holy creation of God. In contrast, Buddhism said even the real world is just a false idol of the mind, even gods inside the mind are false idols of the mind, and even the mind itself is a false idol of the mind, and the only way out was to meditate to the point where one entered into oneself and erased all the illusions from within and then finally discovered the mind-machine that churned out these illusions and turned it off, whereby one would reach Nirvana and be reunited with the nothingness. Whatever spiritual or philosophical values Buddhism may have, it also had a tendency to foster solipsism. So, in Buddhism, there is really nothing to understand. Rather, one has to detach oneself from knowing, understanding, feeling, remembering, and etc. in order to be liberated from the processes of the mind. But this is difficult since, in order to ‘unknow’ everything, one had to rely on the knowledge presented by Buddha. It’s sort of like trying to dry oneself with water or wet oneself with fire. It’s like trying to enter into the dream world with full consciousness. To reach Nirvana, one must ‘unknow’ and let go of the mind, and yet, it takes a good deal of specialist knowledge and tremendous amount of mental discipline to reach such a state. It’s like thinking to unthink, feeling to unfeel.
But a greater contradiction(even of moral implications) in Buddhism is that, even as Buddha sought to free himself from fear-and-desire(derived of attachment of one’s ego to the ‘world’) that leads to all sorts of suffering, Buddhism only makes sense in relation to fear-and-desire. After all, one seeks Nirvana out of fear of the world. It is an escape from suffering, and surely, anyone who tries to escape from something is acting out of fear. Also, couldn’t one argue that there is a kind of DESIRE for Nirvana? Such may differ from the desire for the real world — real or illusory — , but it is a desire for something better that promises eternal peace and truth. So, even though Buddhism strives to go beyond emotions, it only makes sense in relation/reaction to emotions of fear and desire, i.e. fear of suffering in the real world and the desire for peace in the ‘other world’.

In contrast to the solipsism of Buddhism, a lively conversational tone and speculative mind-set developed within and around Judaism. While God couldn’t be seen and was thought to be infinite in His mystery and wisdom, there were shades and nuances of Him that could be glimpsed and accessed through prayer, meditation, speculation, imagination, a bit of lunacy, and etc. Also, humans are naturally prone to ‘talk with themselves’. If one does this openly in the presence of others, it’s time to go to the funny farm. But, there are things we make sense of by thinking alone, but in thinking alone, a kind of conversation begins with onself, with an imagined self, with people who aren’t around(and may not even be alive), with fictional characters(especially if one’s a writer who must always imbue his/her characters with inner psychologies), and/or with gods or God(if one happens to be religious or speculative in an agnostic way). Even when people ask questions before God and there’s no answer(which is always the case in terms of reality), the silence of such a moment is different from silences of other moments. It’s like a holy silence where, even without a sign from God, there’s the sense of God’s presence. It’s like the scene near the end in COOL HAND LUKE when Luke(Paul Newman)enters a church and talks to God. Luke may not even be a believer, and he doesn’t expect any answer from God and gets none. And he’s amused that the answer-to-his-prayer is the bumbling and childish Dragline(George Kennedy), but despite all that, the silence that follows his mock prayer to God is not without an element of holiness; and Luke must have been inspired by some kind of holiness — though he would have consciously denied it to the end — to have been willing to play the ‘cool messiah’ figure, even to the point of stumbling upon ‘martyrdom’. The moment of silence is also the only time in the movie when Luke feels something like inner peace; being a ‘hard case’, he can’t get along with other people, but if God is a ‘hard case’ too, maybe they do have something in common. At any rate, while Luke was half-joking in his divining of God, countless generations of Jews ruminated very deeply about the nature and intent of God. But then, Jews weren’t only thinking about God but about everything since God, as they defined it, was the source, master, and mover of everything in the universe. (Such a unity couldn’t exist in the polytheistic realm of paganism since different gods were masters of different things. So, Hephaestus was the god for ironworks, but you wouldn’t go to him for advice/blessing on love. Poseidon was the master of the seas but had no control over the sky and thunder. Dionysus made good wine but was the wrong god to consult for order and reason. Thus, divine masterfulness remained separate and distinct in the pagan world. In contrast, all the workings of the world fit together like all the components of a Swiss watch in the Jewish God who was the master of all.) The negative side of this mind-set has been that, even today, Jews have a habit of trying to explain everything through single all-purpose theories — be it Marxism, Trotskyism, Freudianism, Friedmanism, Randism, Krugmanism, Kristolism, etc. But the profound aspect of this mentality is evinced in the films of Stanley Kubrick that are, at once, single-minded(or single-obsessed) and all-encompassing. From beginning to end, nearly every element of a Kubrick film seems to be contained, even trapped, in the Kubrickian vision/universe, and yet, one would be hard-pressed to find another director whose films explored and delved into so many subjects and themes: space, humanity, history, power, psychology, sociology, individuality, eternity, war, peace, politics, spirituality. It’s no wonder that his films have garnered the most ‘religious’ or ‘cultist’ following in the film community; Kubrick fans pore over his films like Talmudic scholars pored over the Torah and Talmudic writings. Of course, such devotion can get out of hand — consider the lunatics of documentary ROOM 237 — , but there’s no question of Kubrick’s power to unlock new dimensions — be they of spatial, psychological, emotional, spiritual, historical, philosophical, and/or sexual nature. — of speculation and imagination in cinema. Not surprisingly, the artist who has commanded comparable devotion among fans and scholars is Bob Dylan. Partly, the fascination with Kubrick and Dylan owes something to their intellectualism — at least relative to most of their peers as cinema and Rock music have essentially been mediums of popular culture — , but that alone doesn’t explain their appeal. After all, there have been Rock musicians and film-makers who’ve been even more intellectual-ist but without stirring up the kind of obsession(of love and hate) around Kubrick and Dylan. Think of Peter Greenaway and Patti Smith, essentially a creation of critical conceits.
Rather, the hold that Dylan and Kubrick have had over the culture owes something to its ‘Biblical’ quality, and I want to be careful with that word. ‘Biblical’ often implies‘something of Biblical proportions’, like the grand epics of Cecil B. DeMille(though, to be sure, there are some scholars who take DeMille seriously as a true modern visionary in his own right). Another meaning of ‘Biblical’ suggests something old, cliched, obvious, heavy, witless, and middlebrow.
And yet, if we disassociate the Bible and Jewish intellectual tradition from the standard ‘Biblical’ tropes in our popular culture, what stands out is a sense of mystery, sublimity, strangeness, puzzlement, power-obsession, and an odd combination of morbid paranoia & boundless hope. (This meaning of ‘Biblical’ applies to the works of Franz Kafka.) In material terms, the Bible is a book with stories and laws, yet in mythic terms, it is a universe unto itself. The Bible itself is finite in terms of the number of pages from the first to the last page. But the way it was written, organized, and constructed transformed it into a work of endless possibilities and infinite meanings. There’s something about the Bible that is tenaciously un-decode-able even though no other book has come under as much scrutiny and analysis. Most sacred texts of pagan cultures have come to be regarded as myths, stories, fairytales, and fantasies. We still admire Greek and Germanic mythologies — and meanings are still found in them — , but we don’t treat them as holy text; and no amount of pretense on our part could render them holy again. They survive as stories. And despite all the admiration and interpretations inspired by the works of Shakespeare, the Bard’s plays are never going to objects of worship. But there’s something about the Bible that retains its sacred power — something sensed by other religionists and atheists as well — even though literal readings are rejected by modern Jews, Christians, and Muslims. And there is this dual quality in some of the works of Franz Kafka, Stanley Kubrick, and Bob Dylan as well. They are fiction that seem more than fiction. Their impact goes beyond what we usually expect from storytelling in words, song, or images; they strike a chord within us that is neither primarily intellect, primarily imaginative, primarily emotions, or primarily sensuality. Aldous Huxley was primarily an artist of the mind most famous for a genre known as ‘novel of ideas’. Even though he was a spiritual seeker of sorts, he was essentially a thinker, a rather dry one at that. As for the works of someone like J.R.R. Tolkien, they were primarily works of the imagination. Even though THE LORD OF THE RINGS universe — I’ve seen the movies but haven’t read the book — has countless fans for whom the novel is like a bible, its appeal is essentially escapist and fantastic. If it is a kind of bible of sorts, its power works at a great remove from our own world — the bible relevant to an alternative universe. To enter the Tolkien universe is to take leave of our own and happily lose ourselves in the heroic fantasies of larger-than-life characters, sorcerers, and monsters. In this sense, it is wholly different from the Bible that fuses the realm of God with the world of man. Bible brings the ‘supernatural’ into our lives. (Even if one were to pretend that THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a genuine sacred religious text, it would have little relevance to our lives and our world. However, even if one were to treat the Bible as nothing but fantasies written by ancient Hebrews, one would be struck by how much it says about reality all around and within us.) As in the story of THE TRIAL, the power of religion intrudes into our lives. Though there is an escapist element in religion, religion insists on putting us on trial in the world we live in under the eyes of God or gods. The music of Johannes Brahms or Paul McCartney and movies like THE GODFATHER are appreciated essentially through the emotions and senses. Though not without something-to-think-about, they operate well within familiar human emotions — sentiment, romance, beauty, bliss, sadness, etc. — that immediately appeal to us and are recognizable to us. And lots of dance music and blockbuster movies appeal mainly to sensuality or the ‘viscerality’ of the sight and sound. But there’s something more in the works of Kafka, Kubrick, and Dylan, and this essence eludes the self-contained rules of rational intellect, imagination, human emotions, or impassioned senses. All four elements could be involved at once, or there is a profound sense of something more, something mysteriously intangible and yet enmeshed into every molecule of the tangible world. and it is this quality about them that can be said to be ‘biblical’. After all, the Bible isn’t just ABOUT something. It IS something. Similarly, there’s a quality about the works of Kafka, Kubrick, and Dylan that is, at once, intellectual and ‘immersive’. (This could also be said of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, even of Ayn Rand and Susan Sontag. Marx, after all, wasn’t the originator of socialism and communism. He merely became the most famous radical-socialist and communist of all time. But why? Was it due to his ‘science’ of history? And yet, things that are thought to be true merely on the material or logical level don’t much interest people. Was it then due to his originality? But the new becomes old really fast, and novelty today is obscurity tomorrow. While Marx’s application of Hegelianism to economics did make for an original view of class struggle as the main mover of history, it was the prophetic and quasi-spiritual element of Marxism linking past history & contemporary conditions with future vision that gave it long-term life; in contrast, Thomas Piketty’s CAPITAL will be forgotten in no time due to its dry and tasteful academism. Some say John Maynard Keynes’ GENERAL THEORY OF EMPLOYMENT, INTEREST, AND MONEY is one of the greatest book on economics, but its interest lies only in economics, whereas the greatness of Marx — for good or ill — was in having dissolved the walls among various disciplines and agendas. This quasi-prophetic-religious view of the future made Marxism outgrow the fading of the short-lived shock of novelty. Even the freshest fruit rots & withers fast, so there has to be a way to preserve the fruit, and religions work in this manner. Religion turns new vision into long-term value. Marx claimed to be all intellect and social morality, yet there was something more to his ideas that suggested illumination of truth via a higher source, a kind of god-of-history. Likewise, even though Sigmund Freud claimed to be a doctor and insisted on the scientific method in the studying and teaching of psychology, there was something more than mere academism in his theories and teachings that stirred the fascination of so many people. Indeed, it says something about the power of Freudianism that even those who disbelieve in it and attack it still find it so fascinating and worthy of their obsessions. It’s like even those who reject the material/historical veracity of everything in the Bible still find it immensely powerful and profound. So, there’s something about Jews that goes beyond rightness or wrongness. There’s something in Jewish thought that bridges high intellect, imagination, mystery, and sensuality all in one. Sontag spoke of the ‘erotics of art’, and there’s something like the ‘mysterics of thought’ or ‘occultics of intelligence’ in the Jew, even when they appear to thinking most rationally.[It is no wonder that Jews have such a love/hate thing with Richard Wagner and Martin Heidegger, giants of German culture whose power eludes the conventional formulas of the heart and mind. Wagner’s music sounds both transcendent and barbaric, and Heidegger’s philosophy plays on high intellect and dark irrationality. Jews dread most in gentiles what they recognize in themselves; Jews hate gentiles thinking, feeling, and acting Jewishy for their own interests. Though Jews say that, even after all these years, Hitler seems beyond our understanding, what they really fear is that Hitler’s feelings about Jews were, in fact, too easy to understand. Of course, Hitler went overboard, but even such extremism was a natural counter-Jewish reaction on his part. Hitler saw Jews as extreme personalities who had to be countered with equally extreme personalities. Paradoxically, Jews would have us believe Hitler is beyond understanding precisely because he is too easy to understand. Indeed, given the current Jewish behavior around the world, antisemitism should be the easiest thing for anyone to understand. Jews are a combination of high IQ, deviousness, nastiness, hideousness, hypocrisy, and tribal self-interest hiding behind universal rhetoric. Jews were no different in the 1920s and 1930s as they are today. Besides, Hitler’s hysterics were no nuttier than Jewish hysterics about Vladimir Putin being the ‘new Hitler’ and Russia being the ‘new Nazi Germany’. ADL and SPLC’s paranoias are even more looney tunes than Hitler’s. Despite all his exaggerations, at least Hitler was right about the nature of Jewish power, whereas ADL and SPLC endlessly slander white folks with accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ that simply have no bearing on social reality. And notice how Zionists treat Palestinians as subhumans but then bitch about how Palestinians are the ones who are the verge of carrying out another Holocaust against Jews. Hitler’s extremism was hardly more deranged than Jewish extremism. What Hitler did understand about Jews is you have to fight fire with fire because Jews are relentless in their hostility, hatred, and nastiness. Hitler did it badly and evilly, but he was right that Jewish extremism can only be countered by extreme passion and measures. Jews are now planning the destruction of the white race in the US and EU. Jews have been the main force behind black-white interracism, the rise of Obama, the promotion of ‘white guilt’, massive illegal immigration, and the homo agenda. Indeed, the terms ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ were coined by Jews, and the Jewish media disseminated it far and wide through control of academia and media. Jews have been the main instigators of all the violence in the Middle East. It’s not difficult to understand Hitler’s antisemitism given the rottenness of Jews. So, Jews would rather have us believe that, gee whiz, Hitler’s ‘irrational’ hatreds defy all explanations. It’s just a devious way of Jews tricking us that they’ve been so harmless and wonderful through all of history that it’s impossible to understand why anyone would want to hate and harm Jews. But Jewish saintliness is a bogus premise. It’d be like the Japanese taking over our media & academia, fooling us that Japanese are the most blameless and harmless people that ever lived, and then wondering, gee whiz, how could anyone have carried out the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In truth, though the nukings were extreme[and possibly unjustifiable]acts, it wasn’t very difficult to understand why the US and much of the world came to loathe Japan in the 30s and the 40s. It was because the Japanese military was acting like monsters and the Japanese public mindlessly cheered on the lunatic military ventures. It’s a false premise that Jews have been wonderful people through the ages. They’ve been hideous a**holes though history just like everyone else. But they were more dangerous than most other peoples because Jews wormed into other societies and subverted the unities, cultures, and values of other peoples in order to weasel themselves to the top and then rule over goyim as if they’re cattle. Look what’s happened to US and UK, and who can deny this? Also, Jewish nastiness is different from the nastiness of, say the Anglos. Anglos and Anglo-Americans can be very nasty. Anglos in the 19th century drummed up a lot of nonsensical hateful propaganda about Russia, especially around the time of the Crimean War. And British propaganda against Germany during WWI was as demented and hateful as some Nazi propaganda later{perhaps, Anglo-Brits and Jews sort of saw eye-to-eye on
some things since both were ‘small peoples’ — small island nation and small tribal race — with ambitions to rule the world, and as such, they were wary of bigger land powers of Blood-and-Soil; Anglo-Brit was essentially Sea-and-Sail and Jewish power was Money-and-Manipulation.}Anglo-Americans made up a lot of foul & phony stories about the Spanish as excuse to start a war against the Spanish Empire and steal Cuba and the Philippines. Even so, Anglo/American nastiness is tactical and political. It’s not deep. Indeed, when the dust settles, Anglos and Anglo-Americans like to bury the hatchet and get along with other folks. US beat Japan in WWII, and both nations get along. Communist Vietnam beat US, but again, no hard feelings. But Jewish hatreds and resentments run deep. A Jew is like a psychotic elephant that never forgets whom he/she hates. So, even though Jews seem to make new friends, there’s an undercurrent of hatred running deep inside. Jews still hate, hate, and hate Christians. Jews still hate, hate, and hate Wasps and seethe about the Golfocaust: Wasp exclusion of rich Jews from country clubs. Indeed, Jewish hatred over minor slights is far more extreme than gentile hatreds over major tragedies. Russians and Poles hate Germans less for what happened in WWII than Jews hate Wasps for Golfocaust. If we do wrong to Jews just a little, they act like they’re God who’s been disrespected by God. It’s like Pauline Kael used to shit on everyone, but if anyone shat on her, she almost never forgave. Indeed, if Jews do us wrong and we get justifiably respond angrily, Jews act as if the blame should be on us. Consider how so many Jews were part of the radical left in the 40s/50s and acted as spies and agents for the USSR. You’d think Jews would feel apologetic over this, but instead, Jews pretend as if those Jewish traitors were well-meaning albeit misguided saints while the anti-communist crusade — aka ‘Red Scare’ — was a bundle of irrational paranoias, fears, and hatreds led by supposedly evil men like Joseph McCarthy. Indeed, Japanese-Americans have less bitter feelings about the ‘Internment’ — though it was far more extreme and unwarranted — than Jewish-Americans do about the anti-communist era despite the fact that many Jews did participate in anti-American acts at the behest of the worldwide communist conspiracy emanating from Moscow.]This is why many goyim don’t really get Jews. When an high IQ-and-neurotic Jew[most high-IQ Jews seem to be neurotic]puts forth an idea, stiff-and-straight goyim think they will understand the Jew — and win the respect of the Jew — if they understand and/or agree with the Jew’s professed ideas, but the real vanity, anxiety, pride, and passion of the Jew lies hidden in a deeper place. Just like there’s more to God than what He says, there’s more to high-IQ-and-neurotic Jews than what they say or write. This is why, deep down inside, Ayn Rand had little respect for those who agreed with her on everything she wrote and said. They ‘got’ her ideas, but they didn’t get the deeper source from which those ideas emanated; of course, Rand didn’t want this part of her to be understood, any more than God would want us to know His true character and agenda. This is why Bob Dylan felt such contempt for the earnest fans who carefully listened to and considered every word of his lyrics without having a clue as to the deeper streams of Dylan’s thoughts and feelings. The fascination with Leo Strauss[known fairly or unfairly as the godfather of Neocons]has less to do with the illumination of ideas than with the intimation of a soul hidden in those ideas. Children trust the mask/face, but deeper truth lies hidden behind it. It’s like the rich powerful folks in EYES WIDE SHUT hide behind masks. Their masks are not their true selves. In a way, what drove Dylan nearly over the edge in mid-60s was his crisis with his mask/persona that was partly of his own making and partly imposed on him by either naivete of his fans or the marketing ploy of the media. Even when he’d dutifully played along with the Folk Movement, it was obvious he was as much a jester and ‘cat’ as Mr. Howdy-Doody earnestly singing about Civil Rights. But not many people seemed to be getting the joke. Of course, part of the joke was in the satisfaction of the people not getting it, but messing with earnest dummies got boring pretty fast. In the D.A. Pennebaker film DON’T LOOK BACK, the concert full of well-meaning Dylan fans earnestly clinging to his every utterance is a rather pitiful sight; even when they laugh at some of Dylan’s jokes, it’s so much on cue, as if even their laughter has to be permitted. Dylan naturally got bored with this, especially as the music scene was changing so fast. So, Dylan got bolder & nastier and altered his persona to be a folk-rocker, a sort of a ‘bad boy’. But the media still refused to get the joke and chased him around for his advice for young people as the ‘spokesman of his generation’. But then, even when media did get the joke and seemed to be playing along, it didn’t satisfy Dylan since what was the point of a joke if even the ‘bourgeois’ squares in the media got it? And the art of the sneer only goes so far. It lacks depth and meaning. BLONDE ON BLONDE is a landmark in the history of music because it, like Jean Sibelius’ Symphony No. 5, dives many fathoms below the surface of expression and manages to complete the feat of retrieving and dredging up all sorts of sunken treasures[along with some junk and skeletons.] It works in the nature of ‘true confession’, a feat rarely achievable in the arts for its paradoxical nature. After all, ‘to confess’ means to pour something forth onto the surface. Shallow confessions are easy enough for all of us. We only need to admit whatever is bothering our conscience. A child who spilt milk knows he or she did something wrong. A man who stole money knows he broke the rules. It may be difficult to confess out of fear or shame, but the child or thief knows exactly what the problem is and what needs to be confessed. But true confession requires one to dig deeper and dredge up even stuff one has repressed over the years and keeps buried in the subconscious. It’s sort of like Freudian psychoanalysis. It’s like the character in THE PRINCE OF THE CITY who initially thinks he has cleansed his soul by confessing three transgressions he committed. But such superficiality won’t do. If he’s to truly confess his sins and cleanse his soul, he has to go way deeper, untangle all the wires & ropes, and drag the sunken ship from the bottom of the sea. In doing so, he has to betray his buddies and himself, but only by such betrayal can he become loyal to his true moral self. By having been ‘true’ to his buddies and the ‘tribal’ order of the police, he’s betrayed his own soul. It’s like what Michael Corleone says to the Pope in THE GODFATHER PART III: "I betrayed my wife. I betrayed myself. I've killed men, and I ordered men to be killed. No, it's useless. I killed... I ordered the death of my brother; he injured me. I killed my mother's son. I killed my father's son." In having been so true and loyal to his calling as a mafia boss and to his ‘family’ business, he’s betrayed himself. BLONDE ON BLONDE is a ‘true confessional’ work in this vein. It’s Dylan diving deep into murky zones of his psyche, going to places where the bodies are buried. It goes beyond the semi-confessional tone of HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED that tends to be accusatory than self-revelatory. Songs like "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Ballad of a Thin Man" confessed the contempt that Dylan that felt for other people. But BLONDE ON BLONDE is as self-exploratory as accusatory; and "Visions of Johanna" dives deeper than any Rock song but still manages to drag the sunken material to the surface. Dylan nor anyone else in Rock ever again achieved anything comparable. Anyway, though Freud claimed to be a scientist and nothing but, the power of his books derived from a combination of facets that were, at once, rational, religious, imaginative, and sensual in nature, thus ‘Biblical’.) Intellectual stuff can engage but maintains an emotional distance and ‘objective’ detachment between itself and the person thinking about it; it’s a meeting of the minds, not of souls. In contrast, when something calls for immersion as well as intellect, the seemingly alert mind haplessly(and even unawares) sinks and dissolves into another dimension — like the character in the liquid ‘milk-sperm-pool’ bed in ERASERHEAD or the male victims in the black ‘tar-pit’ floor in UNDER THE SKIN. The victims of such psycho-social phenomenon are chewed, digested, and shat out in Dylan’s assiduously acidic and biliously mocking "Ballad of a Thin Man", a song about a man-of-the-mind who is, however, clueless as to what’s really happening around and within him: "You've been with the professors/And they've all liked your looks/With great lawyers you have/Discussed lepers and crooks/You've been through all of F. Scott Fitzgerald's books/You're very well read/It's well known/But something is happening here/And you don't know what it is/Do you, Mister Jones ?" Mr Jones is higher on the food-chain for Dylan’s voracious proto-hipster enzymes than the female precursor in "It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue": "The lover who just walked out your door/Has taken all his blankets from the floor/The carpet, too, is moving under you/It’s all over now, Baby Blue." Of course, the joke is on us as well as on Mr. Jones because we too are ‘intellectually’ engaged with trying to make sense of the song when, in fact, its real power owes to its incantatory power to dissolve the floor plan between the dry land of consciousness and the dream-pool of the subconscious. Whereas Western gentiles tend to think in terms of the dichotomy between sense and nonsense, between reality and fantasy, Jewish thought can be like lucid dreaming: at once intensely intellectual about the irrational and intensely impassioned about matters of logic; perhaps this habit of mind owes to having thought for so long so intellectually about something so unreal, i.e. God, who can never be figured out. (Indeed, this is where Judaism is different from Christianity and Islam. We’ve heard so many times that religion is a matter of ‘faith’ as opposed to reason that is a matter of logic. But if most Christians and Muslims were content to embrace their religions as matters of faith, Judaism has been less about faith in God as an intellectual effort to understand God to the best of Jew-man’s possibility, and indeed, it was this very effort that even led to the emergence of Christianity in the first place. The early Jewish Christians who came up with a heretical form of Judaism — what Christianity was in the beginning — were ‘intellectually’ trying to figure out the deeper truth of God. They were seekers rather than merely believers, which were what most gentile Christians have been through the ages.) Intellectually, we’d like to think we are in on the joke as participants tearing apart and mocking Mr. Jones, a respectable and rational member of the bourgeoisie who has read many books and considers himself so reasonable but, in truth, lacks the key to the dark truth of how things really are. (I suspect "The Ballad of a Thin Man" is playing inside the minds of Jews whenever they interact with gentiles who think they’re so smart and free. On the surface, Jews pretend to speak rationally and sensibly about important issues of the day with non-Jews of impeccable credentials that have earned them slots in high positions. Jews control the academia and think tanks, and being admitted to such spheres makes elite goyim feel privileged to be part of a community devoted to intelligent debate and discussion. As Jews frame the issues in terms of ‘human rights’, ‘equality’, ‘diversity’, ‘world peace’, ‘liberal democracy’, and ‘free enterprise’, the gentile participants are likely to think they’re all working for high principles and progress. But deep down inside, of course Jews are really out for Jewish power and only using gentiles who submit to Jewish power either out of craven fear, genuine naivete, or clueless idiocy. I’m sure the likes of John McCain and Sarah Palin really think they’re discussing issues of ‘great importance’ when they mull over foreign policy issues with Jews, when, in fact, Jews are merely using them as shabbos goyim to further Jewish interests. One part of the Jew is happy to keep things as they are since it’s better for Jewish power and privilege to keep the goyim clueless. But another part of the Jew must be frustrated with having to keep a straight face in front of all these dumb, stupid, and moronic goyim who fall for this globo-Zionist-Jewish-supremacist bullshit. And this side of the sneering Jew that wants to blurt out, "You goyim are soooo dumb" can be seen or heard in a film like eXistenz by David Cronenberg or "The Ballad of a Thin Man" by Bob Dylan. Or the scene in Mel Brooks’ SPACEBALLS where the blonde goy hero Lonestar falls for the oldest trick in the book in his duel with Dark Helmet. Helmet might as well replace ‘Jew’ for ‘evil’ and ‘gentile’ for ‘good’ when he says, "Now you see evil will always triumph because good is dumb." Though Brother Nathanael relentlessly attacks Jews, I suspect part of his shtick is deriving joy from demonstrating how dumb goy suckers are.) And yet, our cerebral/interpretative interaction with Dylan’s song implicates us in the foolishness too for we are trying to make sense of a song that warns us against trying to make too much sense of things because most things are, after all, only masks that hide the true face of power(of both oppressive and subversive nature, i.e. those with power[privileged elites]and those who want power[hungry upstarts]bend truth for the sake of power than use power for the sake of truth; those favoring truth as end goal will lose to those who favor power as end goal). Or take a song like "Visions of Johanna", a song that both invites and defies analysis. Its complexity calls for interpretation but its power is beyond interpretation. To experience its full power, one has to surrender to it as one does to a dream, as with the works of Kafka. It both awakens and ‘sleepens’ the mind.
Bob Dylan - BLONDE ON BLONDE
Similar kind of power is to be found in the Bible. It has something of everything — spirituality, history, poetry, laws, musings, questions, allegories, etc. — and all the elements are interwoven through the narrative of God and His Covenant with the Jewish people. And it is this strange intertwining of hyperactive perceptiveness and unfathomable mysteriousness — more than any kind of consistent logic and intellectualism — that makes Kubrick stand out in cinema and Dylan stand out in Rock music. (Though intellect/reason is usually disassociated from — or seen as the opposite of — emotion/passion, the mental faculties of geniuses and visionaries are sometimes most active when fueled with obsessive emotions[and this is a matter we need to be wary about in relation to high-IQ Jews]. This is obvious enough in the arts where the artist has to make spontaneous mental associations of his creative material to restructure and synthesize musical notes, words, images, shapes, and/or patterns into new & original personal expressions. Though emotion/passion can get in the way of logic and reason, the mind needs something ‘extra’ — like a high from a drug — to be pushed into new dimensions of seeing, feeling, thinking, and understanding. If the mind needs only to function according to programming, it can do fine without passion, and if anything, passion/obsession/emotions will get in the way. If a dam operator or a locomotive engineer needs to carry out his duties in accordance with training, the mind only need to follow instructions based practice and repetition. But for a scientist or inventor to think up something new, the mind has to break out of its training, assumptions, conventions, dogmas, prejudices, and even entire paradigms. It has to undergo a process not unlike the ‘birthing’ of Athena from the mind of Zeus. It’s like an earthbound object needs the extra-boost of rockets to ascend into the sky and break free of the gravitational pull of the earth. The mind has its own ‘gravity’. The workings of our mind usually stick to the ‘gravitational force’ of how our minds have been genetically programmed and socially conditioned. Breaking free of this ‘gravity’ isn’t easy, and only a handful of people ever make the leap. It’s like the Moonwatcher Ape in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY goes beyond his mental ‘gravity’ and sees something new in the bone. And other apes come to imitate him. Inspiration is for a few, imitation is for a million. Even mediocrities can successfully imitate the breakthroughs of geniuses. Whoever invented the spear or bow & arrow must have been a genius of great inspiration, but once the discovery was made, just about any caveman dufus could imitate the inspiration and make his own bow and arrows. In a way, Kubrick was to cinema what the Moonwatcher Ape was to ape-human history. He had the power to see beyond most of his peers. Just as the images cuts from the prehistoric bone to the futuristic spaceship, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was a giant single leap from the crude primitivism of science fiction up to that time to a new kind of science fiction that, even today with all the CGI in the world, hasn’t been surpassed in imagination and vision. We are used to believing in cultural evolution — how things incrementally become more complex and better — , but works like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY throw a monkey wrench or bone into our assumptions because it wasn’t an incremental advance/evolution in the science fiction genre but an instant and complete transformation as if sci-fi cinema had gone directly from its bone-stage to high-tech-stage in a single bound. It didn’t evolve out of previous sci-fi but demolished just about everything that had preceded it and without compromise[that fatally marred Fritz Lang’s visionary but ultimately kitschy METROPOLIS]. Prior to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, just about the only science fiction films of any real aesthetic or intellectual value, other than Lang’s film, were LA JETEE, ALPHAVILLE, FAHRENHEIT 451, and THE FACE OF ANOTHER — though one could make a case for Michael Snow’s WAVELENGTH if it’s sufficiently deemed to be sci-fi-like. [INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS is a great movie, but I would categorize it more with horror than science fiction.] 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was ‘birthed’ like Athena from Zeus’s head. Other gods had arrived one by one by the usual ‘progenic’ process, but Athena emerged, full-grown and fully-clad, unexpectedly as if from nowhere. She was the supreme idealized representation of the unity of inspiration and intellect, as if radiant logic could form unawares and emerge from the dark depths of a god’s subconscious. There is both great violence and awesome order in the her ‘birth’, something we also sense when Moonwatcher Ape discovers the power of technology within the recesses of his mind that begins to view the world with new patterns and powers of organization. No one imagined anything like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY could even be possible before it arrived on the screens in 1968. It seemed not so much the latest in the evolution of cinema as something from another time or dimension[as if Kubrick traveled to the future in a time machine and brought back a movie from the future]. Anyway, the power of mind-gravity holds mental faculties to the level of what is generally thought to be within the realm of the possible, sensible, and logical. And this is necessary for most people since most of what we do is routine, requires repetition, and operates according to rational principles accessible to ordinary people. Most of us live to learn established truths and useful tasks, and there’s no need for us to break out of our mind-gravities. And even when some of our thoughts do achieve a higher altitude than the usual, they remain within the orbit of our mind-gravity. It revolves with than breaks free of the gravity. And this is true even of very smart people. Even most high-IQ people who attend elite universities never think anything startlingly new nor break free of their mind gravities. Being smarter, they may read more books, remember more data, and work faster & more efficiently, but their minds work according to what they’ve been taught and how they’ve been trained. Most physicists and chemists stick with the routines of lab work and/or teach classes; they are not gonna be the new Einsteins and Stephen Hawkings. The inspiration to break free of the mind-gravity needs powerful rocket boosters, and this is why high IQ isn’t sufficient for geniuses to make a difference and break through towards a new paradigm. The extra boost has to be emotional, passionate, neurotic, crazy, feverish, nutty, etc. Though more true in arts, music, & creativity, it’s likely also true in science and math as some of the greatest scientists were rather odd obsessive sorts. They had a powerful ball-brain connection. And they knew that in order to work at such high levels, they had to totally immerse themselves in their obsessions and push the envelope. So, even though they were primarily using their minds — the instruments of reason and logic — , they were fueled and driven by obsessive emotionalism, without which their minds would not have been able to sustain the propulsive intensity and spontaneity-of-inspiration so necessary in breaking free of the centrifugal pull of mind-gravity. This sort of explains why some of the most cerebral people also seem the ‘craziest’. Given their high intellect and mental abilities, one would like to think they are highly sensible people animated by reason and logic. But in their obsessive need to push their minds to go beyond the conventions of normally-and-generally understood truth, values, and/or expressions, their intellects become fueled with feverish emotions that sometimes took on a life of their own. When the mind is made to work calmly, it can perform many different functions very well according to established rules and patterns, but for the mind to think, envision, invent, or create new things, it cannot be calm and collected. It has to be charged with something extra. It’s like the spirit of Rock pushed pop music to another/higher level because it had those extra-rocket-boosters. Even when the mind works in the realm of rational-logical-empirical science and/or technology, it has to break free of received mental habits and programming in order to enter into the next level, and this ‘radical breakthrough’[aptly named], even in science, has an element of ‘prophecy’, especially if it happens to be a macro-innovative paradigm-shifter. Micro-innovations happen more at the evolutionary level. Any technology can be improved incrementally and systematically, and every company or organization works on improvements to make a better car, radio, or computer. Japanese have been very good at micro-innovations in making better consumer products. But MACRO-innovators have generally been the Jews and white gentiles, and their achievements were like fire lit by sparks of friction between emotion and intellect. Though FRANKENSTEIN is just a novel[which I haven’t read though I saw some movie versions], it does say something about the element of passion/romance — Promethean vision — even in the heart and mind of a rational scientist. Many people have been puzzled by the fact that so many famous/prominent Jews have been so intelligent yet so crazy. They wonder why this is so, especially as most gentiles associate intelligence with reason, logic, and facts. But just as Jews aren’t content to be rich but wanna be super-rich, Jewish thinkers aren’t content to be intelligent but aspire to be super-intelligent. Like their God, they wanna be the one-and-only-guru-genius for all times. Though competitiveness has been a part of all cultures of intelligence, most cultures developed either a practical, consensus-oriented, or dialectical model of intelligence. The practical model assumed that intelligence should be used to serve the socio-political order, and such a model prevailed in Ancient Egypt and feudal Japan. The scholar class served the ruling political/military class; Intelligence should serve the power. The other model was consensus-oriented, and it prevailed in places like traditional China. Though Chinese studied very hard to pass Imperial Exams, their main goal wasn’t to think better than others and elevate themselves as the great guru-wiseman of all time but to prove that they too were worthy of joining a select order of smart people committed to agreed-upon wisdom and truth as laid down by Confucius, Mencius, and some others. It was different from the Egyptian and Japanese model in that Intelligence was seen as a good in itself, as a tool of gaining Wisdom, which should ideally be the focus of power. Even so, all intelligent people were expected to arrive at the consensus of what is deemed wise as the debate was thought to have been settled long ago by Confucius and his followers: Turn the page according to the sage. The Greeks were super-competitive, but they favored the dialectical process whereby various thinkers got together to discuss stuff and argue with one another; it was like mental tennis. In order to compete, there had to be more than one competitor. So, a kind of sportsmanship of intelligence developed among the Greeks, and this may have later inspired the culture of sportsmanship among Brits as well. Greeks wanted to be #1 among competitors, not #1 for all time before everyone who was browbeaten or awed into compliance. Though Karl Marx famously developed the dialectical theory of economic history, his way of thinking couldn’t be further from the dialectical model. Unlike Socrates or Aristotle, Marx didn’t like to argue with others. He didn’t see the point of competition. He was into domination. He was right, everyone else was wrong... unless they agreed with him. Whenever he got together with others, he would fly into a fury if anyone dared to disagree with him or point out errors in his way of thinking. As far as he was concerned, he wasn’t just right about a few things but about everything pertaining to humanity, history, economics, morality, creativity, and etc. He understood the Law of History that linked everything to everything. He was sort of crazy, at least by gentile standards, but such type of personality/intellectual-impassioned style wasn’t uncommon among Jews. It’s like what passes for crazy among whites might be a norm among Negroes who be all-too-naturally and all-too-often acting like wild baboons and apes in public. A Negro is a kind of creature who stirs up trouble but then blames others for noticing that he’s a nuisance or menace to society. Though Jews, like Greeks, had developed a culture of debate and discussion, when push came to shove, Jewish thought really centered on the spiritual-intellectual megalomania of who-understood-the-mind-of-God-best, on the matter of who-had-the-most-credentials-to-be-the-next-great-prophet or even the Messiah. A prophet need not argue with others since his truth comes from either the Law of God or the Law of History. Though there are giants in Greek thought, there’s no one to match the authority of characters like Moses and other Jewish Prophets. Moses didn’t sit around and discuss which set of laws would be ideal for the Jewish people. He had a special connection to God and handed down the Sacred Laws unto wily Jews who wouldn’t sit still and instead romped around like Ron Jeremy and Jamie Gillis before the Golden Calf.[Perhaps, Jewish legal and moral culture had to be made of stronger stuff because it had to be formulated while Jews were on the move, whereas the Greeks could take a more reflective and expansive approach on the nature of truth since they lived in more stable worlds than Jews did when Moses laid down the laws.] Greek pride-of-intellect insisted on one’s competitive superiority over others without dismissing all other schools-of-intellect as false. According to Greeks, all schools of thought could be valid to some degree, like different gods were unique and valuable in their own way. Just because Zeus was the greatest god didn’t mean that all other gods were false or wrong. In contrast, the Jewish pride-of-prophetic-intellect insisted not only on the rightness of oneself-over-all but on the rightness of oneself-against-the-falseness-of-all-others. It’s like the Anglo-American ‘Arabists’ were willing to make room for Neocons in the GOP, whereas, once the Neocons took over, they insisted that everyone who didn’t bow down to the Neocon program be purged from the organization. Jewish mental habit doesn’t tolerate diversity of opinion; it only does so tactically when Jews don’t have the power, but once Jews gain the power, their policy is total smiting of all competing thoughts. If Jews as a people have seen themselves as the special Chosen of God, each Jewish thinker sees himself as the special chosen individual of God. Compared to all the gentile groups, Jews see themselves as the special chosen tribe of God. Compared to all the other Jews, each Jewish thinker sees himself or herself as the special chosen person of God or History. This obsessive cult of specialness has had both a cohesive and divisive effect on the Jews. Collectively, the cult of specialness made Jews separate themselves from other groups and huddle together to form a Jewish community. This had the effect of creating strong bonds among Jews. But the desire to be special — like David in Steven Spielberg’s A.I. sees himself as ‘special’ and ‘unique’ — also made ambitious Jews to set themselves apart from all other Jews. As if being a member of a special tribe wasn’t enough, they wanted to be super-special as individuals.[But then, God didn’t tell all Jewish males at once to cut off their penis skins to form the Covenant with God. God chose one special individual, Abraham, to cut off his penis skin first and then appointed him as the leader in guiding all other men in the tribe to cut off their penis skins. And God didn’t just have the Jews just leave Egypt as a faceless mass of people but appointed Moses as the special Prophet to lead his people to the Promised Land.]So, while the collective cult of specialness set Jews apart from other peoples and made for Jewish group cohesion, the individual cult of specialness made ambitious Jews want to go beyond the conventions/tradition of most Jews. If successful, such Jewish individuals became revered as Prophets who didn’t merely pass down the truth of God but expanded upon it with new vision and insight. Still, even though Jewish Prophets stood apart from the Jewish community, they were still committed to serving the Jewish community — even if the community might have initially rejected, disapproved, or persecuted them. It’s like Moses had a hard time leading the Jews. He felt himself to be superior to the rowdy rabble that made up the Jews-departing-from-Egypt, but he understood his destiny to be bound up with his flock. Even so, the danger of the Prophetic mind-set is its ambition that may ‘overreach’ and break free of the community and establish a new culture and community, and this sure happened with Jesus, whose ambition wasn’t merely super-special but super-duper-special, even to the point of proclaiming — at least according to myth written by Disciples or others — that He is the Son of God. As a result, His example led to the creation of a new and separate religion altogether. This is why the great Jewish figures have a rather ambiguous place in Jewish history. Though the Jewish community is proud of the Jewishness of such great men, their greatness was often achieved by breaking out of the limitations or even going against the essence of Jewishness[even if they were profoundly steeped in Jewishness nevertheless]. Though Moses is the biggest giant of Jewish culture, his story in the Old Testament isn’t a happy one. He was raised as an Egyptian and later switched loyalties. He led the Jews out of Egypt but sometimes just wanted to crack Jewish skulls because so many Jews didn’t see eye-to-eye with him and were acting like Little Caesar to drive him crazy. And he also offended God by losing his patience and acting rashly. God ordered him to order around the Jews, but Jews were hard to order around as too many of them were like Howard Stern, Don Rickles, Harpo Marx, Sarah Silverman, Joan Rivers, Mel Brooks, Martine Rothblatt, Russ Meyers, and etc. So, Moses was felt as if stuck in a rock and a hard place. He felt like Rodney Dangerfield who got no respect. God demanded results from Moses, but the damn Jews were driving Moses crazy, though to be fair, in their eyes, Moses was the crazy Jew driving them crazy. And though Moses was the greatest Jew that ever lived, he wasn’t allowed to enter the Promised Land. So, in his time — if such a figure really did exist — , Moses’ place among Jews was ambiguous and troubled. Even more ambiguous are the figures of Jesus, Peter, and Paul. On the one hand, Jews are surely proud that all three were Jews who profoundly changed history of the world. And yet, the great trio could not have done it without breaking from the Judaic community, thereby becoming heretics, traitors, and enemies in the eyes of Jews. If Prometheus stole fire form the gods and gave it to mankind, Jesus-Peter-Paul did something even more ‘radical’. They stole God Himself from the Jews and gave Him to gentiles — and Jews got burned a bunch of times in history as the result. Traditionally, Jews have wanted to be great as Jews and for the Jews, but the logic of greatness tends to break out of any set bounds and limitations.[This is why it was so absurd for the Nazis to erect ideological barriers between ‘Aryan’ art and ‘non-Aryan’ art. Beethoven was German, and Germans may have a special cultural claim on him, but his music also belongs to and will inspire anyone in any part of the world with love of music.] So, Jesus-Peter-and-Paul had to carry the message to non-Jews. So, the ideas of Marx and Einstein weren’t just confined to Jews but had application for all of mankind. Communism spread all around the world. Today, Jews fear that Iranians might also own the nuclear bomb even though Jews were the pioneers of nuclear science & technology. So, when a Jew is truly great, the greatness is both Jewish and beyond-Jewish. His Jewishness fills fellow Jews with pride, but truly great Jews also fill Jews with anxiety, trepidation, and even fear since great ideas flow beyond the boundaries of the tribe. This anxiety was dramatized or dra-maze-tized in David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ, i.e. how can Jews use their super-intelligence of universal import to affect all of humanity while, at the same time, pulling just the right strings so that the power shall remain with the Jew? A kind of universalist-tribalism or ‘unitribalism’. But Jewish genius isn’t always ‘originalist’; often, it is ‘definitivist’. Originalist pride is based on having thought, created, discovered, or invented something new. It’s like the Wright Brothers can claim originalist pride in having built the first flying machine heavier than air. But not all originalist achievements amount to much, i.e. achieve their full potential. The Chinese, for example, were the first to invent several key items of great potential, but they didn’t do much with them. Jews didn’t invent cinema, but in terms of film-as-business and film-as-art, they took it further than any other people. Jews became the definitivist champions of cinema. Bob Dylan didn’t create the Blues, Country, Rock-n-Roll, folk, and etc, but in albums like HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED, BLONDE ON BLONDE, and BASEMENT TAPES, he realized their furthest alchemic possibilities in terms of imagination, strangeness, and depth. Stanley Kubrick didn’t invent science fiction but, in a single leap, made what may well be the greatest science fiction film that can ever be made. The recent TRON: LEGACY and GRAVITY have special effects far more advanced and dazzling than those in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but they still come nowhere near Kubrick’s film in scope, ingenuity, and vision. It’s like Negroes didn’t invent basketball, boxing, and football, but they took them to the furthest limits of performance. So, Jewish anxiety and ambiguities go both ways. In some ways, they feel that gentiles have ‘stolen’ original ideas from Jews — though, to be sure, the greatest ‘theft’ was carried out by Jews themselves since Jesus, Peter, and Paul were all Jews; it was Jews who pushed early Christianity onto the gentiles who initially resisted it; it certainly wasn’t the gentiles who took the initiative in stealing the Jewish God from the Jews. But in other cases, Jews have taken what were initially gentile ideas & discoveries and pushed them to the next level, even the definitive level. It’s like Franz Kafka owes something to Heinrich von Kleist and possibly to some Russian authors of the absurd, but his vision of strangeness came to be the definitive one in the modern world — and justly so. It’s like Marx and Freud took ideas on history, economics, medicine, or psychology from goyim but they came up with the most interesting twists and expansions on the subjects even if ultimately wrongheaded. In a way, the spellbinding effect that modern Jews have had over humanity owes something to their power of narrative-weaving. If story-telling tends to be linear, with A progressing to B and ultimately to Z, narrative-weaving is a trickier proposition because it finds ways to connect with dots generally thought to exist outside the perimeters of the main narrative.[In some cases, the main narrative/theme/subject isn’t only interconnected with elements previously thought to exist apart but the interrelation is reconfigured so as to render the outside elements as the new core and the old core as the new outside elements that may even come to be entirely disconnected from the new core. Indeed, consider the rise of Jewish power in the US. The core of Americanism used to be Anglo-American, European, and Christian. But Jewish influence argued that Americanism should be much broader than that. Jews connected Americanism with notions of ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’, and ‘change’. So, the sense of Americanism grew larger and broader, and this had some positive benefits. But in time, Jewish power became the new core power of America whereas the very notion of Wasp power came to be deemed as ‘evil’ and ‘racist’. Also in time, the vision of America as a diverse non-white majority nation replaced the traditional view of America as essentially a white European nation. But it didn’t end there. Though the process began with white Americanism broadening itself to make room for non-white America, the new ideal of non-white majority America will not even tolerate the idea of a white America. So, Jews connected the core of White America with outside dots of the vision of non-white-America, but once the vision of non-white America became the new core of Americanism, any positive mention of a White America became a taboo. Same goes for ‘gay marriage’. We all knew what real marriage used to be and still should be. But Jews connected the idea of real/true marriage with an expanded notion of ‘marriage’ that included homos. So, more and more Americans began to warm to the idea of making room for ‘gay marriage’. But in many places in America, people’s reputations and careers are destroyed if they don’t submit to the ‘new normal’ of ‘gay pride’. As if it wasn’t enough for homos to hog the entire meaning of ‘gay’ for themselves — just like Jews hog ‘Semite’ for themselves even though most Semites are Arabs — , homos are now even trying to claim the word ‘pride’ as an exclusively homo thing so that everyone will instantly associate two guys doing fecal penetration on one another with ‘pride’.] Most stories are limited to things of relevance. In contrast, the strangeness of Kafka derives from the sense of how even things that seem to have no bearing on the story or even reality-as-we-understand-it keep intruding into the narrative. If such intrusions are purely random and arbitrary, they’ll seem pointless and idiotic. But if their presence provokes us to find them oddly fitting and familiar despite or especially because of their strangeness, then the sense of narrative/reality hasn’t so much been violated as expanded and enriched. What Einstein did with physics, Kafka did with narrative. Similarly, Marx made connections among things most people hadn’t noticed before. And Freud made connections and associations among various ideas and disciplines that had been kept separate within their own comfort zones of dry expertise. To be sure, this was a hallmark of modernity, and plenty of non-Jews thought in similar ways and made comparable achievements. Englishmen Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin theorized how humanity had arisen through evolution from more primitive life-forms. But it’s instructive to compare the personality of Darwin & most Anglo intellectuals with those of Freud, Marx, and other great Jews. Darwin was relatively modest and cautious despite his momentous achievement whereas Marx and Freud thought they found the truth to everything and bitterly attacked anyone who disagreed or called their ideas into question. We see the same kind of nastiness in Noam Chomsky, Leon Trotsky, and Ayn Rand. This is why Jews especially hate Hitler: Not only because Hitler was virulently anti-Jewish but his personality was, in some ways, so much like those of Jews: nasty, vicious, vile, repulsive, arrogant, cunning, devious, hideous, venal, neurotic, self-righteous, and psychopathic. Anyway, Jews are masters of narrative-weaving, and this has impressed a lot of people. More than facts and figures, people like a good story or grand concept, and smart people especially like a grand narrative that seemingly ties everything together. This was the genius of Marx’s achievement. Before Marx, there had been great historians, great moralists, great spiritualists, great economists, great sociologists, great socialist theorists, and great philosophers. But it was Marx who wove all those things together into a kind of Narrative-of-Everything. And the greatness of Freud wasn’t merely in his theory of the subconscious. If he’d academically focused on that narrow subject, he would have been footnote in the history of psychology. What made him a landmark figure was in the manner by which he wove together elements of science and medicine with history and mythology and culture and morality and society and literature and even economics, which is why a kind of Freudian-Marxian fusion developed in the Frankfurt School. We get a similar sense from reading Kafka’s THE TRIAL and THE CASTLE. In some ways, both are simple stories of single characters, and yet, the characters find themselves in mazes where everything intimate-personal-private-subconscious seems intertwined with everything social-public-official-conscious. It’s as if one is subconsciously wedded to a meta-perception that moves through walls and notices relations among realms that were thought to remain separate and apart; or, it feels as though the system is secretly conjoined with a meta-power that pries into the personal and private spaces of individuals; the duality of liberation/expansion and violation/intrusion works both ways, i.e. for those with the advantage, every extra ounce of power means greater freedom and liberation whereas, for those with the disadvantage, it means more enslavement; it’s like as the Jews and homos gain more ‘liberating’ freedom to do as they please on Wall Street, government, academia, and media, it means more oppression for the rest of us. This accounts as to why Kafka’s world seems at once liberating and oppressive; the sense of breakdown of barriers between the private person and the system suggests expansion in reach and access on the part of the individual, but it also means the other party can also gain greater reach and access over you; we know this from the internet, the sheer breadth of which makes us simultaneously more empowered and more enslaved, more accessible to the world and more accessible to the world, more aware of the powers-that-be and more aware to the powers-that-be. Though the Kafka universe has been associated with nightmarishness and darkness, there’s also an inviting and fascinating quality to them; we would not want to be stuck in an Orwellian 1984 universe where the means of oppression are pretty obvious, whereas in a Kafka universe, there is a sense of mindful-and-soulful adventure as well as the paranoia and dread. Orwell’s universe is a prison, whereas Kafka’s universe is a maze; the maze may ultimately be a prison but we can never be sure, and in that uncertainty is our ‘freedom’ and ‘empowerment’. Though Jews, with high-IQ and immense memories, are masters of facts-and-figures, their power in intellectual and cultural fields would have been limited if they’d only excelled as statisticians or analysts. Nate Silver may have dazzled a bunch of people with his number crunching skills, but unless he finds a way to apply his wizardry to some kind of grand narrative, he will be a footnote in American history. Likewise, lots of people gained fame in their day for their personal views, but unless their opinions & observations were formulated into a world-view, they became yesterday’s news. Westbrook Pegler was a prominent opinion-maker of his day, but no one remembers him today. People with long-lasting impact have a way of combining personal passions and systematic thinking into a larger vision of humanity and history. Their power derives from an obsessive will to tie together various strands of themes and thoughts with facts and figures into something that resembles a Narrative-of-Everything. This was also the appeal of Freakonomics where, rightly or wrongly, Steven Levitt claimed to have found connections among things that no one had previously suspected or surmised. Though not Jewish, Malcolm Gladwell has worked in much the same vein, which may explain why he’s been a darling of the Jews; they feel flattered by his quasi-Jewish-turns-of-thought. But in the end, Levitt and Gladwell won’t match the giants of the past because they are too ‘nice’ & dorky and lack the prophetic ‘style of radical will’; besides, we live in the world of ‘End of History’ where big bold news ideas are eschewed in favor of the same-new-same-new of PC pieties. Karl Marx and Harpo Marx took no prisoners, but Gladwell, though a jerk, is the sort of guy to pass out pillows to everyone on the plane. As for Levitt, he seems more Star-Trek-ish than Asimov-ish. He’s content to be a geek, and happy geeks don’t get very far. It’s the sour malcontents who reach much further for they have more kick in them, a bigger chip on their shoulders, more to prove. In many ways, someone like William James was a far more professional scholar, intellectual, and thinker than someone like Sigmund Freud. Whether one agrees with James’ ideas or not, his facts & data were more carefully collected & arranged, and his thesis was put forth with greater caution and with a respectful attitude toward those who might disagree or care to further the debate. And yet, it’s Freud who became the giant of psychology in the 20th century. Some might argue that Freud got a huge boost from the Jewish-run media and academia, but that’s only half of it. After all, even gentile artists who never attended colleges were tantalized by Freud’s ideas and theories. Hitchcock’s Freudian movies may be ludicrous in the light of latest discoveries in medicine and psychology, but they remain powerful and fascinating just the same. Caution and sobriety, though paramount virtues in science and other fields of reason from a professional viewpoint, tend to restrain boldness and dampen imaginative speculation since they always remind experimenters and researchers of the fact that there’s always a lot more that is unknown than known. So, in order to formulate a bold theory, one must connect the limited dots of what is known through the dark matter of what remains unknown. It’s like military commanders who seek greatness must risk everything on the line and make bold decisions based as much on bold speculations of the unknown than careful calculations on the known. After all, based on all the material evidence, the Greeks should have surrendered to the seemingly invincible Persian army that was hugely advantaged in numbers, discipline, and unity. But Greek went for a bold calculated risk and eked out a victory for the ages. Alexander the Great likewise gained immortality by achieving something that few people thought was possible. Based on all the stats and predictions, no one thought Muhammad Ali could defeat George Foreman in the Rumble in the Jungle. And Hitler invaded Russia with a similar frame of mind, and had he succeeded, he would have been one of the[if not the]greatest commanders/conquerors of all time — even if his victory wouldn’t have mitigated his evil — , but he ended up worse than Napoleon. Freud and certain other Jewish thinkers had a zealous kind of boldness whereas the Anglo/American intellectual model tended to be more cautious and mindful of facts & figures and restrained from theoretical overreach. As such, far fewer Anglo/American thinkers had the prophetic cult of personality that became renowned as a hallmark of Jewish thought. Even among literary artists, there were many Anglo-American writers who were stylistically as good as any Jewish writers, but the likes of Norman Mailer and Philip Roth are likely to leave a greater footprint in the literary scene than figures like Gore Vidal and John Updike because of their greater visionary reach[especially Mailer] or obsessive intensity[especially Roth]. Anglo-American male authors wrote with their minds, indeed even when they wrote about sex, whereas Jewish male writers wrote with the full power of the brain-ball connection. And Anglo-American female writers wrote with their lips and hips, whereas Jewish female writers wrote with their hairy cunts. You can smell the bush when reading Pauline Kael or Susan Sontag; it’s like some vagina-monologal masturbation. Of course, there were prophetic religious figures among Anglo-Americans, but as the modern world was defined by secular ideologies and science[and its cult known as ‘scientism’], ‘propheticism’ that was limited to religion had a dwindling impact on the West, especially as it couldn’t compete with science and secular ideologies for the hearts of the ‘best-and-the-brightest’ and was relegated to performing a rearguard action; religion was no longer seen as a progressive force that prophetically marched into the future as it had been during the Abolitionist period. It turned into a kind of regressive ‘re-phecy’ than a progressive ‘pro-phecy’, and this may explain why Christian Propheticism sought green pastures in the non-Western World that had been less impacted by modernity and were more naively/‘innocently’ open to religious prophecy. In the West itself, the Prohibition Movement was the last great desperate attempt by religion to corral the forces to control the politics of prophecy in the modern world. With its failure and demise, the final nails were being driven into the coffin of religion-as-the-leading-force-of-progress-in-the-West.[Political Correctness is like the Prohibition of the Mind or War on Thought, indeed just as morally dogmatic, rigid, and repressive, but its cult of ‘progressive secularism’ maintains its ‘intellectual’ cachet in the eyes of academics, especially Jewish ones, who will do anything to shame and suppress the natural racial-national passions of white folks.] Because the non-West that had yet to develop or cultivate the modern secular mind-set, even a religious system could serve as a progressive & prophetic force since Western Christianity was more actively engaged in creating a better & more most just society than the ultra-conservative native religions were. In the West, as secular institutions became the new dynamic forces of progress, Christianity went from a prophetic-progressive movement to a, relatively speaking, a regressive-‘rephetic’ movement, especially as even Christians of the Left tended to stick with religious dogma on matters of evolution and social morality, e.g. many Catholic Democrats supporting laws and codes that censored public expressions of immorality, obscenity, and lewdness. Still, the prophetic style lived on albeit in a secular and/or intellectualized form — and in the case of Gandhi and MLK, it was difficult to tell where the religion ended and the ideology began.[Oddly enough, the secular-prophetic power of communism gave one last hope for Christianity to play a prophetic role in the modern world. If not for the Cold War, Pope John Paul would have hardly have been thought a key figure in history. But his ethnic and spiritual association with the Polish people’s struggle against communism made him a ‘great man’ in the eyes of many, even to some Liberals.] In a way, the prophetic style in secular thought became more appealing because the sudden and rapid shift from traditional to modern society created so many confusions on all levels of society.[Though the pace of change was even faster between 1945 to 2000 than between 1850 to 1914, the earlier shift was more paradigmatic and profound. Though much had changed since the end of WWII to the end of the 20th century, most people in the West had grown accustomed to modernity, and the majorities of entire generations were born into it, and so, modernity became their mother’s milk; and even if one didn’t live in the city, the city came into the living room of every house in every suburb, town, or village via the TV. In contrast, the shift from 1850 to 1914 was from agricultural-local-gradual to industrial-urban-breakneck. It was about local yokels becoming city slickers whereas much of the change since the end of WWII was about city slickers becoming more slick. To be sure, there was a kind of retrenchment in America due to the rise of Negro power. If not for the Negro threat, American cities would have thrived and served as the centers of American life and culture all throughout the second-half of the 20th century. But with rising Negro crime in big cities, a lot of educated and intelligent white folks relocated to the suburbs, and that made them somewhat less modern-urbane and more traditional — in style and manner if not exactly in outlook — , and that gave a second life to the GOP. It’d be hard to imagine the success of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan without the growing power of the suburbs. But the War on Suburbs have been waged since the Bill Clinton Era. By using Black Fright via Section 8 against White Flight, the suburbs and small towns have been made far less safe as sanctuaries from black blight. So, white folks in the suburbs are losing heart and growing demoralized, especially as they don’t know to fight back as they’ve been morally paralyzed into feeling ‘evil and racist’ if they were to oppose ‘diversity’. And since big cities have been made richer and safer via Jew-homo-hipster gentrification, lots of well-educated and affluent young white folks are moving back to the cities, and city life makes people more Liberal due to cultural life and close association of like-minded people who tend to be status-conscious in accordance with rules of PC. One of the reasons for the ideological divergence between Europeans and Americans since the end of WWII can be explained by the fact that, because Europeans didn’t have to worry about black crime in big cities, their national/political life tended to be far more urban-centered and this made them more ‘liberal’ and ‘cosmopolitan’. But as the global elites and their minion ‘creative class’ are retaking American cities, we see a greater convergence of American and European ideologies, and the rise of Obama has been a fulfilment of that. On the other hand, if European cities become overwhelmed by the rising tide of color, the nature of politics and ideology may change in Europe.] When the Age of Reason kicked off in the 18th century, man still had dominion over socio-economic forces. The economy was still essentially agricultural, and man lorded over machinery that he crafted or controlled. But with the rise of the industrial economy, factories and buildings towered over man. Machines seemed like monsters growing ever larger and devouring mankind. Cities became so huge that their inhabitants felt lost, disoriented, and alienated; communities grew larger but as communities of strangers. Even though the rapid change of modernity was the product of the rise of rationality in science, economics, and industry, it was as if man lost control of reason/science/technology, which had taken on a logic/life of its own and sped off faster than man could ever hope to keep up with. Mankind had used reason to create the modern world, but the modern world seemed to have overtaken man’s ability to keep control of things. Indeed, one of the discomfiting aspects of THE TRIAL and 1984 is the sense that the system/bureaucracy/order may actually be bigger than any individual or any group of people. Though Big Brother is said to be the big boss in 1984, what if he is just a front maintained by the system that operates according to its own logic with no one really in charge? Though individuals created the totalitarian system in the first place, what if the system has become greater than the power of any single individual or group and has the means to perpetuate itself indefinitely, whereupon no one and no group, however powerful and privileged they may be, has the power to bring it to an end. The most terrifying thing about 1984 is not the power of Big Brother but the system that will outlive Big Brother.[As the USSR perpetuated itself after the death of Stalin, many feared that the system would live on forever though it ultimately didn’t. In the end, it goes to show that blood is more powerful than ideology. The system in North Korea has perpetuated itself more than two decades since the end of the Cold War because it’d been made into a system of blood-clan-totalitarianism. And Jews have grown so powerful because they were far more blood-clan-oriented than the Wasps were. As different as ultra-xenophobic North Koreans and globalist Jews are, both groups share one thing in common: utter paranoia of decline and fall. The North Korean leadership thought the worldwide communist system/movement would last forever, but almost instantly, China turned to capitalism and remained communist only in name and the USSR and its satellite states of Eastern Europe collapsed overnight. How could something that had seemed so invincible and permanent fall and vanish so fast? North Korean elites feel they too could lose everything almost overnight, and Jews also lose sleep wondering about what the future has in store for them. Power can be deceptive, especially when it seems so secure and permanent; surely Wasp elites following WWII thought they were masters of the world; well, look at them today. Today, Jews have immense power, and gentiles all over the West sing hosannas to Jews like North Korean masses sing praises to the Kim Clan, but what if all of that could change almost overnight? Didn’t Jewish oligarchs feel that Russia was their oyster in the 90s? But they’ve had setbacks, though Russia can still fall into the hands of Jews. Things can fall apart when one least expects them to, and appearances can be deceiving. After all, consider how the masses had dutifully praised the ‘great leaders’ of communist bloc nations. The very people who’d marched and cheered communism with seemingly heartfelt loyalty found themselves only too happy to welcome its demise, and some even demanded that former communist tyrants be brought to justice. So, what if the same fate awaits the globalist Jewish elites? So, Jews have closely studied the fall of communism — Jews are always thinking, which is why most think-tanks are Jewish mind-banks — , as have the North Korean elites. For the North Korean elites, the lesson is communism must be a family-clan enterprise for it to last. For Jews, the main nemesis of their supremacism is thought to be goy nationalism. Indeed, if any force brought down communism, it was nationalism. It was nationalism that caused the split between USSR and Red China, and then between Red China and communist Vietnam. It was nationalism that made Eastern European nations like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, and etc. resent Russian domination. It was nationalism among Russians that grew tired of Russians having to foot the bill to support and sustain the economies of Cuba and Central Asian Republics. Also, Russia had to provide tons of natural resources to Warsaw Pact nations in exchange for shoddy over-priced consumer products. So, the reassertion of national interests in Russia and other communist nations led to the demise of the communist system. What had seemed permanent and invincible had disappeared suddenly with a whimper. Though generations under communism had been taught and programmed to believe that they couldn’t survive economically, politically, socially, spiritually, culturally, and morally without communism, every nation emerging from communism didn’t miss it much if at all. The dominant globalist power-and-‘ideology’ in today’s world is Worship-of-Jew-ism. Jews have persuaded generations of white gentiles that the latter would be lost without the wisdom, guidance, redemptive presence, genius, originality, wonderfulness, humor, ingenuity, inventiveness, and etc. of Jews. Without Jews, white folks might simply revert to being evil ‘nationalist-racist-tribalist’ barbarians of the Dark Ages. Only by admiring, praising, celebrating, worshiping, protecting, and serving Jews — and their mini-me homos — do white folks have any reason to live, any possibility of progress, any chance at redemption, and any meaning of life: White folks without Jews would be like Christians without God. So, white folks embrace Worship-of-Jew-ism as fervently and mindlessly as people under communism had once embraced Marxism. But then, Marxism-Leninism was never in tune with the natural way of things. In time, people grew tired of it and said enough is enough. And after it faded away, most people didn’t mourn its passing, and furthermore, they discovered they could survive and thrive without it, indeed much more so than with it. The historical force in tune with human nature that undermined communism was nationalism, indeed much more so than Liberalism or American Conservatism. This has been very unnerving to Jews for a European nationalism that can dispense with communism can surely also do away with Worship-of-Jew-ism and, furthermore, make Europeans feel much better for having removed the Jewish monkey off its back. After all, even though it’s true that Jews are smart and talented, there’s no guarantee that Jews will use their talents for the good of the majority. Many Jews gained great power, wealth, and influence in the US via meritocratic means, but they use their power for the sake of Jewish supremacy and to the detriment of the white majority population. Thus, even though the Jewish intelligence and talent made the US into a richer and more powerful nation, it also made many gentile groups more servile to the ruling Jewish-homo or Jomo cabal elites. What does it profiteth a nation to become richer and more powerful for the sake of an alien elite hellbent on the subverting and destroying the power and pride of the majority population? This is why Jews have sought to weaken and undermine native white nationalism all across Europe with the double-whammy of mass-immigration — that increases racial diversity by opening the floodgates to the Muslim and African invasion — and expansion of EU that places every European nation at the mercy of EU bureaucracy dominated by France and Germany, two nations that take orders from globo-Zio-Jewish elites. Of course, Jews have sometimes used and even encouraged goy nationalism when it served their short-term interests. Jews stoked Georgian nationalism against Russia. And Jews have recently even sided with far-right Ukrainian nationalists to stir up troubles with Russia and the Russian minority in Eastern Ukraine. In the short term, Jews will side with any nation, any ideology, and any group to further their own interests. But, of course, the long-term goal of Jews is to incorporate Ukraine into the EU so that it will have to take orders from globo-Zio-Jewish oligarchy that controls the EU like it controls the US. Jews are very powerful, but they know that if the natural forces of nationalism were allowed to grow and come to fruition, the gentile majority of each nation will assert its authority and become independent of Jewish influence. Jews know that nationalism is healthy. It is only dangerous when it becomes overly aggressive and doesn’t respect the nationalisms of other nations, as when Nazi Germany invaded and pushed around other nations; it’s like exercising to make one’s body stronger and eating proper foods are healthy, and they’re only bad if one uses one’s muscle power to bully others; indeed, the power of Nazi Germany is a testament to the healthy power of nationalism as Hitler rapidly transformed a defeated & humiliated nation into a first rank economy and military power; nationalism did wonders for the rebuilding of Germany during the Nazi era, and it erred only in attacking other nations. Hitler’s problem wasn’t nationalism per se but the failure to acknowledge and respect the nationalism of other peoples, but then, Jews are much the same way for they promote their own nationalism but subvert, undermine, and attack the nationalisms of other nations, as indeed they are doing today against Russia; both the Nazis and Jewish supremacists have tended to think in terms of "nationalism for us, but subjugation for you under our nationalism." When nationalist nations respect other nationalist nations, the world will be a mostly peaceful place. But the problem for Jews is that the only nation in which they comprise a solid majority is Israel. So, if nationalism becomes the dominant ideology around the world, it means Jews will have to play second fiddle to nationalist gentile elites whose main goal would be to represent the will of their own people who make up the healthy majority of their own ethno-nation. So, Jews are like drug pushers who addict nations with the high of globo-consumerist-hedonism. Especially young people become addicted to trashy and trivial lusts that fill them with convulsive orgasmic joy and make them forsake their loyalty to nation/identity in favor of crazy-fun-stuff. The reason why Jews promote the homo agenda and stuff like Pussy Riot in Russia is because homos are associated with narcissism & flashy fashion and because idiots like Pussy Riot represent radical bitchassho-ism that has no appreciation of anything except the thrill of nastiness-and-self-importance-in-the-here-and-now. It’s a bunch of Lena Dunhams who think nations exist only for them to piss and shit on them. That is what amounts to Jewish global values in our world, and Jews want your daughters to become interracist porn ‘actresses’, vile louts like Lena Dunham, or rotten spoiled brats like Pussy Riot morons. As long as masses of young goyim around the world become addicted to that kind of garbage as the mainstay of their cultural experience, values, and identification, they will be distracted from the deeper natural callings of nationalism and familism. The problem isn’t pop culture and funnery per se as we need diversions in life. Life would be miserable if we had to be serious, grave, and essentialist all the time. The real problem is when trivial fun stuff becomes the center of one’s social, cultural, and historical identity and experience, especially since pop culture has no history and is indeed anti-history since the modus operandi of pop culture is promoting ever new fashions to obliterate previous ones. There is a classical musical tradition and a folk musical tradition, but pop music works against tradition? Though there are works of popular culture that attain classic and permanent status, the essence and main appeal of popular culture is it makes us momentarily find fun and pleasure through escapism. Pop culture should be enjoyed, but it should serve as the staple of one’s cultural life. It’s like we can enjoy an amusement park, but it’s not the same thing as attending Temple, Church, or Mosque. It’s like some guys might enjoy going to a strip tease, but it’s not the same thing as a wedding. It’s like we can all enjoy fantasy movies, but they are not the same thing as genuine matters of faith. Kids may find fun with comic books, but they are not art-for-the-ages. Every year, there is a military celebration on Red Square to commemorate the great sacrifices of millions of Russians in the Great Patriotic War, but Jews want that holy ground to be desecrated by a homo ‘pride’ parade as the face of ‘New Russia’. Jews would rather have the Pussy Riot deface the Christian Russia with lewd antics. Jews want all Russian girls to act like the Pussy Riot toward their motherland. For true Russians, Russia is the mother to be loved. To Jews, it is a whore to be exploited and raped. This is why Jews hate Putin’s Russia that holds forth the hope of a white nation steeped in its historical memory, ethnic pride, and cultural continuity. Ironically though, Jews egg on the nationalisms of Ukraine and Georgia to bleed the nationalism of Russia. Jews will use nationalism against nationalism, just like they’ll use Arabs against Arabs and Muslims against Muslims and white Americans{‘blue state’ Liberals}against white Americans{red state ‘Conservatives’}. Without Jews provoking such crises all over the world, the many gentile nations and groups will find it easier to make compromises to the reasonable satisfaction of all sides. But Jews sneak off to various gentile groups/nations and promise them great riches and prizes IF the latter were to follow the instructions of Jews. Why did Mikheil Saakashvili gamble and brashly trigger a conflict with Russia over South Ossetia? Because Jews promised him lots of candies and prizes if he pulled off his little stunt. Of course, when Putin struck back, the Jews abandoned Suck-ass-hillbilly — except through the self-serving rhetoric of global propaganda making Putin out to be the ‘New Hitler’ — to hang out to dry all alone. This is why Mel Gibson said, "Jews start all wars." The recent wars in the Middle East and Europe have mostly been provoked, encouraged, and exploited by venal Jews. For Jews, gentiles are nothing but cattle or guinea pigs, pawn pieces on a chess board. "We are all Palestinians", as David Duke said. Jews don’t want the crises around the world to be resolved. Such an outcome will lead to a more peaceful world order, and then, gentiles will be happier in their own nations and will get along better with other gentile nations. It would do wonders for gentile power all over the globe. So, instead of helping to resolve world conflicts, Jews seek to inflame them by using American foreign policy — which is utterly controlled by Zionists — to encourage gentiles to fight other gentiles in parts of the world that have yet to come under globo-Jewish dominance. Where Jews have political power — especially the US and EU — , Jews try to suppress any kind of nationalist sentiment. But where Jews don’t have the power — Asia, Middle East, and non-EU Europe — , Jews try to stoke nationalist sentiments to fever pitch so that gentiles will fight gentiles over every ounce of blood and every inch of territory. And Jews try to undermine national borders since increasing diversity via migration/immigration in gentile lands will lead to greater distrust among different gentile groups all over the world, and such conditions would be advantageous to Jews since a world in which gentiles are at each other’s throat is a world where they cannot unite to challenge Jewish power. Jews don’t want world peace on gentile terms. They only want a New World Order on Jewish terms, and that means a world where gentiles will go on distrusting one another in increasingly diversifying nations. In America, for instance, various gentile groups no longer trust one another, but every gentile group looks to the Jewish elites for support, money, favoritism, and instruction. Though the North Korean elite couldn’t be more different from globo-Jewish elites, there is a similar dynamics of power. Just as Jews want white goyim to see Jews as the indispensable people without whom white folks would be lost and irredeemable, the North Korean elites want the NK masses to believe that they would be lost and soulless without the guidance of the ruling clan. Also, NK masses are whipped into frenzy with hysteria, paranoia, and taboos to ensure that their loyalties will be internalized than merely cosmetic. And since such kind of lunacy goes against nature, the propagandizing must be relentless. And since North Korean elite’s legitimacy is based on hatred of America as the source for all evil, it must inflame every generation of North Koreans to hate, hate, and hate America and blame it everything wrong in the world. Likewise, Jews know that it’s not natural for gentiles to mindlessly suck up to Jews. So, young gentiles are driven into a frenzy of MLK-worship, homo-worship, and Jew-worship from kindergarten onward. White kids are encouraged to have strong passions about things that have nothing to do with white identity, pride, and power — if anything, such things are usually geared to undermine white identity, pride, and power. Thus, natural nationalist/race-ist tendencies of white folks have been harnessed and twisted to serve their opposites. It’s like sexual energies can be harnessed and shaped by religion to attack sexuality itself. Puritanism is like multiple sclerosis where human cell-functions are made to attack themselves. Just like Greek Christian boys were drafted by Turks and ‘turned’ to attack Christianity in the name of Islam, Jews have made white nationalist nature turn on itself. Jews know that nationalism is natural; after all, Jews wouldn’t have survived for thousands of years in blood-and-culture if not for their own nationalism and familism. So, nationalism/tribalism cannot be expunged from the hearts of gentiles. But it can be shamed and made to feel self-loathing. But even self-loathing emotions seeks some kind of expression. Since white nationalist nature isn’t allowed to serve itself, its aggressive energies are used against itself. It’s like political multiple sclerosis. Paradoxically, the reason why ‘white leftists’ are so virulent in their hatred of whiteness is NOT because they’ve been expunged of white nationalist nature but because it has been redirected to attack itself; it has been Janissarized. There was a time when Christians did this to Jews who became ‘conversos’ and attacked the Jewish community with even greater fury than regular Christians did. As they were made to feel shame in their Jewishness, their Jewish-nationalist energies were twisted and distorted to attack the Jewish nationalist tendencies of Jews who clung to their faith, culture, and identity. Most ‘white leftists’ are ideologically anti-white but with the fervor of radical white nationalism. They attack anything ‘white’ and use ‘white’ as a pejorative at every turn for every occasion but such rage is really fueled by repressed white nationalism.] With all the disorientation, alienation, and confusion resulting from the overshadowing of man by his own creations[of monstrous industrialism, mega-cities of strangers, and mountains of data that overwhelmed even an army of experts], the new secular prophets[of big complex ideas] appeared as saviors since modest ideas/ideals based on cautious & temperate reason no longer sufficed as explanations and answers of phenomena and events beyond the scope of ordinary man and modest logic. The principles of Voltaire would have meant little in a rapidly and violently changing world. [Mankind had traditionally grown used to associating production & construction with graduality and to associating destruction & cataclysm with rapidity, but the modern world didn’t play by the same rules. After all, it took great and gradual effort to build the Tower of Babel, but it was destroyed in an instant. It took great effort to build the Parthenon and the great Cathedrals, but it didn’t take long to smash them down or blow them up. It’s like it takes much effort and pain for a child to grow into a man, but anyone can be killed with a single blow or gunshot. Because mankind had grown accustomed to associating graduality and control with productiveness and progress, the Age of Reason took off with great confidence in man’s ability to control the pace and policy of change. But the modern world fused the violence of rapidity with profusion of production. The old rules no longer applied. The new order seemed to be falling apart with cataclysmic upheaval and yet unprecedented numbers of buildings were built and unimaginable amounts of goods were produced. It was if the world was being exploded and molded at the same time. It is then not surprising that one of the great appeals of Bolshevism to intellectuals around the world was it seemed, at once, so violently destructive and so awesomely productive. According to the traditional narrative, when an existing order was destroyed suddenly, the dark ages followed, and ages would pass before a new order gradually rose again. The new narrative promised an even greater order to immediately replace the prior order that had been smashed. Furthermore, the very tools of making made the noise of breaking. Consider the sound of a jackhammer. Or the noises inside an old factory that would have suggested things were being destroyed than built. So, when change outpaced man’s ability to control it, man began to lose confidence in the traditional method of reason and sought faith in the new prophetic cult of super-reason. But then, if certain great men could be said to be possessed with super reason, wouldn’t they be elevated to god status? Would that be rational?] In Voltaire’s time, mankind had control over things. Most of mankind may have lived under tyranny, but whether one was oppressor or oppressed, he-as-man had control over his labor over the fields or skills in a shop. But in the modern industrial age, mankind was turned into insects in mines and factories; man was overshadowed by gargantuan buildings of iron and steel in cities scarred by railroad tracks. It was exhilarating but also exhausting to a mind-set seeking order and harmony. So, the traditional thinker in the mold of Age of Reason was insufficient to satisfy the yearnings of those in the modern industrial age. Rather, in order for mankind to gain a sense of control over the towering modern world, people became partial to the siren calls of prophets who claimed to have figured it all out. Though most such thinkers ostensibly and even sincerely claimed to men of reason and science, the main appeal of their ideas and vision owed to prophetic reach and boldness, the will to connect the dots of the known through the dark matters of the unknown. It was complicated by the fact that modernity wasn’t merely about gaining knowledge of the unknown as the new-known but as the known-unknown. When people don’t know much, they are surrounded by the unknown. Gradually, through efforts of science, they come to know more of the unknown. Thus, the formerly unknown becomes the known, or the new-known. But when the pace of scientific progress is so fast, new data and facts-and-figures on everything from physics to economics keep pouring in, and mankind becomes aware of lots of things that have yet to be figured out and understood. When the likes of Galileo and Copernicus looked through telescopes, they had very limited data of planets and the stars, and based on what they had, they carefully drew up certain logical assumptions about how the Sun and the planets moved in relation to one another. But with the rise of modern astronomy, tremendous amount of data about the stars and galaxies near and far began pouring in, and it will take many years for us to make sense of the data if we do at all. Thus, we are surrounded by the known-unknown, i.e. we know of the existence of so much stuff that we know next to nothing about. The preponderance of the known-unknown came to define the modern age, and amidst its dark and tumultuous currents, it took especially powerful swimmers to force their personalities in the prophetic roles as lifeguards dragging mankind to the new promised land or as scuba divers retrieving the ultimate secret hidden in the depth of man’s soul. [Indeed, it was the mastery of the known-unknown that made Marx and Freud such giant figures of the modern era. Before the rise of Marxism, many socialists or communists thought in terms of a rational blueprint with which to create a new order of equality and justice: socialism would be built like a house. And psychologists prior to Freud tended to seek more practical means of diagnosing and treating mental patients. But at a time when the increase in knowledge made the world seem stranger than clearer, Marx and Freud tapped into the fascination of the known-unknown. According to Marx, there is indeed a rational logic to history and humanity, but it’s so powerful and awesome that it is beyond the control of individual human will. So, if communism is to triumph, communists and socialists mustn’t simply plan a new society but heed the powerful laws of history that have their own timetable. Man cannot simply make up a plan and apply it to society. Rather, the proper order of history must be allowed to proceed so that the rise and fall of the bourgeoisie will inevitably give rise to the triumph of the Proletariat. Thus, Marx rendered history both rational and mysterious. Man had the power to figure out the laws of history but was powerless to dictate its pace or terms. An understanding and call to preparation for the eventual revolution made Marxists feel empowered and relevant, but the aura of the historical process working according to its own dialectical laws lent it an element of awesomeness. There was a sense of history as something both knowable and unknowable. Similarly, Freud fascinated people with a theory that seemed paradoxical: a conscious exploration of the subconscious that defied conventional logic. Though Freud claimed to be mapping the subconscious and rendering it decipherable, his use of terms borrowed from Greek mythology and his odd connections — as tantalizing as ludicrous, but then all the more tantalizing for their ludicrousness wedded to logic — shrouded the practice of psychoanalysis in the cult of mystery. Both Marx and Freud seemed to be saying, "I give you the truth, but the truth is much bigger than you could possibly understand." Thus, one felt both the certainty of having the new-known in the palm of one’s hand and the mystery of the known-unknown that, no matter which way one turned, always stood behind one’s back. They ‘messed’ with people’s minds like Professor Hobby, via Dr. Know, toyed with the robot-kid’s mind in A.I. David is beckoned to Manhattan "where the lions weep" with both the promise of a solution that will turn him into a ‘real boy’ and premonition of a problem always rendering his wish beyond his grasp: "Come away, O human child!/To the waters and the wild/With a faery, hand in hand,/For the world's more full of weeping/than you can understand."] Anyway, the reason why high intelligence in Jews doesn’t necessarily correlate with rationality, responsibility, moderation, caution, and skepticism is because Jews don’t serve a dry ideal called intelligence for intelligence’s sake. Rather, they make intelligence serve their egos to attain the status of the super-intelligent guru. It’s like Jews don’t serve the dry ideal of liberal-democracy for liberal-democracy’s sake. Rather, they make liberal-democracy serve the powerful will of Jewish supremacism and domination. Jewish personality being what it is, one cannot understand the Jew unless one focuses first on the nature of the Jewish soul. Wasps believe there are ideals that are higher than the interests of Wasps, but Jews don’t think any ideal is higher than the Jewish ego. Even someone like Marx, who sincerely[at least consciously]believed that he was using his mind for the good of mankind, was primarily motivated by the madness of ego that wanted to be the god of the ultimate truth that would explain everything about everything and change history to make it attain its final destiny. Though mankind’s devotion to intelligence imbues it with sobriety, diligence, and caution, its desire for super-intelligence can infuse it with obsession, arrogance, and neuroticism since super-intelligence must work at a much more intense level than normal intelligence is used to. A good amount of intelligence, hard work, and sobriety can lead to riches but no one becomes super-rich without obsessive mania for power, privilege, and status. Given the nature of the kind of people who become super-rich, it’s no wonder that once they gain all the money in the world, they aren’t content to be rich but feel this obsession to influence politics, culture, and values as well in order to satisfy their unquenchable lust for control and domination. And it is here that Ayn Rand was wrong about the nature of capitalists. Her ideal capitalist free-enterpriser only wants to make good stuff and make lots of money by selling them, but because modern capitalists are driven by god-like egos, why wouldn’t they use their power of money to influence the power of government to mold and shape mankind in the image they desire? This is the big failing of libertarian thought. It assumes that free enterprise capitalists just want to be left alone from the intrusive government when, in fact, as often as not, those with great money also want to gain control of government to push their agendas. Look at Sheldon Adelson and how he has politicians twirling around his Jewish fingers. Look how Wall Street Jews have trained their monkey boy Obama to dance to their tune.) John Cage was surely more intellectual than Bob Dylan, and people who admire him really admire him, but there’s something prophet-like(something beyond intellect, talent, and originality)about the best of Dylan, and his greatest song, "Visions of Johanna" is ‘Biblical’ in its essence, in the original sense of the term. The song’s meaning isn’t clear — and likely Dylan didn’t fully comprehend it either as it’s submerged in subconscious imagery — , but there’s a sense of convergence of the personal, spiritual, romantic, and forsaken. It isn’t just a song or even just a great song but a kind of self-contained and self-enclosed ecosystem(or ego-system) that, nevertheless, is also connected with the grand scheme of things. In a way, that paradox is the essence of religions: the alchemic fusion of the most personal with the most cosmic whereupon God is within the smallest atoms of your body but also the governing spirit of the universe and beyond. There is something both intensely secretive and immensely grandiose about "Visions of Johanna", a perceptibility that is also found in the works of Kafka and Kubrick. There’s a tendency to explain Dylan by focusing on his lyrics, but that’s like trying to explain religion only textually. Religion isn’t just about the text but about the rituals and cultural expressions/experiences beyond the text. (It’s like one cannot appreciate something like "Like a Rolling Stone" or "Ballad of a Thin Man" without Dylan’s nasty whines & snarls and the merciless shearing details of the organ. Or consider how the organ lulls the listener into a trance in "Visions of Johanna" and the wearying harmonica eases the listener into resignation, but then the guitar licks clutch at the stupefied listener like eagle claws. It is both soothing and harrowing, meditative and panicked, a quality shared by Jean Sibelius’ Symphony No. 5.) Dylan’s lyrics have to be ‘felt’ in relation to the sounds that envelop them, and the cumulative effect of music and words in Dylan’s best songs — and entire albums of HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED, BLONDE ON BLONDE, and JOHN WESLEY HARDING(and maybe BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME, BASEMENT TAPES, and BLOOD ON THE TRACKS) — could be overpowering. Even when Dylan-scholars or ‘Dylanologists’ — he has an entire school of intellectuals, scholars, and fans whose lives are devoted to appreciating, analyzing, deciphering, and disseminating his works as St. Paul did with the story of Jesus — think they’re making sense of the lyrics/words, they are reacting to the effect of the musical sounds and textures that added extra layers of meanings and nuances to the words. (It’s an all-too-common mistake in every field. People generally like to focus on the ‘author’ because we have a gravitational way of thinking. It’s like the Solar System makes easier sense to us because the planets go around the sun. Thus, there is a hierarchy of the forces in the Solar System. While the system is made up of the Sun and planets, the Sun is greater than the planets. The problem is we disregard or depreciate the role of the planets in the system. But a sun alone the solar system doesn’t make.[Of course, another problem arising from our assessment of the Solar System is due to what might be called life-centrism or conscious-centrism. Even though the Sun is many times more powerful than Earth and other planets combined, only Earth has life and only life on Earth has conscious understanding of the Solar System. No matter how powerful a sun may be, it has no awareness of anything. Given the nature of conscious-centrism, mankind has long thought that Earth was not only the center of the Solar System but of the entire universe. And even though humans are but only one kind of life-form on Earth — and has been around for only a flicker in the vast panorama of time — , mankind has tended to think itself as the greatest and the most precious life-form since it alone has the power of thought. Conscious-centrism tends to put the entity-that-thinks-and-is-aware at the center of everything. So, many religious stories often begin with the creation of man, as if mankind had been created at the very beginning with or even before other life-forms. Consider the Old Testament in which man is created almost at the beginning. Even among various races of mankind, those who do the most thinking, assessing, and analyzing of the world develop a tendency to feel that they are the center of the world, indeed as if the entire world belongs to them — indeed, consider the collection of items from all over the world in the British Museum; though most of the items are not British in origin, the Brits have felt a special ownership over them since they did so much to physically rediscover and scholastically restore so much of the past that had been buried and forgotten by the mindless zombie-like peoples and cultures all over the world; Egyptian sculptures may have been taken from Egypt, but Brits feel the pride of mindful rediscovery and reappraisal of lost, forgotten, and neglected histories of the world. For example, take the notion of the ‘Discovery of the New World’. Since there were humans already living in the New World when Columbus arrived, wasn’t the New World already discovered by its indigenous inhabitants? However, the difference is that the natives of the New World hadn’t so much consciously discovered the New World as gradually settled it without knowing what they were really doing. Long ago, during the Ice Age, some Asiatics had crossed the Bering Strait and spread out over thousands of years all the way down to South America and West Indies islands. But they spread out as survivors and nomads, not as explorers who consciously thought in terms of mapping and assessing the way of the world. Their expansion into the New World was behavioral — all life-forms spread out and expand — than mindfully adventurous. So, white folks who consciously sought to explore and understand the entire world came to feel that they truly discovered the New World. It’s like we never give animals and plants any credit for having ‘discovered’ the world even though they spread out all over the globe long before mankind did. Animals spread out all over the world habitually and behaviorally. Birds had no thought to discover or understand anything even though they spread out all over the world long before mankind even evolved into being. We don’t say lions discovered Europe even though lions left Africa before mankind did. Indeed, we don’t even say that Europe was discovered by Out-of-North-Africans because they were merely spreading out behaviorally and weren’t consciously or ‘intellectually’ seeking new worlds to explore and understand. Conscious-centricism explains the attitudes of Jews. Because Jews think more than any other people, they think their minds are the true centers of humanity and the world. Jews think a lot about Wasps, so Jews think Wasps should revolve around Jews. Jews think a lot about Russians, so Jews think Russians should revolve around Jews. It’s as if Jews discovered and have gotten to know the real Wasp and the real Russian, just like Columbus and other Europeans thought they discovered the New World in the truest sense. Though indigenous folks had already been living there for who-knows-how-long, they were merely local yokels who had no larger sense of the world; indeed, they had no idea what the New World looked like on a map even though they might have been there since the beginning of time. In contrast, European explorers were committed to mapping and connecting all of the New World and assessing its relation to the Old World. Since the Europeans consciously knew and mindfully understood more about the overall shape of the New World and about the seas that connected all the worlds on Earth, they thought they had a special ‘ownership’ over everything. It’s like humans think they should have control over territories formally dominated by animals since only humans have the ‘higher’ sense of the world whereas animals only think in terms of survival and instinct. Karl Marx thought he owned the history of all of mankind since he supposedly discovered the hidden law of history. Freud thought he owned the souls of all of mankind since he supposedly discovered the hidden codes of the universal subconscious — not to be confused with collective unconscious of Carl Jung. Jews think they have a special ownership over Palestine since they mindfully wove a Grand Narrative of how God gave the land to the Jews. So, even though non-Jews had been in that part of the world long before Jews, Jews feel that they are the ones who’ve truly ‘discovered’ it since they consciously formulated a meaningful narrative about and around it. Such is the power of conscious-centrism. Because Jews have taken over the history departments and now write the books about American history from its beginning, they believe that they own version of American history is truer than any written by earlier Wasp/white historians; this is especially true when it pertains to the American South as there are few things Jews love more than rewriting history to fill the hearts and minds of white gentiles with the burden of eternal shame and guilt. The Jewish attitude toward Wasps is much like European attitude toward the indigenous peoples of the New World centuries ago. Supposedly mindful and super-conscious Jews think they understand Wasps better than Wasps understand themselves just like European arrivals in the New World thought they understood the indigenous folks better than the indigenous folks understood themselves. As far as the Spanish Conquistadors were concerned, the native populations, despite their culture and identity, were savage heathens who would never be redeemed unless they sexually put to the domination of European males and accepted Jesus Christ as their saviors. As far Jews are concerned, Wasps, despite their pride of heritage and achievement, were and still are wicked white devils who can never be redeemed unless they accept Jews as their new Jesus Christ and sexually-soulfully-and-intellectually put out to Jews with bigger minds and fatter dicks. Sure, the Wasps and white gentiles were here long before the massive arrival of Jews from Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but they supposedly lacked the proper understanding and the sufficient moral fortitude to fulfill the dream of what American really should be. That ‘discovery’, according to the Jewish Narrative, was made by Emma Lazarus whose poem supposedly rewrote the history of America from one of evil ‘racist’ white supremacist murderers to one of redemptive proposition spearheaded by wonderful Jews who would lead all the ‘victims’ of America to the Promised Land of a New America where Jews and their allies would inherit the Earth and whites would be relegated to the status of "Satan’s children"... unless they totally surrendered and suckled the toes of Jews. And just as Spanish Conquistadors ‘redeemed’ the blood of the natives by making native women have children with white men, the Jewish Narrative says that white gentile folks can become morally baptized of the ‘original sin’ of ‘white guilt’ only by mating with non-whites — especially black males — and turning all their future progenies into mulattos, mestizos, and mongrels. Hyper-Consciousness is a double-edged sword. It can help foster rational-factual objectivity over prejudicial & ingrained subjectivity, as eventually happened with European advances in astronomy that correctly placed Earth’s orbit around the Sun than the other way around as previously assumed, especially in accordance with the Biblical view that God had placed man and his world at the center of everything. Though Copernicus and Galileo probably wanted to believe in the Ptolemaic view of the universe with Earth being at the center of the universe, their reasoned conclusions based on careful observations and calculations suggested otherwise, and they chose objective truth over subjective conviction. However, the mind, even when it is most rational, has a natural tendency to see itself as the center of everything, and this is true of everyone since every person is always trapped in himself or herself. From earliest memories of childhood to the last breath of life, a person can only experience, feel, and think everything through his or her subjectivity. Though intellect and reason may allow people go beyond their own subjectivity — science seeks objective truths — , even they are processed through subjective minds. Objectivity is the consensus demonstrable by rules agreed upon as reliable by subjective minds. Though a very smart and knowledgeable person is capable of using higher levels of mental power to make better sense of the world — Galileo and Copernicus were surely geniuses — , the self-awareness of his mental prowess may also foster an overtly confident sense of conscious-centrism. So, was Galileo motivated only by respect for science & objective truth — even to the point of humbly and graciously lowering man’s self-important place in the universe by several notches — , or was he also motivated by pride and high self-regard that placed his own power of intellect at the center of the universe? As it turned out, he turned out to be correct, but many ‘great thinkers’ throughout history who claimed to be earnestly committed to the truth and nothing but the truth turned out to be blinded by their conscious-centrism, the conviction that minds that are most actively engaged with the truth of the world have a special claim on the world. Such way of thinking, at its most dangerous, has a way of conflating one’s consciousness with truth itself. The same kind of dynamics can come to infect creativity and spirituality. Fellini after 8 ½ conflated anything that popped inside his head as the stuff of great art — as if his creative mind itself was the head of Zeus spewing forth with boundless visionary genius — , and there have been many supposedly humble religious types who came to conflate their souls with that of God, i.e. since their own souls were so purely and humbly devoted to God, their souls were one with God, and the next logical step is their souls are the very essence of God. Jesus certainly thought so, at least according to the myth: A kind of soul-centrism. The mind or soul that initially sees itself as trying to make sense of the world or serve the world comes to see itself as the indistinguishable from the world. Anyway, those with hyper-consciousness tend to feel that their world-view should be the essential core around which all else must be made to revolve. It’s like in George Romero’s DAWN OF THE DEAD. Even though the zombies seem to be growing in number and taking over streets and cities, how come we don’t identify with them? Why do we identify with, root for, and empathize with the human survivors? It’s because humans have minds, and minds have intentions and visions. Zombies may be growing in power, but their behavior/aggression is totally ‘instinctive’ and mindless; indeed, the zombies are not even aware of their power and, therefore, there is no agenda behind it; they might as well be ‘ex-human ants’ or ‘ex-human termites’. They just do as they’re programmed to do, and in this, they are like plants and animals. They’re aggressive but without vision or meaning. They wanna enter the shopping mall because they wanna eat the humans inside, but they have no sense of ownership, possession, and claim. In contrast, the humans come to see the shopping mall as their sanctuary, their base, their home, their promised land. It’s like Jews perceived Palestinians who’d been living there as a bunch of zombie-like folks who didn’t know why they were even there; supposedly, the indigenous Arabs were just mindless creatures eking out a living. In contrast, Jews saw themselves as having a historical consciousness and sacred claim to Palestine/Israel. Of course, Palestinians will say that they, as Christians or Muslims, have had their own powerfully conscious claim to the Holy Land, but the world decided to listen to Jews and dismiss Palestinians as a bunch of zombie nuisances... though the attitudes have changed somewhat over the yrs. As Jews think a lot, talk a lot, write a lot, and gained control of all the Mind-Industries, much of humanity has come to be in awe of Jewish mindfulness & hyper-conscious-centrism and has fallen into the habit of assuming that the entire world belongs more to Jews than to any other people since Jews are most mindful and hyper-conscious of just about everything; whatever the topic — science, world events, ethics, law, technology, high art, pop culture, foreign affairs, history, etc. — we often see Jewish scholars and ‘experts’ pontificate as if they know more than anyone else. Even though our bodies belong to us, we let doctors treat it as they see fit since we believe they know more about our bodies that we do. So under the care of doctors, they own us more than we own ourselves. And during the heyday of psychoanalysis, Jewish shrinks convinced a lot of people that they, the Jewish shrinks, understood people’s minds better than the people themselves did since they, the shrinks, have spent so many years studying and thinking about the nature of the mind. So, in time, the Jews came to own the minds of gentiles on the basis that they, the Jews, spent more time thinking about the minds of gentiles than the gentiles themselves did, and therefore, Jews knew better what was good for gentile minds than gentiles themselves did. It’s like even among a jury of peers in a trial, the person who thinks and talks best comes to win the trust/confidence/admiration of others, whereupon others eventually decide that the best thing would be for him to take control and essentially own the discussion and verdict; others just pretend to think independently but sooner or later come around to his way of thinking. Think-tanks are like intellectual juries about world events, and Jews control most of them, speak the most through them, and have convinced much of the public that it should just assent to the verdict of Jews since Jews seem to know so much, feel so much, sense so much, and think so much. Jews see themselves as mindful and soulful, and they see white gentiles as soulless and mindless, and Jewish prejudices have permeated throughout society, even to the point where white folks have internalized it within themselves, and as such, they feel that their minds and souls would not be complete unless they, as subhuman sheep, were to be led and guided by Jewish shepherds with deep souls and great minds. Whites have also been made to feel like sexual-and-sensual zombies. According to the narrative, blacks got sensual souls and bodies whereas whites are colorless, bland, and dweeby; therefore, the ONLY way white zombies can gain any kind of true humanity is by surrendering sensually, sexually, musically, and athletically to Negroes. If whites won’t submit to such domination under mindful Jews and bodyful Negroes, their zombie-like minds and souls will remain empty and without value. But then, whites will still be accused of something no matter what they do. So, if whites imbibe black soulfulness, they are said to be parasitic thieves leeching off black culture, and if whites emulate Jews in attitude and intensity, they are said to be pathologically ‘paranoid’ and ‘extremist’. Though Jews want us to agree with what they think, they don’t want us to think like they do since we will be just as dogged and determined in sticking it to them like they stick it to us. Incidentally, THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS makes an interesting contrast with movies like THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and DAWN OF THE DEAD. Unlike zombies that are mindless and pose only a physical threat — unless the zombie-in-question happens to be a loved one, in which the person having to kill it may be overcome with emotional conflict — , the Pod People are mindful, indeed too much so. The Agenda is always on their minds, and they are all agreed on the Agenda and united in the agenda to spread the Agenda to every person all over the world. Pod People mean no physical harm to anyone unlike zombies devour any living person. Pod People are very mindful of their sense of rightness, and they want to turn everyone into a Pod Person so that his or her mind will be in tune with the Agenda-driven mind of all the Pod People who don’t believe in war, jealousy, greed, and etc; they are like totalitarian Buddhists trying to create Nirvana on earth. To be sure, victims of the Pod People do lose their former physical selves and are ‘reborn’ as pod people, but their newer incarnations are physically identical to their former selves and may indeed be much healthier and disease-free; furthermore, Pod People maintain their identities and memories of the past. Also, there’s no pain involved in becoming a Pod Person. If anything, the pain is in resisting the agenda of the Pod People as the transformation happens when one is sleeping. So, in order to ensure that one isn’t turned into a Pod Person, one mustn’t fall sleep, but staving off sleep days on end is mental-and-physical torture and drives one to the point where one isn’t sure what is real or unreal anymore. Driven to such panicked madness, the person who resists the transformation often appears crazy and imbalanced in contrast to the Pod People who seem so calm, peaceful, temperate, balanced, and self-controlled. It must be said however that one good thing about the Pod Process is that it makes Negroes act sane for change; I wish every Negro could be turned into a Podgro; maybe someone should make a movie where Pod-watermelons turn crazy Jafros into sane Negroes. Of course, one could argue that Pod People are mindless since they all think and feel alike, and yet, there is a kind of All-and-Eternal-Mind-set to their mentality. They may lack individual mindfulness but they are very mindful about what they deem to be morally, socially, and possibly even spiritually correct. They are not just robotic insects operating according to programming but a people with a sense of calling and mission to ‘convert’ all of mankind to their way of seeing, feeling, and ‘thinking’. Though they might be deemed emotionless, they do have a powerful kind of collective urge, an all-powerful sense of value system that drives them to make everyone else become like them. In this, there is something religious about them, and indeed, all universal religions ideally seek to make everyone share the same moral convictions and cosmic consciousness; indeed, there’s an indication that the pods may have arrived from outer-space, a kind of hell-heaven, or helven. Though Pod People will sometimes use force to capture people and induce sleep in them to turn them into fellow Pod People, their intention is never to hurt or harm, let alone kill, people; in their ‘minds’, their Agenda is benign and humane, and it’s people who resist the transformation who cling to sickly human nature that is the source of so many woes around the world. In this sense, one might say they are morally more advanced than humans. But we still don’t want to be like them since even their goodness seem collective than individual; they may be ‘good’ but have no means to be otherwise. Even if we hate evil, we want the freedom to resist it on our own terms; we want the free will to eat from the Tree of Forbidden Knowledge even if we know we shouldn’t eat from it. The Pod People seem like an extreme-version of Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Alex could no longer commit acts of evil, but he was still capable of having evil thoughts and feelings, however much discomfort they caused on his physical being. In contrast, the Pod People cannot even have ‘evil’ thoughts since they were made in such a way as to feel only ‘good’ thoughts and feelings and nothing else. Anyway, the zombie threat poses no danger to the mind and only endangers the body, whereas the Pod-People-threat poses no physical danger but threatens the mind — in the sense that the Pod People want to ‘convert’ all people of the world to the same mind-set. The threat posed by invading armies is zombie-like, or Terminator-like. The Nazi Wehrmacht that invaded Russian lands couldn’t be reasoned with. It was out to kill and kill it did. To their enemies at least, the Nazi invaders might as well have been soulless zombies hellbent on killing without conscience or emotion at the behest of their Fuhrer. Similarly, the Soviet Juggernaut that steam-rolled into Europe like a zombie force. They were out to conquer & destroy and had no other objective in mind. They entered Germany like mindless barbarians, killed bushels of people, raped millions of women, looted anything they could get their hands on. Such zombie-like forces are indeed terrifying and have little appeal to anyone. But the Pod People form of invasion also fills people with dread, and even people who grew up in authoritarian or totalitarian societies most likely don’t want to become like the Pod People even though their own societies raised them to be ultra-conformist and anti-individualistic. There is something within us that clings to our sense of individuality under the hardest conditions. Even in a collective-communal-centric society like feudal Japan where people were raised to be readily willing to sacrifice their lives for the ‘higher good’ or a matter of ‘honor’, the individual who willingly gave his or her life still sought recognition as a special individual with a courageous and unflinching sense of duty. Even as he or she totally offered himself or herself to the order, he or she wanted to be appreciated for the purity of devotion that was all his or her own. But even that kind of sacrificial individuality is missing among the Pod People. Though Pod People are willing to give their lives in the mission to ‘convert’ others, there is no sense of individual glory, honor, and nobility in their commitment to duty. Jewish assault on the white race is dangerous because it is neither zombie-like nor pod-people-like. To be sure, Jews have used zombie-like and pod-people tactics in modern history. As communist overlords, they used armies of Soviet commissars to wage war on traditional society in take-no-prisoners violence, in the process killing millions of people. And in Israel/Palestine, the IDF have used ruthless force to crush and kill so many Arabs. Jews can kill mindlessly when they have the chance. And when Jews were among the dominant overlords of communism in the 20th century, they didn’t hesitate to use totalitarian force to turn everyone into a kind of All-Mind pod person dogmatically supportive of the ideology presumably shared by everyone else in the nation. But Jewish control over communism was short-lived, and Jews cannot treat white folks like they’ve treated Palestinians. So, the Jewish strategy against white folk has been far more subtle. Since Jews cannot invade and take control of the white world with armies with guns, Jews have infiltrated many of the elite institutions of white nations. And since the kind of bluntly coercive ‘missionary’ strategy used by the Pod People will rub white folks the wrong way — especially as the cult of individuality is one of the hallmarks of Western culture — , Jews cannot simply say THIS is right and you must do as we say or else. Instead, even though Jews assiduously work to take control of everything, they use the academia and media to make us believe that we ourselves on our own, as free individuals, have decided to embrace and support the agendas that had actually been slipped into our minds through Jewish control of media and academia. Because Jewish professors, Jewish pundits, and Jewish popularizers all pose as free-thinking individualists, we are likely to feel that listening to their views and advice makes us into better individualists as well. Because of the Jewish manner & style of individualism, we are apt to think that there’s far more diversity of views among Jews than there really is. Indeed, if we clear away much of the smoke-and-mirrors, the much-vaunted cult of Jewish individuality and independence-of-thought isn’t what it’s made out to be. While it’s true enough that many Jews have been eccentric and original thinkers, it’s also true that many of them are essentially getting at the same thing: How to fool goyim so that Jews shall own the world. Listen to Jews on the ‘left’, Jews in the ‘middle’, and the Jews on the ‘right’, and they may appear to be vociferously arguing with one another, but, as often as not, they are not all that far away from one another on the issue of Jewish power that is the central issue for most Jews. Also, as often as not, the reason why Jewish thinkers sometimes get so nasty with one another has less to do with differences in opinion than the friction of egos. Indeed, two Jews are more likely to feel tension with each other though agreed on 90% and disagreed only on 10% than two gentiles who are agreed on 10% and disagreed on 90%. It’s primarily because Jews have bigger balls and bigger egos; however, the Jewish community, especially since the end of WWII, has been incredibly cohesive because most Jews have come to agree that they must stick together in order to stick it to the Arabs, white Americans, and Russians. It also helps that the gentile support system around dominant Jewish figures has a way of lessening the friction among Jews. If Jew A is surrounded by his gentile puppets and Jew B is surrounded by his gentile puppets, the gentile puppets of A and gentile puppets of B will duke it out, in which case Jew A and Jew B can sit back and watch the bickering among puppets with some degree of amusement — and even ‘wink wink’ agreement.] Likewise, one of the negative impacts of the Auteur Theory was that, in focusing so much on the director, too many film scholars tended to ignore all the other key talents and elements that went into the making of a masterpiece. As great as Welles, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, and Kubrick were, their films cannot be appreciated fully without taking into account all the other talents that were involved. Though Dylan was the main ‘author’ of BLONDE AND BLONDE, the greatness owes to a lot of factors in conjunction with Dylan’s input. Also, as we usually associate words with conscious thought, we tend to interpret lyrics in terms of intended meaning. But a song is as much sound as music, and shapes and patterns of sounds pour forth from the subconscious. One cannot use words without thought but one can make music without thought, and therefore, songs are fusions of ‘thought-ness’ and ‘un-thought-ness’, which in its sensual power, can be more powerful than ‘thought-ness’. Furthermore, even though words are processed through the conscious mind, they also burst forth spontaneously, as if they have an expressive and associative force of their own independent of conscious will or intent. [Indeed, this has been one of the fascinating facets of Dylan’s songs: the sense of wordplay that is as much beyond-control as in-control. The lyrics teeter somewhere between jester-like nonsense and masterly command as if Dylan is a circus poet juggling words in incredible combinations as put-on and prophecy. It’s that element of bravura acrobatic dare in his songs that resist scholarly analysis more appropriate to traditional poetry. There’s a sense of the Bible, Woody Guthrie, Rimbaud, and T.S. Eliot tossed and turned in the spirit of Jackson Pollock’s Action Painting. The essence of the songs is as much in the thrill of the play as in the search for meaning.] Besides, thoughts can outpace the mind, just like technological advances can overtake man’s ability to make sense of the times that are a changing. In a way, God is the idea that outpaced man’s ability to make sense of it. Anyway, it could be that because Jews prohibited idolatry and thereby deprived their world of visual shapes and patterns, their repressed hunger for images was channeled into their colorful use of language; Dylan was probably the most imagistic lyricist in Rock history. Consider a song like "When the Ship Comes In": A song will lift/As the mainsail shifts/And the boat drifts on to the shoreline/And the sun will respect/Every face on the deck/The hour that the ship comes in/Then the sands will roll/Out a carpet of gold/For your weary toes to be a-touchin’/And the ship’s wise men/Will remind you once again/That the whole wide world is watchin’/Oh the foes will rise/With the sleep still in their eyes/And they’ll jerk from their beds and think they’re dreamin’/But they’ll pinch themselves and squeal/And know that it’s for real/The hour when the ship comes in/Then they’ll raise their hands/Sayin’ we’ll meet all your demands/But we’ll shout from the bow your days are numbered/And like Pharoah’s tribe/They’ll be drownded in the tide/And like Goliath, they’ll be conquered. It’s like idolatry through words, and in that sense, the Bible, filled with so much rich and colorful imagery via the power of words, is as much a work of esoteric idolatry as a work of holy text. You don’t need images to have imagery.) And it is for this reason that the works of Dylan have inspired so many close readings and interpretations by Rock/music/literary scholars who are as devoted to Dylan’s albums as Talmudic scholars are to the Torah; they would be albumudic scholars. Just like the Bible remains inexhaustible in meanings despite its having been combed through and braided for meaning throughout the ages, admirers of Dylan feel there will always be more secrets to be mined from his works despite all their best efforts. Dylan provokes/activates the minds(analytic faculties)of listeners because his works are obviously heavy on wit, intellect, and references/allusions(that only educated people are likely to pick up), but something that mostly concerns the mind can be rationally and logically mapped out, and then the aura of mystery and sublimity is lost. Therefore, no less crucial to the Dylan cult is the sense of infinite ‘moreness’ just around the corner, under the rug, behind the curtain, or buried in the soul. Especially the songs on HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED, BLONDE AND BLONDE, and BASEMENT TAPES allow for endless interpretations. And even though Dylan’s songs could be said to be about roughly one emotion or another — love, hate, jealousy, anger, resentment, bliss, etc. — they tend to be more multi- or cross-dimensional than everything else in Rock. They are rarely about a single emotion as the dominant expression or theme. There’s nothing as ‘pure’ or polished as "America" by Simon & Garfunkel or "God Only Knows" by the Beach Boys, especially since Dylan, as a writer, was as a much a serious ‘poet’ as a ‘pop artist AND, as a singer/performer, was as much someone who couldn’t sing-and-play(by conventional standards) as one who could. The idea of someone who looks and sounds like Dylan singing love songs is somewhat ridiculous, but it was the fusion of ridiculousness and great talent that made for a rich weirdness that still puzzles us to this day; he was like Moses-Rimbaud-Harpo-Marx-James Dean-Alain-Delon-Lenny Bruce rolled into one; but then, a similar kind of paradox is at the heart of Bible itself as it’s about the story of God having selected as His Chosen People a ridiculous-seeming people who got kicked around by just about all other peoples through the ages. The elements of delusion, clownishness, heroism, brilliance, visionariness, genius, ugliness, beauty, hideousness, and profundity are all there in the Old Testament; they are in the works of Dylan too. The Beatles were great, but there isn’t much in the way of mystery or sublimity to what they did, though to be sure, their talent at its peak was untouchable — just how did they come up with the sounds in "She Loves You" and "Ticket to Ride"? There’s far more to them than explosions of youthful energy or clever combinations of earlier forms of Rock n Roll; they sound like the re-invention of Rock n Roll, as if Rock n Roll found the switch on the Light Speed; much of Rock n Roll before the Beatles still sound exciting but no longer fresh, but Beatles still seem ahead of their time; theirs was like sci-fi pop. Anyway, music doesn’t have to be ‘deep’, ‘complex’, or ‘profound’ to be original, brilliant, and fresh, and besides, pseudo-profundity is a bigger sin than simple-and-honest expression; and the Beatles were at their best when they were simple-and-honest pop stars of playful inventiveness & ingenuity and not very convincing when they tried to be deeply meaningful: George Harrison’s "Within You, Without You" is interminable, Paul McCartney’s "She’s Leaving Home" is good riddance, and Lennon’s forays into sophistication, though not always unsuccessful — who will deny that "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "A Day in the Life" are not great songs? — , tended to be artily strained & overblown and expressively gratuitous; I never cared for the symphonic overkill in "A Day in the Life" or the reverse-locomotive chugging at the end of "Strawberry Fields Forever" with the cryptic muttering of ‘Cranberry Sauce’ or ‘I buried Paul’. In contrast, the complexity, richness, and depths of Dylan’s songs on HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED and BLONDE ON BLONDE — with the exceptions of "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" that sags like a over-layered cake and "Desolation Row" that sounds like the winner in the contest of The Most T.S.-Eliot-like song in Rock n Roll — seem natural and genuine; they don’t sound like simple ideas wrapped in fancy clothing like some fancy-pants Beatles songs do; SERGEANT PEPPER’S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND may be great kitsch, but it’s still kitsch, as is Brian Wilson’s SMILE. BLONDE ON BLONDE is all-out art. This isn’t to say that Dylan was some profound thinker or spiritually/philosophically deep person. (One of the reasons why he fled from the spotlight was too many people came to see him as a kind of messiah of Rock or just plain messiah, but Dylan didn’t have the answers to the world’s problems. Dylan’s essential persona revolved around his wit, intelligence, originality, imagination, and oddity. He wanted to make his own personal music than carry the cross for all humanity. And yet, he was caught in a kind of paradox from the very beginning. Though his message was "Don’t submit to authority", as a member of the deeply politicized Folk Music Movement, he had to sing to the choir and win the blessing/approval of the committee of figures like Pete Seeger who sought to shape Dylan’s creativity toward serving the Cause. When Dylan ‘went electric’, he broke away from the Folk scene — though not entirely — , and his message was even more stridently anti-authoritarian, and his new attitude won over even new fans. But then, this caused a new set of problems. If Dylan was telling young people to reject the status quo and give the middle finger to the establishment, then it implied all those young people who took his advice were likely to feel lost and confused as liberated and free. Having followed Dylan’s advice of rejecting authority, they didn’t know what to do, so they naturally looked to him for leadership. It’s like when the Jews followed Moses’ advice to give the middle finger to the Pharaoh and leave Egypt, they expected him to lead them to the Promised Land. But Dylan wasn’t willing to play leader. Furthermore, Dylan himself felt the crisis of confusion after cutting his ties to the Folk community, which, ‘neo-Stalinist’ as it was, had provided some sense of direction and purpose in life. Free to do as he pleased as a ‘folk rock’ artist who ‘went electric’ and ‘sold out’, Dylan was indeed free and liberated and could work on his masterpiece BLONDE ON BLONDE. Yet, in a way, his plumbing the depths of his psyche — especially with the aid of drugs — and pushing the envelope of his creativity brought him face to face with madness and dissolution. He found personal freedom, but it threatened to devour him with its own anarchic logic. This is when Dylan retreated and sought balance & stability in domestic life, especially as he was overcome with grief and guilt about his father’s death. Though he hadn’t been a particularly bad son, he hadn’t been a good one either, so when his father suddenly passed away, he needed to come to grips with himself, and this he couldn’t do out in the limelight. Dylan could no longer return to the Folk scene — which had grown increasingly irrelevant at any rate — , but he also had trepidations about being ‘radically’ free-and-persona as he been in 1965 and 1966 because the strain of unfettered creative freedom had nearly driven him insane. So, Dylan teetered somewhere between personalism and communalism in the coming years as he joined the outer orbits of the country music scene, free-Reuben-Carter scene, born-again Christian scene, support-Zionism scene, and etc.) Besides, an artist doesn’t have to be deep and profound to be good or great. I doubt if Dylan really thought deep and hard about the meaning of his songs, and yet, especially from 1965 to 1967, he must have been aware of the forces swirling all around his fortuitous place in the eye of a creative hurricane. (There is something in BLONDE ON BLONDE that is like the scene in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK where the Jewish spirit-ghosts emerge from the Ark and swirl around. It’s a moment of the paradoxical crisis of power. It has been the dream of man to summon magical forces that elevate him above and beyond the limits of all other men, but at the core of such concept, is man in control of the spirits or is the spirits in control of man? RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is about modern men seeking control of an ancient artifact, but when it’s finally secured and opened, it unleashes a whole bunch of ghostly Sarah Silvermans who blow up the Nazis real good. Throughout the movie, there’s a sense of man-as-controller and man-as-controlled. Indiana Jones is a rational scholar and adventurer who relies on reason and action, but when supernatural forces begin to pour out of the Ark, he feels compelled to shift into ‘faith’ gear and close his eyes. He becomes a ‘believer’, if only for a moment — and lucky for him, as the ghostly Sarah Silverman’s ‘pass over’ him. It’s as if, in the face of truly awesome power, man must realize he needs to submit to the mercy of The Power than hold onto the conceit that he can control the power as his very own.[But some individuals through the ages kept their eyes open during the moment of revelation and stared directly at the power. It’s like David Bowman sees everything during the Stargate sequence in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and in the process, he is both humbled and elevated. He becomes cognizant of the awesome forces that are far beyond man, but to the extent that the higher forces remold him with their cosmic hands, the new David Bowman is made of god-stuff. But then, seeing isn’t necessarily seeing-the-truth; it’s like dogs can see a painting just like we can, but they don’t have the cognitive ability to make sense of the patterns and appreciate them; it’s like cats can listen to music but won’t understand the music; similarly, though Bowman ‘saw everything’, it still doesn’t mean he understands anything, let alone everything; it’s like Bill Harford enters the corridors of privilege and sees the power but still doesn’t see the truth of/behind the power. Anyway, Bowman turns out okay because the higher beings of the cosmos specifically chose him to be the New Man. Usually, however, staring at the ultimate power is like staring directly at the sun for too long. The sun can be seen in all its glory, but the eyes will be damaged, even permanently blinded. Man’s senses were not designed to come in direct contact with too much power. I mean try jumping into a volcano to feel the true might of its heat. And yet, there is something in man that gravitates to the source of power, like a moth to a flame even if, like Icarus, it may burn and die. So, we have weight-lifters trying to lift like mythic Heracles: the Guinness Book of World Records syndrome. Some Hindu yogis push their bodies beyond limits to reach a ‘higher’ state beyond hunger, desire, and pain. The obsession to feel as one with the true or higher source of power need not be physical or sensory. It could be spiritual, creative — think of all the ‘crazy artists’ who drove themselves beyond limits to become the god of art or music — , or intellectual, and once some people get a little taste of the ‘great power’, they want more and more of it, like some people who get a taste of certain drugs cannot stop; they feel like gods even though they are really turning into sickly meth-heads/crackheads. Consider the local yokel character in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES who says he met ‘Indrid Cold’ face-to-face and feels especially blessed to have been chosen as a special confidant of Mr. ‘Cold’. Such sense of power drives him crazy and even leads to his death; he is rendered powerless by being made to feel powerful in his prophetic ability to foresee events; once he has a taste of that power, ordinary reality means little, and he freezes to death outdoors during one of his visionary stupors in the middle of winter. Since man-as-man is too humdrum and man-as-god is too dangerous, humans have conceived of an ideal that imagines a kind of halfway house between the humanly and the godly. It’s like St. Paul one day was touched by God and Jesus while he was walking to some city, and the effect was so powerful that he was blinded and incapacitated for several days; but he emerged from virtual paralysis and was converted to serving the cause of the new Faith. Or consider the character in SUNSHINE — directed by Danny Boyle — who touches down on the Sun itself — which serves as a metaphor for godliness — and arrives at some kind of ‘compromise’ with the higher forces. If mankind is doomed and merely submits to its demise, then man is different from animals or plants. What makes man special is his own sense of destiny as opposed to the grimness of fate. But in trying to ‘fix’ the Sun, one could argue it’s supremely arrogant for man to think he could/should reprogram godly power, indeed as if the Way of the Cosmos should be altered for man’s sake; if we had to destroy a million stars in order to save Earth and thereby alter the future fate of the entire Milky Way Galaxy, would we and should we? And yet, the godly force of the Sun in SUNSHINE seems to have a ‘mind’ of its own — like the planet Solaris of Stanislaw Lem’s novel — and takes pity on the last surviving character; it’s as if the ‘sun-god-consciousness’ comes to feel that man’s effort to save life on Earth isn’t an act of arrogance but a plea for mercy; furthermore, it’s clear that the characters are willing to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of others.] People who sought The Power thought they could hold and control the magic in their hands, and while they had it, they felt as gods; but then, there was the chance — or near certainty — that the magic could burn them and destroy them. It’s like when Merlin in EXCALIBUR says to Morgana that the secret of the Dragon will burn her, but she dares him to use it to ‘burn me’. She thinks that, upon contacting the source of all magic, she can take control of it and give birth to a god. But man was not meant to be god, so when men do come to feel godly powers, there’s an element of crisis to his condition. If man gains the ability to go beyond human limits, did he swallow greatness that is digesting inside him or did the greatness swallow him and sucking the life out of him?[Same can be said about lust and childbirth. When a man and a woman feel powerful lust — which is way beyond ordinary emotions — and boff one another, are they in control of their passions, or are their passions controlling them? And when a woman undergoes the ‘superhuman’ effort in birthing a child, is she in control/possession of the child or she is control/possession of the child? As mother/parent, she has physical control over the child, but the powerful emotional bond makes her willing to sacrifice everything — even her own well-being — for the sake of the child.] Indeed, consider so many Rock stars who, for a short duration, made almost godly music but then ended up like dried prunes without an ounce of creative juice left. But when Moses got his face burnt by the Burning Bush, he knew God was greater than him and that there was no chance in hell that he could compete with God. Whatever miracles and magic saved the Jews from the Pharaoh, the full credit was given to God. Traditionally, when individuals found inspiration to do great things, they reverentially attributed their abilities to God, and such attitudes fostered a degree of humility and served as a check on reckless egotism. But with the advent of modernity and retreat or even the ‘death’ of God, people of immense talent began to see their superior abilities as their own and, thus filled with boundless egotism, pushed the envelope so that they themselves could feel as gods. It’s like Johannes Bach was a tireless and prodigious musician, but he credited his abilities to the grace of God, and that kept him sane and balanced throughout his long illustrious life. In contrast, Beethoven composed as if he was competing with God, and his egotism sort of drove him crazy. While working on BLONDE ON BLONDE, Dylan may have wondered at times if he was making the music or the music was making him. Was music his instrument or was he music’s vessel? Was he creator of the music or a medium by which deeper, darker, or higher forces beyond his understanding chose him like God chose certain individuals to be His Prophets? Conventional range of powers and abilities are available to us all the time, but greatness is momentary[even for people of high intelligence and natural talent]; therefore, when certain individuals are able to do great things, they are confronted with the question/crisis of control/power that elicits within them both feelings of profound humility/gratitude and intense arrogance/confidence. If people of high intelligence and/or natural talent could easily be great all the time, humility would be besides the point since they could summon up the power of greatness at any time. Imagine if Paul McCartney could write a song of ‘Yesterday’ or ‘Penny Lane’s caliber every single hour of the day as long as he lived. In truth, it’s almost always the case that even people with immense natural talent can be truly great on through momentary spurts — when was the last time Sting wrote a song as great as "Every Breath You Take" or John Fogerty wrote something as good "Who’ll Stop the Rain?" And even in cases where the artist feels a swell of creativity flooding all around him, he finds himself able to capture only a small portion of the miraculous tide — the human ‘only has two hands’ — that will likely have receded by the time he returns for more. Creative ideas are like fish in the sea. There can’t be fish without water, so the water has to flood in first for there to be fish to be caught. Likewise, creative artists of sublime power need to be submerged beneath emotional tides before they can see and catch the fishes, but moods are usually something people have little control over. One can fake moods, but it would be like faking happiness, sadness, bliss, and depression; a faked mood is like shallow water with pretense of depth. As for those who become overly submerged in the depths of mood, there’s always the danger of drowning, and Dylan nearly drowned around the time he worked on BLONDE ON BLONDE. Because people most often don’t have dam control over swells of emotions that come and go according to their own erratic timetable, the greatness has as much to come to the artist as the artist must venture to find it. It’s like Perceval finds the Holy Grail when he least expected it, when he thought all hope was lost. He couldn’t find it just by looking for it[no matter how hard he tried], but then, it wouldn’t have come to him if he hadn’t been searching for it all those years. It’s like the moment in Sam Peckinpah’s THE BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE when Hogue finally finds some water just when he surrenders himself to the mercy of God; you can’t have it just by wanting it, but then unless you’ve been searching for it, you won’t notice it when it finally materializes before you. More often than not, every time a musician composes something great, he is surprised and amazed he could create such a thing because, after all, even the greatest musicians mostly produce dross than gold. Think of all the second-rate and third-rate Elton John songs compared to gems like "Tiny Dancer" and "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road". So, there is a god/servant complex in the heart/mind of every great artist. A prophet who comes into close proximity with God, in sensing and feeling the fuller measure of God’s magnificence & glory than is known to most men, finds himself feeling both humbler than most people before His power and more elevated than most people through His grace. It’s like Merlin in EXCALIBUR, in having a closer association with the power of the Dragon, is both very humble and very confident in his own powers[as they’re really derived from the much greater power of the Dragon]. If artists can easily be great all the time, they are liable to take greatness for granted as their own possession, but as greatness is always an unstable and erratic quality[prone to moods of inspiration that come none-too-easily but vanish all-too-fast], sensible artists know they’ve been as graced by the muse as fueled by their own talents, and therein lies the paradox of greater humility being wedded to greater genius. If indeed genius is about going beyond what is considered to be the limits of man’s ability, the essence of genius isn’t so much about man being the best that he can be but about man being god-for-a-day; and in that moment of hyper-privilege, he feels higher than any man, but because he himself is still a man despite his vision of something greater, he is also overcome with humility; he’s gained a glimpse of the house of god but cannot enter. It’s like Bella in TWILIGHT feels both power and humility when she hangs around vampires and werewolves. She has seen strange secrets and shared experiences with creatures of superior power but nevertheless remains human herself... until BREAKING DAWN PART II when she becomes a vampire herself, and then the whole dynamics changes.) Through the combination of ambition, competitive envy, experimentation with drugs, obsession with beauty, neurosis centering around romance, the temptation of power(as the ‘spokesman of his generation’), and doubts & even revulsion about his ‘prophet’ status, Dylan went through a series of creative/’spiritual’ reckonings that led to some of the most far-out, febrile, and fertile music made in the 20th century. This wasn’t merely pop music for pleasure. It wasn’t merely ‘serious music’ for ‘serious people’. (It seems one aspect of modernism — and it must be stressed as one among many as no art movement was as varied and pluralistic as modernism — was to make creativity independent of emotions and situate it entirely the domain of intellect. It’s impossible to conceive of the creative genius of Bob Dylan and Jean Sibelius without the flood of emotions. It’s the sense of wild nature & inner nature, darkness of the soul, depression & desperation, panic & despair, relief & release, and the hope of a new dawn that lend power to the symphonies of Sibelius. And for all his wit, cleverness, and mastery over words, songs like "Just Like a Woman" and "One of Us Must Know" would be pointless without the caustic emotions behind them. There was the flood before the fishes. But a lot of modern[ist] music look for fishes without the water, but there can’t be organic fishes without the water. There can only be artificial fishes placed by the artists themselves or fossilized fishes in the dried river-beds. And yet, modern art/music isn’t entirely about intellect either since the very nature of creativity can never be purely rational or logical like a mathematical formula or a game of chess. Thus, even though the emotional waters have been drained out of certain forms of modernism, a sense of emotion is nevertheless there. A sense of emotions without the actual stuff of emotions leads to hyper-neuroticism, indeed not unlike the kind of neuroticism that developed in higher religions, especially in puritanical Northern Europe. Through most of human existence, the sensual and spiritual had been inseparable as mankind worshiped nature and the natural cycles of birth, life, and death. Thus, to be one with the gods was understood to be a very sensual experience. But the higher religions divorced spirituality from sensuality, and the two most extreme manifestations of this outlook were Buddhism and certain puritanical sects of Northern European Protestantism. Northern European Protestantism may have led to more neuroticism since, whereas there was at least a consistency in Buddhism’s rejection of the material world at both the mental and physical level, Northern European Protestantism simultaneously called for the rejection of the material world and a powerful commitment to make the world a better place. Even today, people of Northern Protestant backgrounds seem most seriously committed to social reforms and progress yet also seem most passionless and soulless, indeed as if they believe any overt passion that flows forth naturally is sinful. In this sense, it could be that Mainline Protestant churches are attracted to stuff like ‘gay marriage’ not so much because it seems so wonderful but because it seems so unnatural and thereby challenges their natural sense of what seems and feels good. Since Protestantism has inculcated a distrust of natural emotions — tribalism, sexualism, familism, and etc. — , it has a fallacious tendency to believe that a variant that causes discomfort is of a higher spiritual/moral value. It’s like if something naturally tastes too good, it may be Devil’s food tempting the palate, so it’s better to eat yucky food like the folks do in BABETTE’S FEAST, that is until the French woman comes along and serves some decent victual for a change. Similarly, siding with non-white races than with fellow white races comes less naturally, and therefore, it may strike Northern Protestant types as more virtuous. And supporting the idiocy of ‘gay marriage’ may seem more counterintuitive and discomfiting than supporting true marriage, but then, maybe the natural feelings in favor of true marriage are ‘sinful’ since, well, they’re too natural. But then, because the Northern Protestant support of other races[often against white interests] and ‘gay marriage’[against true marriage] doesn’t come naturally, the emotions seem feigned no matter how sincere they may be on the conscious level. Furthermore, because the emotions don’t come naturally, a greater effort must be made to convince themselves that they are doing the right thing, and what better way to convince themselves than by convincing everyone else — with coercion if necessary? So, we see among the Mainline Protestant types both the greatest commitment to social causes and the least amount of naturally felt emotions behind it.) The final result of Dylan’s genius dissolved the barriers between high and low, between popular and intellectual, between personal and socio-political. It wasn’t just for the hearts and hips(as most pop music was) or just for the mind and intellect(as most ‘modern art’ was). Rather, a kind of ‘spiritual vision’ seemed to hold Dylan’s vision together that made it seem as timelessly ancient/medieval as well as remarkably modern, and in this respect, BLONDE ON BLONDE could be said to be comparable to Pier Paolo Pasolin’s THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, Frantisek Vlacil’s MARKETA LAZAROVA, Andrei Tarkovsky’s ANDREI RUBLEV, Sam Peckinpah’s THE WILD BUNCH, Sergei Parajanov’s SHADOWS OF FORGOTTEN ANCESTORS & COLOR OF POMEGRANATES, and the paintings of Marc Chagall. Though there is much that is pre-modern, earthy, natural, rural(in striking opposition to the urban), and/or ‘primitive’ about the works of these men, their sensibilities would be inconceivable without the influence of modernism because, among the various facets of modernism, one encouraged a kind of neo-primitivism that scraped at the layers of idealizations that had accumulated in artistic tradition over the centuries. Thus, ANDREI RUBLEV is both in the iconic tradition of Russian art and in the vital mode of modern art that questions everything and boldly works in modes go against the grain of aesthetic orthodoxy. But then, ferreting out the essence of genius even in the traditional art is bound to be a violent operation if done properly. For the traditionalist scholar or aesthete, great art must be admired, appreciated, and revered as if the artist had been touched by the grace of the heavens and blessed with nothing other than greatness, indeed as if greatness begat greatness, highness begat highness, and etc. This view is essentially aristocratic, as if great aristocrats give birth to great aristocratic children. But in fact, we know great people can give birth to idiots, and furthermore, many great individuals and great peoples had origins that were anything but noble, high-minded, gracious, dignified, and etc. They arose in prominence through ability and intelligence to be sure, but also through guile, ruthlessness, cunning, and dirty tricks. It’s like the Corleones in THE GODFATHER seek legitimacy, but their fortune was made through the dark underworld of crime. One of the problems of Christian artistic tradition is it tended to treat serious subjects in overly high-minded and refined manners. Though the expression could be tremendous, as just about every element of the work was either beautiful, noble, serious, grandiose, deep, profound, meaningful, and/or etc, what was lacking was a sense of vitality and organicism; and indeed, this is why most movies about Jesus Christ have been utter failures. They were meant to impress the Middlebrows and flatter the moralists with their dignified representation of the Holy Land in Ancient times, and all the life has been squeezed out of them. In contrast, despite its many flaws, Pasolini’s THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW provides a sense of the chaos and anarchy rife at the time of Jesus that fueled His ambition to change the world and save the soul of mankind. Scorsese with THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and Mel Gibson with PASSION OF THE CHRIST worked in similar veins but to less good results, though when PASSION is good, it is very good(at least when Jesus isn’t getting whupped upside his head for what seems like forever). (This was one of the key differences between the Renaissance and Modernism. Renaissance was a great cultural phenomenon, but it established an artistic tradition that became excessively lofty, refined, highfalutin, ‘serious’, grandiose, and etc. Artists during the Renaissance were so very inspired by the rediscovery of the glories of the Ancient World that they came to disregard the considerable achievements of the Middle Ages as ‘Gothic’ or barbarian-like. Thus, artists tried strove to create or recreate the most beautiful, graceful, grandiose, dignified, and/or ennobling kinds of work based on the highest standards of the Ancient World. Such sensibility undoubtedly produced some of the greatest works of all time, but there was something head-up-in-the-clouds about the whole thing. Even when the subject and treatment were more down-to-earth and earthy, the treatment was often heavy, grave, and ‘serious’, like the little brother in CHRISTMAS STORY made to wear too many layers of clothing. And in detail, there was too-much-ness. Though the Renaissance was inspired by Ancient pagan art, the element of Christian piety made it even more pompous in some ways. It was sensual grandiosity plus spiritual grandiosity. Though the pagan art of the Ancient Greeks and Romans could also be high-flown and bloated, Greeks and Romans’ more ambiguous attitude toward their gods made for a certain playfulness, indeed a quality occasionally evinced in Renaissance works as well if they were restricted to pagan themes, such as the works of Botticelli. But as the Renaissance fused pagan grandiosity with holier-than-thou Christian piety as the new template for Western Art of the pre-modern period, Western art lost a certain vital connection to the organic sources of life and creativity — of course, the concept of the Virgin Birth also devitalized the connection between the low and the high, between the biological and spiritual, and between the chaotic and meaningful since it was assumed that Jesus was born pure perfect through the seed of God, though, to be sure, the story of Jesus’ suffering and death prior to the Resurrection did encourage some re-establishment of the link between flesh and spirit, between earth and Heaven. In much of Western art between the Renaissance and the early Modernist period, there was a sensibility rather like those giant floats at the Macy’s Parade; and the worst bastard child of the Renaissance tradition is Jeff Koons who, not surprisingly, is of Catholic background. There is the incredible pomp of commercialism fused with new religion of celebrity. If too many Western paintings beginning with the Renaissance were overblown with Godliness, Jeff Koons’ ‘art’ is overblown with the worship of the almighty cash. I wonder if the opening scene of ANDREI RUBLEV was meant as a criticism of Western Art, i.e. as great as the Western tradition was, it had lost a vital connection with earth and man by having overemphasized the high at the expense of the low. In the opening scene, a man seeks to rise high into air with a balloon from atop a Cathedral, but, despite the exhilaration of the venture, what is man if he’s completely separated from the world of man? Or, what is a woman completely disconnected from the human world below in GRAVITY? If one kind of Western Art seemed cut off from humanity with all its rough-hewn richness, another kind seemed weighted down with gold-lit sanctity — it was as heavy as the other kind was lofty — , but what both shared was an element of too-much-ness, as if every square inch of their dimensions should be infused with heavenliness or sanctimoniousness — consider those paintings of the Crucifixion where everyone has a very serious countenance and is making gestures pregnant with meaning and significance.) Anyway, the great artists of the Renaissance were so taken with the glories of the Ancient World that they tried to transplant old greatness into new greatness, i.e. since the Ancients were presumably so noble and great, artists of the Renaissance should use greatness and nobility as the very premise of their artistic consciousness. (The problem with his attitude, despite all the great art it inspired, was that it had the effect of severing one’s consciousness from much of the rich and organic history that had transpired in Europe after the Fall of Rome. It’s like even a person who strives for greatness based on a new template shouldn’t dismiss or disregard all that had happened in his life thus far; history and life are not so simple that all of something can be disposed of as unworthy and all of something can be embraced as absolutely worthy. Even if the new template is the better one, it has to be approached with caution and criticality as well as with curiosity and excitement, and even if the old foundation is to be abandoned, its achievements and lessons are not to be preserved for posterity. The reason why communism and National Socialism proved to be so destructive was they were totalitarian or repressive attempts to reject everything of a certain past and start all over with a new template that was deemed to be flawless and perfect. Suppose that, upon becoming enthralled with something as one’s ticket to greatness, someone rejects and excoriates one’s entire past as unworthy, indeed as if one has nothing to learn or draw inspiration/lessons from whatever one’s earlier biography. That would just be fooling oneself. Though the Fall of Rome and Classical Civilization in the West was very tragic, a new culture and people did develop from the rubble, and in their own way, they too had developed a glorious civilizations and made achievements worthy of great pride. But during the Renaissance, it became customary for many artists and thinkers to assume that all the glories had been in the distant Classical Age while everything that happened between the Fall of Rome and the rediscovery of the glorious past was barbaric, ugly, crude, and of little worth. Such a view wasn’t merely wrong about the Middle Ages but also about the ‘barbarian’ folks who were not without notable achievements of their own. As much as a person might feel shame about his past and want to be re-birthed or ‘born again’ religiously, politically, intellectually, and culturally, it makes little sense to wholly reject, abnegate, and nullify all that had happened before. A fatal flaw of the Renaissance was that, as great and epochal as it was, it had the effect of diminishing, devaluing, and even demolishing the biography of Europe from the Fall of Rome to the Renaissance. {This was a mistake the Ancient Greeks avoided by honoring the so-called Greek ‘dark ages’ through songs, poems, folklore, and mythic memory. Though Greeks at the peak of their civilization were aware of the long period of strife and chaos that had engulfed the region following the demise of much earlier civilizations, those ‘dark times’ became the source of many of the myths that came to define the later Greeks. Things may have been ‘dark’ for a long stretch, but Greeks accepted the lost times as THEIR darkness, therefore a part of their cultural and mythological DNA; it’s like we don’t much remember our early childhood before the age of 5, but we still know it was a vital and important part of our biography. In contrast, Europeans during the Renaissance developed a tendency to pretend as if NOTHING of any worth happened between the Fall of Rome and the rediscovery of Classical Culture, and this was a real shame. Such attitudes may have been encouraged by Christianity that also had a tendency to neatly divide history into ‘before Jesus’ and ‘since Jesus’, as if mankind had been groping in the dark before the coming of the one and only Messiah. The other reason may have partly been due to the fact that the Renaissance was, to a large extent, shaped by homos, i.e. as fussy homos prefer pretty things to chaotic things, the homo mentality may have pretended there was nothing of any worth during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages when people wore ‘drab’ clothes and acted like virile barbarian warriors who sacked stuff than gazed at pretty paintings while standing in ooh-lala poses. Just look at America and EU today, and homos would have us believe that marriage had no worth for thousands of years until homos finally pushed the agenda of ‘gay marriage’. The homossaince mentality says real history of marriage begins now since wonderful fruitkins can finally marry. So, prior to ‘gay marriage’, the institution of marriage was either barbaric or oppressive. According to homossaince mentality, Russia is a barbaric place since it won’t surrender to the ‘glory’ of the homos and the messianic or assianic cause of ‘gay marriage’. In the eyes of Jews and homos, Pussy Riot represents the glory of homossaince whereas the revival of Christian Russia and blood-and-soil love of the Motherland represents a return to the Middle Ages if not Dark Ages.}The derision of the magnificent Medieval Cathedrals as ‘Gothic’ by many of the leading lights of the Renaissance is revealing. In Russia, the communist revolution also tried to wipe out Russian history and begin with something like Year Zero with the creation of New Man. The problem isn’t the concept of New Man per se — as long as it’s not crazy — but with the conceit that the New Man should entirely reject and deny the history of the Old Man. Indeed, one of the reasons why white folks are so deluded about the wildass Negro has something to do with the Western separation of the idealized image of the modern Negro from his true origins in Africa. For 100,000s of years, Negroes ran wild and acted like the savages that they is. But white folks brought them to the New World and tried to make the Negroes forget all about their savage past and become nice civilized Negroes. But in cutting off the Negro from his savages roots, white folks fooled themselves into believing in the New Negro of Negrossaince. So, in the minds of fools like Harriet Beecher Stowe, there was no hint of the savage Negro in the idealized image of the Noble Negro. It was as if there was only the wonderful nice civilized Negro whose rights were denied by evil bigoted white folks. But in fact, one cannot understand the true Negro by relying on the Western Ideal of the Negro that was completely divorced from the reality of the Negro’s roots in Africa going back 100,000s of years. The New Negro was not and could not be remade from scratch through an Ideal, indeed no more than New Europe could deny all the history that had taken place between the Fall of Rome and the Renaissance. The Renaissance mind-set imbued the West with the false conceit that a civilization could ignore entire swaths of its own history and begin anew with nothing but the best ideals. A similar kind of mind-set came to infect the minds of white Liberals and even Conservatives when it came to the wildass Negroes. They disregarded the deeply rooted background of Negroes in wild Africa and believed in the fanciful hope that Negroes could all be made noble like MLK when, in truth, even MLK was just a poseur as, in truth, he was a wildass gorilla-like Negro who was no better than some rowdy rapper. Of course, Liberals love to pretend that they are now well-aware of African roots of the Negro, and indeed, they go out of their way to praise Negroes who go searching for their roots in Africa, but even this is just a fanciful conceit since the Liberal conception of Africa is as fantastic and wishful as their concept of the Noble/Magic Negro. According to silly Liberals, Africa used to be some Edenic paradise where Negroes were dancing with gorillas, baboons, lions, and hippos — living in ‘harmony with nature’ — , but then, wicked whites came along and messed it all up for the Negro, and THAT is why there are so many black problems in Africa and the New World. But such a view of Africa is really a projection of Western fantasies onto Africa than a clear, factual, and honest assessment of real Africa and its past that was savage, wild, and crazy. White Liberals are under the delusion of Negrossaince, which is why some white folks think they can save the Negro race by adopting African babies, voting for Obama, and worshiping Mandela; and in thus saving the black race, they think they can finally redeem the white race that presumably messed everything up for blacks. But these are based on fantastical thinking with no understanding of the real past. It’s like no matter how much Mao and his henchmen tried to make a New China, China continued to be have roots in its ancient past, and it cannot be properly understood, appreciated, or critiqued without taking its deeper history into account. It’s like despite the image of the New Jew since the Holocaust — where the image of the Jew has been scrubbed clean as to suggest Jews had always been wonderful and near-perfect — , one cannot understand the real Jew unless one looks into the past and examines the facts related to the true nature of the Jew. The image of the perfect New Jew is the creation of the post-war period that fooled a lot of Western people into believing that the True Jew has been discovered at last. This True Jew is so noble, so wonderful, so tragic, so moral, so profound, so decent, and etc. With this great truth finally revealed to all, it was as if the West could finally move forward by embracing this image of the New Jew that was presumably the real face and soul of the Jew. The ‘Jewish Problem’ had been solved, and the dawn of a golden age between Jews and gentiles was at hand on the condition of rejecting all the earlier assessments of the Jew that were to have been deemed as ‘antisemitic’, ‘racist’, ‘hateful’, ‘pathological’, ‘paranoid’, ‘superstitious’, and utterly unjustified & unwarranted. Just as the leading lights of the Renaissance had dumped on everything that had been achieved during the Middle Ages, the official line after WWII was that every negative perception about or depiction of Jews has been utterly crazy, worthless, and had no basis in fact or validity. Indeed, the ‘Jewish Problem’ had never really existed in fact — as Jews had always been wonderful — but had festered for so long only because the minds of gentiles had been infected with the superstitious Medieval fever of ‘antisemitism’ that later took on a ‘scientific’ sheen. So, the problem was entirely with delusional goyim, and if the goyim’s minds could be purged of their ‘irrational’ suspicion of and hostility toward Jews, all tensions between gentiles and Jews would vanish from the earth and everyone will be happy. But what has happened to the West since white folks decided to accept the cult of the wonderful New Jew as the True Jew? Any person with an honest pair of eyes and balls will admit that the Jewish Problem is worse than ever, indeed that Jews have engineered the demise and destruction of the race that created the greatest civilizations on Earth. While it’s true that antisemitism got out of hand and the Nazis were pathological creeps, one wrong doesn’t redeem another wrong. It’s like I can whup John Wayne Gacy and mistreat him real bad, but he would still be a psychopath. It’s like Nicky Santoro at the end of CASINO is brutally beaten and murdered, but it still doesn’t mean that his victimization makes him a saint instead of a gangster and a thug. Just as the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn’t negate Japanese viciousness in WWII, the Holocaust doesn’t negate Jewish foulness through the ages. Too many Jews are as nasty as Nicky Santoro. A lot of people had just about enough of them and understandably so.) Well, nothing’s wrong with nobility and greatness per se, but when such qualities are separated from all other facets of life/reality deemed less-than-worthy, something vital is lost — perhaps the rise of the novel should be credited with re-filling an overly purified ideal of art with the varied stuff of life. Michelangelo’s DAVID is a great work of art, but we only see David’s greatness, nobility, and dignity. We don’t see David the man of flaws and problems. The great achievement of modernism was that artists felt free to dig for the primal and primitive sources of life, reality, and creativity that had been neglected for too long; to be sure, realism and naturalism preceded modernism in this, but whereas realism and naturalism tended to focus on the social-physical-material world, modernism took a more psychological approach and excavated the subconscious terrain as well. If a biographer of a great man only looks for evidence of greatness in the subject from his childhood to his apotheosis, his book may be an inspiring tale, but it would be one dimensional, more about greatness using a man as a vessel than about a man who, though like so many other people, had the talent, fortitude, and fortune to attain greatness. It’s the difference between hagiography and biography. A biography understands that no man is fated to be great but may become great through convergences of events that find the man with the ‘right’ attributes at the right place at the right time. In contrast, a hagiography uses the greatness as the starting point, as if everything that happened happened in order to fulfill the greatness of the subject at hand; there is no accident or chance in a hagiography where the entire universe seems to revolve around a certain ‘great’ individual; it’s like Terrence Malick’s godawful autohagiographical TREE OF LIFE that would have us believe that everything that happened since the Big Bang happened because it would one day lead to the birth of Terrence who would make TREE OF LIFE, presumably the greatest work of art ever made in the cosmos. This is why all those biographies about men like Marx and Lenin in the communist nations were dull and predictable: they were about great men who were born to be great, indeed whose every word and deed since childhood radiated with greatness-yet-to-be-fulfilled. Same goes for children’s books about PC-approved people like MLK and Nelson Mandela; everything oozes and glows with ‘greatness’. But what’s really interesting about a great person isn’t only the greatness but the very human struggle for greatness that, more often than not, led to bouts of frustrations, failures, and doubts. It’s that aspect of life that not only humanizes the subject but adds both an element of heroism and tragedy to his hard-earned greatness, because if indeed great men became great simply because they were meant to be great, then greatness must have been easy, in which case there’s no drama to the greatness. It’s as if fate lifted someone to the top of the mountain than someone made his own climb with the will of a lion or mountain goat. The story of Jesus is moving because His attainment of Messiah-hood came at a great price that led to all sorts of doubts, frustrations, agony, suffering, pain, humiliation, and even death. The reason why so many movies about Jesus Christ have failed is that everything about His life — even His torment, suffering, and humiliation — is presented in some holy-schmoly manner, as if Jesus was just fulfilling some pre-ordained passion play than struggling and summoning up the courage to make sense of His place in the world. Though Scorsese’s LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is a pretty lousy film, what it did get right, at least in its final part, was the full extent of the ‘logic’ of life that is brutally indifferent to any book of life one may have written for oneself. It is actually more powerful than Mel Gibson’s PASSION OF THE CHRIST because we share in the psychological angst than merely in the physical horror.{Whatever ‘book’ Jesus may have written for Himself before He plunged into the melee of worldly politics that would devour Him, the reality was far more horrible, crazy, and unpredictable than He could have imagined. Gaddafi, the Gafly of Libya, found out the same thing when he met his downfall and demise. He thought even if he were to fall, he would fight and die heroically to the very end, but when the rebels finally caught up with him, he was screaming like a little bitch and begging for mercy like whimpering dog. There was nothing noble and dignified about his true end, which was so different than the book he wrote for himself. Similarly, Yukio Mishima thought he would die nobly and heroically, but his last stand was a joke and his ritual suicide was a badly botched affair that was just putrid and gross. And T.E. Lawrence — at least in David Lean’s LAWRENCE OF ARABIA as I haven’t any books about him — discovers over and over that his role in the Arab rebellion never quite unfolds as he’s ‘written’ it. It’s the discrepancy between the myth and the man that makes all these stories compelling; indeed, even myths like THE ODYSSEY are interesting because there is so much that is human that keeps intruding into the ideal and heroic. By the time Odysseus returns and takes back his home, he is both a triumphant hero and broken man on his last leg. He’s like the character of THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA. After 20 yrs of war and voyage, all he has gained is what he had in the first place: his home, wife, and son. It’s like the Al Pacino character and Robin Williams character in INSOMNIA. Both have written ‘books’ about themselves. Al Pacino’s character has developed a legendary reputation as a great cop who’s done great things for the community, and this is so important to him that he feels compelled to hide his abuses of the law in the past with new abuses. When legend becomes fact, print the legend. And Robin Williams’ character is psychopathic because he can no longer distinguish his true self with his idealized self. He has ‘written a book’ about himself — as an innocent man and a model citizen — and is so insistent on maintaining this self-made myth that he will go to any length to hide his criminal deed. His auto-hagio-graphical sense has taken over any autobiographical sense. Even though he knows he committed the murder, he FEELS he is innocent because he has a knack for ‘rewriting’ his motivations and those of others.}Also, addressing a man’s failure isn’t enough to flesh out the human aspects of his being. After all, failure can be presented as ‘tragedy’, which romanticizes and exonerates failure as a form of noble sacrifice. Tragedy dresses failure with the fancy garb of greatness. One of the good things about Steven Soderbergh’s CHE was it presented Che’s failure and death matter-of-fact-ly. It wasn’t presented as Passion of Che. And one of the most memorable moments of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is when Lawrence had just about enough and quits. He feels he has failed despite all his efforts, and he rides away under a cloud of confusion: relief that it’s all over, revulsion for all that’s gone wrong, and yet, also a tinge of nostalgia for the great adventure he’d been a party to and made his name famous around the world. Greatness didn’t emerge from greatness, like Athena from the head of Zeus. Humans are not gods, and life is really about how all that is great are intertwined with all that is un-great, and it was in the exploration of this interrelationship that made modern art so compelling. And this sensibility came to affect even the non-modernist artists in the 20th century, and this can certainly be said of Andrei Tarkovsky who didn’t see himself as a modernist though he had great respect for modernist film directors such as Ingmar Bergman, Michelangelo Antonioni, and Hiroshi Teshigahara. And in a way, one could argue the Judaic consciousness provided a special impetus to the modernist sensibility because, more than any other major religious/cultural tradition, Jews had created a narrative where the apparently ungreat was interrelated with the great, indeed with the greatest as the Jewish Bible posited that Yahweh was the only God, the true God, and the all-powerful God of the universe. Most cultures tended to create narratives that connected the dots among great kings, great heroes, great events, and etc. In contrast, much of the Old Testament is about ‘little’ people, seemingly of an insignificant tribe, surviving through various travails and seeking a meaningful view of their place in the world. At face value, much of it seems to have little or nothing to do with greatness. And yet, narrative strands emerge where the ‘little people’, the Jews, do find opportunities to be chosen and blessed by God, the greatest Being in the universe. So, the greatness of the Jewish people in the Bible doesn’t emerge right away nor is it obvious at all times. Most Jews in the Old or Original Testament are not presented as great heroes born of the mating of humans and gods who then go and found empires. Instead, they come as a bunch of goat herders eking out a living and getting horny. But, gradually a picture of greatness emerges. This may be why some on the Alternative Right, being so anti-Judaic in their sensibility and outlook, have no use for modernism and find it to be a continuation of the Jewish cultural tendencies through secular forms — notice, for example, that many modern Jews have preferred abstract art that, in eschewing the representational-ism of traditional Classical and Christian Art, could be said to be neo-anti-idolatrous; just like religious Jews upheld an abstract concept of God while prohibiting all idols, modern secular Jews championed art based on conceptualism than representational-ism. According to the Alternative Right mind-set, art should be about beauty, nobility, grace, dignity, heroism, awesomeness, etc. So, when they see a modernist work of art that features something less than beautiful or noble, they wonder what’s the point? It’s like Hitler loved Classical Greek art because it primarily featured beauty, grace, heroism, strength, and etc; indeed, such forms and poses became the foundation of Nazi Art. To someone like Hitler, the history of Jews seemed ridiculous it seemed to be about a bunch of nomadic goat-herders praying to some vague God.
Whatever might have been great about Jews, it hadn’t been rendered obviously visible like the representations in Greek and Roman art that depicted figures of great beauty, strength, heroism, grace, and etc. As the old Jewish lady demanded "Where’s the beef?" in the Wendy’s commercial, Hitler wanted to know "Where’s the Beauty?" in Jewish history and culture? He didn’t see any. Likewise, even today, when some folks in the Alternative Right look at modern art, they wonder what was the point of making art that failed to elevate and honor what is beautiful and noble. While many works of modern art are indeed irredeemably ugly, stupid, and not worth anyone’s time, the modernist sensibility did broaden the possibilities of creativity and made us more aware of the intricate links between the great and the ungreat, between the noble and the ignoble, between the high and the low, between the ugly and the beautiful. It’s like if you see a burning pile of buffalo chips, maybe you shouldn’t focus only on the holy-seeming radiance of the flame but also remind yourself that’s it’s cow shit on fire. It’s like even the most beautiful-seeming person on the outside is also a walking bag of shit on the inside. (Imagine someone walking around carrying a bag of shit in his or her hand wherever he or she goes. We would find it gross, but aren’t we all carrying a bag of shit inside of us? Much of our insides are long distended tubes and bags of shit, after all. If Classical Art was limited in some way, it concentrated on the outer manifestations of beauty at the expense of other facets of reality. But, to be sure, the Greeks and Romans had many stories of macabre nature that reminded people of the fuller range of people, animals, and the world. Besides, theirs was a time and place when most people witnessed the slaughter of animals in the streets and in festivals. They could not get away from the foul side of reality. One interesting thing about the Right is that a good many rightists happen to be horror movie aficionados, which I’ve always found a bit disturbing because I hate most horror — though a handful fascinate me to no end. Because of the extreme nature of horror, it has to be very good or otherwise, it is offensive, whereas a bad drama is still just a drama. Anyway, why would people on the Right, who are so harsh on the Jews for their role in ‘ugly’ Modern Art, be so enamored of horror, much of which is way gorier, uglier, and grosser than any work of Modern Art? Maybe, it’s because Rightists see horror as more honest: it’s low culture with low thrills. In contrast, Modern Art offends them because their innate sense of hierarchy expects something nobler and finer in the sphere of ‘high art’. Or maybe some on the Right hate the ugliness of Modern Art because it reflects the ugliness of their own fears, phobias, paranoias, and anxieties. Indeed, it’s ironic that Hitler had one of the grubbiest souls of any modern leader, but he insisted on such clean-looking art. Maybe because his own soul was so dirty, he tried to compensate by washing culture with soap.) You can see this in the works of Marc Chagall that are rustic and ‘primitive’ but also incandescent and dreamlike. In ANDREI RUBLEV, we are shown how all the lowly, putrid, dirty, and sodden elements of medieval Russia were the raw material with which Rublev created his great masterpieces. Didn’t God Himself create man out of mud and clay? After all, alchemy is about turning lead into gold, and while alchemy isn’t real, it’s true enough that diamonds are made from coal, and pearls are the products of diseased oysters. If Tarkovsky had approached the subject in the traditionalist mode, his vision of Rublev would have been more idealized and iconic, like Carol Reed’s treatment of Michelangelo in THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY, a movie about the convergence of the higher powers of God, genius, and politics as if there’s no room for nothing else; it’s based on the assumption that greatness is made of greatness when, in fact, greatness is the accumulation of all the things and factors that, on their own, aren’t great. AGONY AND THE ECSTACY was made in the manner of ‘elephant art’, whereas ANDREI RUBLEV makes us aware of all the termites that went into the creation of a mound that is as big or bigger than any elephant. In ANDREI RUBLEV, the sources of inspiration seem broader, deeper, more varied, and more unpredictable. In the end, an overall design and pattern emerges but with a fuller measure of how the grandest things are interconnected with the littlest things. In that, ANDREI RUBLEV is a profoundly a modern work even though it is steeped in images, details, symbols, and moods of a pre-modern world and harbors an anti-modern moral-spiritual sensibility. (It is ironic that one of the greatest conservative artists was the product of communist Russia, and it’s even more ironic that some of the most ardent defenders of Tarkovsky during his troubles with Soviet authorities were Western leftist artists and critics; Western conservatives all but ignored him, but then, most Conservatives never had any use for art except in the most status-conscious sense, as with the trite and shallow William F. Buckley who was all air and no substance. When all is said and done, there will always be people who recognize and admire superiority in talent. Ideology is a midget compared to genius, which may have been why Hannah Arendt apologized for Martin Heidegger and why Allen Ginsberg sought out Ezra Pound and wept alongside him in respect and appreciation. The failure of the Right to produce sufficient number of artists of first rank or to inspire people of talent to gravitate toward the Right since the end of WWII proved to be huge disadvantage.) Dylan’s small-town roots in Hibbing Minnesota and his arrival in New York had a dualistic impact on his artistic sensibility. In some ways, going from Hibbing to New York was like a tribal Jew in the outskirts of civilization going to Rome, the gentile capital of the world. And yet, already by the early 1960s, New York was like a Jewish Mecca, so in a way, it was like Dylan the rural hick was going to a Jewish cosmopolis. Thus, he felt both an identification with and opposition against the Jew, especially as most NY Jew who ran the music industry initially gave him short shrift and especially as his style of folk music wasn’t what they were looking for. There were basically two kinds of practitioners of folk music: the genuine folks in rural and small-town communities who played traditional music, but then, they mostly played it in their own communities amongst their own kind; most of them didn’t go to New York to ‘make it’ and indeed even harbored distrust of city folks. The other kind of practitioner of folk music was like the guy in the Coen Brothers’ INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS; they were essentially part of the urban intellectual and/or bohemian café culture milieu: sophisticates pretending to be ‘authentic’, ideologically committed, or anti-commercial. They were city slickers singing ‘genuine’ music because it seemed ‘different’, ‘rad’, ‘authentic’, or ‘committed’ at the time. Some were very good, but few felt a deep and genuine connection to the music, and even those who did were more academic and ethnographic than soulful and heartfelt in their attitude toward the music. Dylan was neither the genuine traditionalist of some rural community nor the lifelong city-slicker whose every instinct was urban, urban, and urban from cradle-to-grave. He’d seen and lived enough of rural/small town America during his formative years to feel it in its bones, but he was too intelligent/curious — too Jewish/neurotic — not to be drawn to the allure and thrills of big city life and its opportunities. Also, there was a difference between small-town Jewish life and urban Jewish life. Though Hibbing wasn’t just some backwoods town — it had developed its own progressive credentials and should never be mistaken with hillbilly Appalachia, especially as the kinds of white folks who settled much of Minnesota had Germanic/Scandinavian roots with attitudes and habits far more geared toward unity, organization, and discipline than found among the violent, lazy, and uncouth Scotch-Irish who settled the Appalachia and stirred up endless trouble in Hatcoys-and-McFields fashion, though them folks were sort of okay in COAL MINER’S DAUGHTER — , it wasn’t known for its night-life either, and so, the Jewish community there tended to be more traditionalist, communal, and insular than Jews in New York who were tirelessly into all sorts of individualist, eccentric, or radical antics. Dylan was born to be a city slicker — like Bella was born to a vampire — , but the influence of the Jewish community of his youth and the small town culture in Hibbing had been sufficient to make him somewhat wary of the conceits of city folks.(The Coen Brothers, also having grown up in Minnesota, share some of the ambiguities of Dylan’s relation to rural folks, city life, and Jews. O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU is like their BASEMENT TAPES. BIG LEBOWSKI is like their HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED. INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS is like their FREEWHEELIN’ BOB DYLAN. MAN WHO WASN’T THERE is like their JOHN WESLEY HARDING. They haven’t made anything yet that comes anywhere near BLONDE ON BLONDE.) Though we generally think of city folks as being smart & sharp and small town folks as being dim & gullible(think of Ratso vs Joe Buck), Dylan felt smarter & sharper than lifelong city folks since he had a double-perspective on their world. Though it may well be true that city folks are indeed more knowledgeable and skeptical about things in general, their conceit of being so individualistic, independent, urbane, intellectual, progressive, radical, and etc. can become foster its own kind of conceited naivete. It’s like those who think they are so smart become blind to their own stupidity. Consider the hipster culture that is so pervasive in so many cities; all those poseurs think they are so hip and cutting-edge, but most are naive simpleton brats. In truth, whether one grows up in a city or small town, most people are idiots and can only affect at being smart and knowledgeable. And as smart people usually congregate with other smart people with similar attitudes, they tend to become insular, conceited, and mutually reinforcing in their view that the world could be understood and changed based on their supposedly superior social theories(that, more often than not, have little to do with real people or the real world). So, naturally, even though the New York Folk Scene was filled with people who thought they were so smart, creative, progressive, and etc, most were just conforming to bohemian/leftist standards. They failed to see their own conformism because they were conforming to what was labeled as ‘non-conformist’ and ‘anti-establishment’. It’s like people who control colleges think they are such free-and-intelligent scholars and seekers of truth even though many of them are brain-dead pod people chanting the same mantra. As long as they hold to the conceit of the academia as a haven of ‘free thought’ and ‘cutting-edge progress’, they remain blind to their own phoniness. So, paradoxically, Dylan was even more slicker than the city slickers in his cynicism because he could see through their phoniness with a perspective instilled in another part of the country. Also, unlike the kind of simple-minded rubes who went to New York to seek approval and validation from supposedly superior city folks, Dylan felt, immediately upon arrival, than he was smarter and more perceptive than most New Yorkers who’d spent their entire lives there with all the arts, culture, theater, libraries, book stores, cafés, and museums. It’s instructive that Dylan mentions in CHRONICLES of how much he learned from reading books in the basement of someone he knew. Before there was BASEMENT TAPES, there was basement books. He got a great deal out of them because he read them with passion and insight. One of the pitfalls of city life or college life is that the impression of being surrounded by venues and institutions devoted to intelligent and creative things makes people feel they are absorbing culture, knowledge, and smartness as if by osmosis. It’s like someone who spends a lot of time in a big library may feel erudite and educated even though he hardly read anything there. In contrast, even though Dylan didn’t attend no fancy college, he learned a hell of a lot more from books in that basement than many people did in fancy colleges or big cities. People in cities like New York and San Francisco think they are so smart, knowledgeable, and ahead-of-the-curve since they are surrounded all around all the time by things-associated-with-intelligence, but such self-regard may actually make them lax and complacent in their experience of culture since they conflate their proximity to culture with the promise of culture. A person in a basement who carefully and passionately reads his limited collection of books will know more than someone in some big library in some fancy college who reads much less or reads in the spirit of privileged laxity — reading more in appreciation of the self for being party to a club that reads such things than reading independently in appreciation of the work for the sake of personal inspiration. After all, this is why a lot of Jews who attended CUNY outperformed Wasps who attended Harvard and Yale in the 50s. One really wonders what Bill Buckley’s purpose at Yale was except to sneer at everyone else and put on fancy airs. Even when he read books or engaged in art, it was to elevate himself and his kind as the sort who knew and cared about ‘high culture’. They wore culture like a robe than pored through the needlework for deeper understanding or possibilities of inspiration. It’s no wonder that even among conservatives who are devoted to ‘serious culture’, what is generally lacking is the kind of intellectual or creative engagement that allows for new interpretations and possibilities. Terry Teachout and Roger Kimball are typical Conservative intellectuals of culture whose main agenda seems to be reminding us that great culture is great culture. We know that already. In contrast, Jews who hadn’t been admitted to the Ivies attended less prestigious schools but poured far intenser effort into their studies and readings, and many of them would have a bigger impact on the America in the coming years than the Wasp graduates of Ivy League schools who, more often than not, rested on their laurels when it came to their presumed superiority over rest of the population.

Anyway, though Dylan songs(especially during his ‘surreal’ proto-psychedelic period) weren’t as accessible as those of the Beatles or the Stones, the listeners could still FEEL something — even foreign Dylan fans who didn’t know a word of English felt the angst & anxiety, heard the snarl and growl — , an experience that often wasn’t the case with ‘serious’ Modern music that made little to the ‘intellectually uninitiated’. If there is a kind of emotion in ‘serious modern music’, it is the emotion of intellectual pique; it’s rather like squeezing tears out of stones or trying to drink a block of ice. And yet, the kind of emotions(undeniably powerful as they were) one encountered in Dylan’s music wasn’t easily discernible or decipherable. A Dylan love song wasn’t just a matter of "I love you" or "you are beautiful" or I’m sad and lonely because you don’t love me." (Even most eccentrics and oddballs of Rock — everyone from Roy Orbison to Rick Ocasek of The Cars — expressed a narrow range of emotions more or less familiar to most listeners. "Only the Lonely" and "I’m Not the One" are either neurotic or oblique, but easily understood. They serve up the kind of emotions that puts one at ease in a consistency of mood. They are mono-tonal despite the element of anxiety or despair.) Rather, songs like "Just Like a Woman" and "I Want You" — and of course, "Sad-eyed Lady of the Lowlands", flawed as it is like a hopelessly deflating hot air balloon herculeanly fired up to remain afloat — lead us into strange terrain where various strains & shades of thoughts & emotions are knotted into ‘a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma’. (Dylan’s music was like early modern art — before the advent of pure abstraction and conceptualism — where things seemed familiar enough and yet ‘different’ enough to disturb and unbalance one’s footing in the aesthetic, emotional, and cultural experience. There was beauty melting into ugliness, sentiment shadowed by fear, transcendence clouded with doubt, purity corrupted by loathing. In a sense, "Vision of Johanna" is comparable to the interior paintings of Vincent van Gogh. Things are not exactly what they seem or what they should be in accordance to conventional expectations. After all, even very fresh things can be conventional in the sense they feel so right. When Beatles exploded on the scene, no one had heard music like that, and yet "it feels so right, yeah, hold me tight, you know I’m the only one..." And the Stones’ "Satisfaction" was one of the most original songs ever, but it too had immediate worldwide appeal. People must have felt the same way when they tasted ice cream or drank Coca-Cola for the first time: fresh and new but totally right and righteous. In contrast, even though the works of Van Gogh have become famous all around the world, there’s still something about them that unbalances and troubles us. And no matter how many times one listens to BLONDE ON BLONDE — or reads Kafka — , there are always pieces that either don’t fit or fit differently in revisiting. In a way, Jews felt at home with Modernism since Modernism, unlike traditionalism, was a movement in exile from its own culture. Traditional art could be sometimes be bold and original, but they were a continuation and furtherance of the images, emotions, visions, and values that had met approval of the culture-at-large, from top to bottom. An cultured nobleman and an ignorant peasant could both marvel at a painting of Jesus or some other high-minded themes. Anyone from highborn aristocrat to lowborn prole who tipped his hat & said "aye guv’nor" could appreciate an English Landscape Painting. However extraordinary and special the talent of the traditional artist may have been, he worked within the range of what were deemed as worthy and noble by the community as a whole. Modernism, in contrast, increasingly went out of its way to drive a wedge between itself and the culture that gave it birth. It underwent an auto-bastardization process. Initially, the proto-artists felt anxiety about being rejected and misunderstood, but in time, when modernism became a full-blown movement, artists were only too happy to be misunderstood and stir up outrage in the respectable bourgeoisie community, though to be sure, it was elements of the bourgeoisie who were the main patrons of Modernism. Modernist works weren’t easily digestible since they were rarely about a single emotion or theme. It’s like Cubism offers multiple perspectives that create an anxiety-of-perception. Jews felt at home with Modernism because they looked different from European gentiles, because their tradition was at odds with gentile Christian tradition, and because they had different personalities. Though some Jews went out of their way to assimilate and become just like goyim, it never seemed quite right since, no matter how much the Jew tried to be like the goy, he felt different inside; it became even more complicated when some goyim seemed to prefer emulating the Jews, which was especially true in the Café Society of Vienna where eccentric Jews were setting the new cultural standards that were admired and emulated by gentiles who wanted an entry into new culture of art, wit, and intellect; oddly enough, one of things that upset Adolf Hitler was he felt like Joseph K. in the new Jewish-dominated Vienna that seemed to have no place for someone of traditionalist or classical tastes; Hitler felt Jews controlled the Castle, and his own kind wouldn’t be allowed in a million years even though Austria had been a Germanic nation for as long as it had existed. Anyway, it’s like no matter how much Woody Allen or Dustin Hoffman might try to be like Robert Redford or Dan Quayle, he is gonna feel different inside because Jews simply have different personalities. And no matter how much Jews tried to look goyim, they still had sloped foreheads, hooked noses, and rubbery lips; and so, it’d only be a parody of goy looks. Then, it’s no wonder that Jews welcomed Modernism more than any other people did. Not that Modernism was about ease and comfort. If anything, it was about disturbance and fracture. Yet, paradoxically, Jews felt more at ease with unease since, no matter how hard they tried, they simply couldn’t feel an organic connection with traditional goy society. Imagine if Susan Sontag and Pauline Kael were to pretend to being nice Wasp ladies of the Better-Homes-and-Garden variety; they’d feel like the feminists of STEPFORD WIVES. They could fake it but never would be the real thing, just like Woody Allen’s Zelig can imitate just about everything without really being it. It’s like a nomad feels at home on the road. Since modern Jews were no longer nomads in the old sense — as many of them found permanent homes in goy nations — , they became nomads of the soul, and modernism seemed more welcoming to them since the essence of Jewishness came to be defined as being at-odds-with-the-norm since Jews had lived in non-Jewish lands defined with non-Jewish norms for so long. It’s no wonder that modern Jews feel such an affinity with Homos as well, and of course, homos played a key role in modernism as well.) Dylan was no Stalin, but he was worthy of a cult because his music had the power to cast a spell on listeners who felt the power of his music but couldn’t really understand the full nature of that power. Dylan was no god, but his music had an element of mystery found in all religions. And this was true also of Kubrick and, of course, Franz Kafka. Dylan later faltered by literally becoming a religious rocker and singing in the name of God, when, in fact, what had been most fascinatingly ‘spiritual’ about his best works was the element of grappling with creative mysteries in the manner that Jacob wrestled with God. You don’t have to be religious in order to be ‘religious-eous’, just like you don’t have to be political(in the partisan sense) to know about the complexities of power. In some ways, the likes of Kubrick, Kafka, and Dylan, in their religious-eous-ness, were more ‘spiritual’ than are the religiously faithful since the latter merely need to cling to dogma and believe/do as they’ ve been told, whereas the ‘religious-eous-ists’ must pursue and discover their own ‘spiritual’ meanings. What does it mean to be ‘religious-eous’? Is it merely about dabbling in the magical, supernatural, or outlandish? No, for if that were the case, anyone working in horror, science fiction, or fantasy would be religious-eous — or in music for that matter as all forms of music are shamanistic to an extent. The essence of religion and mythology isn’t only about their wonderment, fascination, fear, and sense of awe in relation to the magical or supernatural but in their concentrated and meditative will to make sense out of that which that refuses yield any sense. It’s requires the patience of passion, which is difficult. It is also about the synthesis of focus and meditativeness. Focus implies an active rational direction of the mind upon a theme or problem, whereas meditation implies a passive detachment of the mind from distractions of facts in order to gain unity with totality of the cosmos. For all practical purposes, they are opposites, which is why it takes an especially great artist to hold and balance both modes, as indeed Kubrick achieved in films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, which is both the most scientific and the most spiritual of sci-fi films, and THE SHINING, which is both highly intellectual and highly supernatural. This is why something that is purely fantastic cannot be religious-eous. One merely need to surrender to the spectacle with the wonderment of a child. To be religious-eous, one must ‘put away childish things’ and explore the ‘other world’ to illuminate this world. And yet, the great contradiction is that religious-eous-ness tries to be adult with something rooted in the childhood of human history, a mythical time when humans believed in magic in the most literal(or ‘illteral’) sense.
And there is this problem in art too. Art isn’t real; it’s about make-believe, and as such, there’s something childlike — if not childish – about art. Though respectably labeled as ‘Art’ — with all its connotations of high-mindedness and seriousness — , art is really a fairytale for adults. Should adults dabble in fairytales? It’s like golf courses and such are really playgrounds for adults. But adults want to differentiate themselves from children and tell themselves that they’ve put away ‘childish things’. So, they call their own games and toys ‘recreation’, ‘sporting equipment’, ‘leisure’, ‘arts’, ‘culture’, and etc. We cannot shake off the enchanting power of the arts, and in this sense, we are no different from children who are transported to another world through fairytales. Still, when arts or culture merely enchants or enthralls us, it’s not necessarily religious-eous. They are merely magical. When arts or culture provokes us to think, it still isn’t necessarily religious-eous. But when it presents a universe of meanings that opens our imaginations and makes us mindful of the vastness of mysteries beyond rational meanings, then we are in the realm of religious-eous. But most religious people don’t go very far spiritually and intellectually because they’re confident in the blind faith of dogma or fashion(as with the Mainline church idiots who’ve taken up ‘gay marriage’ like a herd of lemmings). If you have faithfully believe in the truth of what you’ve been taught, what need is there for thought? But an artist or seeker in the religious-eous mode cannot rely on received dogma. He is interested in the deeper meanings beyond the norms of values and sanctity. (Though some people go out of their way to profane the norms of sanctity in a given social order, even those who try to be pure and sacred could be regarded as profane because any new vision is bound to upset the orthodoxy of what has been established as pure and sacred. Jesus wasn’t trying to be profane but was regarded as such by many Jews. Martin Luther was a reformer who saw himself as combating the profane corruption of the Catholic Church, but the Church accused him of heresy and profanity. In the case of homos, their movement began in the passion for profanity. Homos took pride and delight in being nasty, subversive, desecrationist, and perverse — like the Pussy Riot in Russia. But such thrills and antics tend to burn out fast. I mean who cares about Robert Mapplethorpe anymore? In the end, people prefer the sacred over the profane. The homo war-of-profanity came to a close with the AID pandemic and the tiresomeness of campy bad taste. So, homos, with the crucial support of Jews, steered the homo movement in the ‘sacred’ mode by cleaning up the image of homosexuality, by wrapping homos in the ‘rainbow’ flag, by infiltrating and forming alliances with religious organizations, by promoting the image of the homo martyr, by associating homos with marriage and family life, and etc. So, we are to believe that homos and trannies who grew ill and died of AIDS were not casualties of their own rebellious/transgressive perversion but tragic & saintly victims — more martyrs than mavericks — in a ‘bigoted homophobic’ society. Homos, like Jews, are never to be blamed for problems caused by their own kind. This sacred-candy-wrapping of the homo agenda in Saul-Alinsky mode has done wonders for homo power as most Americans are stupid childish suckers prone to judging a book by its cover. But there’s a huge difference between men like Jesus & Martin Luther and all the homo degenerates who’ve cynically employed and exploited the ‘sacred’ imagination for their ultimately decadent homo agenda. Whether one agrees with Jesus or Martin Luther, there’s no doubt that they were serious men grappling with profound moral issues of the day. In contrast, homos have no compelling moral case and have cooked up phony ‘sacred’ images of clean-cut ‘gays’ wanting be married and noble Magic Negro trannies wanting to be blonde-wigged Negresses. It’s really a parody of the New Sacred than the real thing. Also, our society has become such a pushover for Jewish power & influence that even Conservatives have been completely spineless and gutless in standing up for their principles and core values of what human civilization is all about. There’s a tendency for liberalism to become most corrupt upon its triumph. The worth of something is often gauged by the worth of its rival or enemy. It’s like the aristocracy was most meaningful and valuable in a world beset by war, but in times of peace, it gradually degenerated into a cult of privilege and decadence revolving around ever more ridiculous concepts of honor, which, when applied to modern realities, led to the disaster of World War I. Anyway, in a world where forces of conservatism were powerful — and when conservatism held onto many stale, moribund, and burdensome customs, habits, values, and beliefs — , liberalism played a most essential and crucial role in remaking the world with better ideas, fresh passions, more freedoms, and greater individuality. As even the fundamental and basic rights of freedom and liberty were lacking in society, liberalism had a very real and valuable role to play. But once liberalism triumphed, all basic freedoms were guaranteed, and individual differences & peccadillos need not worry about political repression, liberalism lost its reason for being. It turned into dogmatic Liberalism looking for or even inventing ever more causes to champion, ever more ‘oppressed’ groups to liberate, ever more ‘equalities’ to implement, and ever more ‘micro-aggressions’ to root out. When there wasn’t enough freedom, liberalism was about making people more free to do and think as they pleased. But when freedom of thought and expression became the rule of the land, Liberalism became more about controlling thought itself. But then, most people weren’t thinking at all since the profusion of freedom had made them more hedonistic and addicted to anti-intellectual junk-culture. Most people didn’t use the freedom to think to think but to turn into mental slobs, so Liberals felt it was their duty to mold the minds of these dolts. Anyway, whenever something loses its reason-for-being, it begins to grow either decadent or extra-coercive, or both. We see this in both American Liberalism and American Conservatism. American Liberalism has grown decadent, what with championing tranny-ism & arrogant illegal aliens being its great moral cause of the day. But precisely because its new values and causes are so ridiculous and mock-worthy, Liberalism has to exert even more pressure to shame, shun, and/or destroy who won’t get along with the program. Without such coercion, who could possibly take tranny-ism seriously? Same is true of American Conservatism. It had a worthy foe in the USSR and the worldwide communist movement. But because American Conservatism became so fixated on combating the ‘Evil Empire’ — as it had given up its fight on issues of race and the Jewish Problem in America — , it felt empty when the USSR collapsed and China turned capitalist and a trading partner of the US. So, the new American Conservatism of the post-Cold-War period became decadent, with silly stuff about ‘Sharia law about take over the US’, endless ‘War on Terror’, stupid panics about Iran getting the nuke, and about Putin as the New Hitler. This is too ridiculous, a parody of Cold War rhetoric. But again, precisely because it’s so ridiculous, American Conservatives have to go out on a limb to pressure everyone in their camp to get with the program or face expulsion from the movement. Isn’t it odd that American Conservatism was actually ideologically more varied and pluralistic during the Cold War than it is today, what with Neocons having purged all the ‘Arabists’ and with the likes of Jennifer Rubin dictating to Heritage Foundation whom it can hire, and with the likes of Victoria Nuland and her ilk pressuring all Conservatives to restart the Cold War with Russia?) And yet, artists like Kafka, Kubrick, and Dylan are reluctant to just accept the ‘truths’ of established faiths and systems of thought. They want to think more and know differently of both the world and the forces behind/beyond the world, and that’s what makes them religious-eous. Think of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and BLONDE ON BLONDE, a kind of ‘Biblical’ rumination on the mystical dimensions and murky hideouts of love and hate between guy and girl. Though the songs are set in the contemporary world of the 60s, the moods and textures evoke the ‘surreality’ of the Genesis story of Adam & Eve and the paintings of Marc Chagall.
There are linkages among the social, the personal, the subconscious, the dreamlike, the mythical, and the spiritual. You get the sense that Dylan, the proto-hipster who’d considered himself too clever-by-far to be stumped by anything, stumbled upon meanings, mysteries, and depths beyond even his power of wit and intelligence to handle. It’s as if he’s feeding off this power, resisting this power, succumbing to this power, drowning in this power — much like the character in David Lynch’s ERASERHEAD ‘drowns’ into the liquid bed with the mystery lady.
Judith Roberts in Eraserhead 
When something is merely strange or fantastic, it may initially pique our interest but is likely grow weary once its novelty fades. The nature of our senses being what it is, even the most unusual, outlandish, and magnificent things becomes mundane pretty fast, which is why people who live close to mountains hardly even notice them. This is why fireworks are special only for the first time. This is why so many celebrities who marry other celebrities based on the ‘wow’ factor soon lose interest as the initial passion fades. For something to have lasting impact on our consciousness, the emotions and thoughts it elicits must tweak something like a sixth sense in us. That way, even after the initial shock, excitement, or enthrallment has faded, the object continues to fascinate us as an unresolved & enticing mystery that still pays dividends when we revisit them. This was the supreme achievement of a film like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and ERASERHEAD. They not only overwhelmed the senses but presented a universe of multi-layered possibilities. This may seem somewhat counter-intuitive since both films have long stretches with hardly any spoken words — and even most of the dialogues tend to be perfunctory or minimal — , but then, some of the most powerful ideas and meanings in art are conveyed through inspired assemblage and arrangement of images, sounds, and patterns. Ideas and meanings can be ‘felt’ and ‘sensed’ as well has heard or read. Indeed, even when conveyed through words, the use of imagery oftentimes determines the meaning of ideas, which is why a philosopher-poet like Friedrich Nietzsche had such an overwhelming impact on Western philosophy despite his lack of any extensive systematic theory. He had a powerful sense of imagery in his writing.
Images and sounds alone, without the content of ideas, can be powerful, but their impact generally isn’t long-lasting. In contrast, dry ideas can make a lot of sense but then in a fixed way as a logical argument can either be true or untrue based on the rigors of its own rules.
INSOMNIA - Al Pacino & Robin Williams
(Besides, even what we deem to be perfect is often a trick of the mind, senses, or emotions. The notion of ‘perfect beauty’ is unstable and unreliable since appreciation of beauty is an emotional response and emotions can never be objective. But even if we were to accept that beauty can be perfect, our eyes don’t always see the world as it is. Our eyes can be tricked to see perfection as imperfection and imperfection as perfection. Consider the engineering design behind the Parthenon that created the illusion of straight lines by using curved lines. If the eyes/mind can see imperfect lines as perfect lines, what does that say about our confidence in perfection? It’s like the question posed by INSOMNIA by Christopher Nolan based on some Norwegian film. Al Pacino’s character at the end says he no longer knows if he killed his partner intentionally or not. The film’s main motifs — the unrelenting day light 24/7 that perhaps signifies the power of reason/factuality & the ever pervasive eye of God[that sheds light on everything we do, however furtively]and the fog/mist during the chase that signifies the unstable realm of the mind among competing forces of perception, reason, morality, & ego — call into question the trustworthiness of the faculties[premised on empiricism, reason, and legality]the modern world has come to rely on. Given the manner in which the so-called ‘free media’ in the West covered the Sochi Olympics and the crisis in Ukraine, all of us should be warier than ever. Indeed, there’s something strangely counter-intuitive about how the mind works on a biological level. If reason and awareness are such essential tools for our survival and well-being, wouldn’t we be more rational, more factual, and more sensible if we never slept at all and remained cognizant of the world all the time? And yet, for the mind to work clearly during waking hours, we must go through cycles of sleep in the realm of unconsciousness in which the rules of rationality, facts, and logic don’t apply. After all, sleeping isn’t just about resting our minds — in the way that we rest our bodies when sitting still or lying down — but transporting our minds to a strange irrational ‘twilight’ place for mending and re-ordering. Paradoxically, we need to periodically enter the irrational zone for our minds to reshuffle the clutter in our minds so that we can think and operate with fresh rational minds when we wake. Without such mending in the irrational zone of sleep/dreams, the waking mind will become ever more irrational. Al Pacino’s character goes for an entire week without sleep — it’s like God worked tirelessly for six days before He finally took a rest — , so he remains conscious all that time, but this makes him all the more confused and muddled in his thoughts, motivations, and decisions. And yet, the film’s thematic twist owes to the fact that some of the best insights arise from that zone between consciousness and unconsciousness. Consciousness figures things about, but the necessity of focusing the mind on a certain task shuts off or represses so many other things that may actually be of some significance or relevance. It’s like if someone is asked to name all the synonyms of a word, he will likely recall the most obvious ones but, try as he might, other words will remain buried in his mind even though he knows them. Such ‘blocked’ words may become unmoored and release themselves to the consciousness only when the mind moves onto something else or somehow dips into the unconscious in, say, a daydream. We see mental blocks as the enemy of consciousness, yet consciousness functions through mental blocks, i.e. we can focus on ‘this’ instead of all other things because our minds can block out so much as we focus on ‘this’. But sometimes, this blocking faculty turns on itself and blocks the very thing we are seeking — the name of a person, place, or thing —, and the thing we are seeking might spring forth from our subconscious when we least expect it. There’s a scene in INSOMNIA that reminds us of a scene in BLADE RUNNER, in which Deckard makes a mental connection of some significance[related to photos as evidence in relation to a photo of Rachel-as-child]while dozing off, and in INSOMNIA, it is when the Hillary Swank character nods off that a lightbulb flickers inside her head about something she’d missed earlier about the scene of the shooting. So, there’s a kind of duality to the sleeplessness that affects the Al Pacino character. The drowsiness clouds his rationality, but it also loosens the barriers between his consciousness and subconsciousness, and in some ways, he’s able to sense and intuit more[not least about himself]than if he were fully rested and awake. In some ways, his weariness makes him more desperate to do anything to save his reputation and bring the case to an end[even if he has to cut a deal with the killer], yet in other ways, his weariness makes him more willing to come clean and repent; his egotism, so alert and sharp in the film’s opening part, grows more resigned with self-doubt. The confusion and tiredness brings out both the bigger devil and bigger angel inside of him, but then, the worst and best of us are buried in the unconscious. The conscious mind not only represses the fiendish demons inside us but also our purer sense of right-and-wrong because waking life is essentially about calculating and navigating through real situations of power to seek practical advantages for ourselves. To succeed in life, we can’t be too bad but we can’t be too good either. We must be mindful of who has the power and then accommodate ourselves so that we can leech off some of that power that holds the wealth and prizes; it’s like most Mormons oppose ‘gay marriage’ but feel that they must repress overt anti-homo-ness in order to feed off the pro-homo Goldman Sachs bounty that is setting up shot in Salt Lake City; Jews got the ultimate wealth, and Mormons hope to have some of it trickle down to their own community. But then, Christians were hardly perfect Christians through the ages.[However, for some odd reason, secular white Liberals seem to think they can survive and thrive by purely accommodating themselves to the principles of ‘diversity’. If absolute purity of devotion to Jesus’ teachings was fatal to Christians — which is why Christians learned they had to toughen up and fight to survive against their enemies — , why would it be any different for modern white Liberals? Whatever value the cult of diversity may have, certainly there’s a useful limit beyond which it becomes dangerous? Do white Europeans really think they’ll do well to allow hundreds of millions of Africans to enter Europe? Really? Even St. Paul realized that he had to lie and cheat sometimes in order to survive. Jesus, the pure Man, chose not to lie and instead lived purely by His creed... and, as a result, He got clobbered and killed real bad. In contrast, there were times when Paul sort of lies and adapts to different situations since his main goal was to survive and spread the Gospel. Purity is indeed not of this world.] It’s like what Hillary Swank’s character says at one point: "A good cop can't sleep because he's missing a piece of the puzzle. And a bad cop can't sleep because his conscience won't let him." Of course, in the case of Pacino’s character, both conditions apply as he is looking for the puzzle that will finally nail the killer but also trying to hide his own skeletons, an attempt which, like the Watergate scandal, turns cancerous as every effort to conceal the problem boomerangs back to haunt him; it’s like the quicksand situation where every movement to free oneself makes one sink deeper. Pacino’s character is caught in a situation where his fortunes are his misfortunes and vice versa, neatly illustrated in the scene when the very turn-of-events he desperately sought to prevent — the discovery of a gun planted by the killer to frame an innocent suspect — is what saves him from other cops who would have find him meddling with the evidence. In this, INSOMNIA is somewhat like WICKER PARK and MOTHMAN PROPHECIES where the barriers among the dimensions — social, temporal, moral, and psychological — begin to break down. In WICKER PARK, the seeker and ‘victim’ is also the evader and perpetrator[albeit often unwittingly], and in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, the investigative character who tries to make rational sense of strange events swirls into the spiral of irrationality himself, but we are never sure where rationality ends and irrationality begins or whether ‘Indrid Cold’ is a figure of illumination or figure of malice. Interestingly enough, Nolan later made INCEPTION, which is about fully conscious submergence into layers of the dream world in contrast to INSOMNIA, where psyches of the dreamworld trespass into the waking world of Pacino’s character like blood seeping through fabric. Its theme of conflict between rationality and irrationality in the haze of mental fog makes it a worthy double-billing with THE MIST. It’s also very ingenious in revitalizing a trite idea in crime thriller: the identification of the lawman with the criminal. There are obvious parallels between the Al Pacino character and the Robin Williams character. Both are tainted and both are hunter & hunted even though one could rationalize that Pacino’s character violates the law to make streets safer — "end justifies the means" — whereas the Williams’ character perverts the law to elude justice for a willfully psychotic transgressions. At the very least, at the very core of his being, Pacino’s character is a good man with a genuine conscience[however compromised it may be]who does seek to uphold the social/moral order whereas Williams’ character employs moralistic rationalizations as cynical mind games that deliver wicked jolts of pleasure that are like orgasms beneath the facade of composure; but what’s truly unnerving about William’s character is he believes in his own cynicism; he has genuinely moralized his brand of nihilism. But then, among normal people, the very desire for justice can tempt them to do unjust things because moral outrage doesn’t know the meaning of patience and due process. If a lawman passionately wants justice to be served but legality and all its processes/protections are seen to stand in way of justice, the lawman may feel obligated to enter into vigilante mode. Also, it’s not always clear where the personal ends and the moral begins. Did Pacino’s partner want to ‘cut a deal’ with Internal Affairs out of a sense of ethical duty or to save his own ass? He tells Pacino’s character that he and his wife both decided that the right thing is to cooperate with the investigation. So, we might think the partner’s wife is maybe a person of high ethics, but when she is informed by Pacino’s character that her husband was killed by the suspect, she tells him not to arrest the suspect, meaning the suspect should be slain on the spot than captured. The very woman who advised her husband to cooperate with the investigation-looking-into-police-abuses urges Pacino’s character to sidestep the law to avenge her husband. Other than the irony, it isn’t easy to ascertain whether her emotional reaction is essentially personal or moral. If morality is about justice and if justice is about punishing the wrongdoer, it’s natural that she would think it would be morally righteous to have the suspect killed because, if not, he might go free or might live a long not-too-unhappy life in prison. And yet, a moral society functions in accordance with its laws, and if people — especially lawmen who made a pledge to uphold the law above all else — ignore laws and impatiently/impulsively pursue their own agendas for personal or self-righteous reasons, what might happen to social order? And yet, if the Rule of Law itself has become so inefficient, inept, or needlessly complicated in bringing wrongdoers to justice, could one argue that lawmen — or even ordinary people like the father in IN THE BEDROOM — have a moral obligation to take extra-legal steps to do the ‘righter’ thing? What if a cop is 100% sure that a certain suspect is a child killer but feels that the suspect will likely go free for ‘lack of evidence’? If he plants evidence to nail the killer, he himself will have become guilty of a crime and will have violated the public trust. But if he just goes along with the Rule of Law and does nothing to stop the suspect from walking free, would he be guilty of not having extra measures to take a dangerous killer off the street? Did he uphold the principle of the law or did he lean on the cult of the law as a crutch to assuage the fact that he was too cowardly to take extra measures out of fear of jeopardizing his own reputation and career? [Though Will Kane in HIGH NOON fulfilled his role as sheriff to the very end, there were plenty of legal opportunities for him to flee before the killers arrived — and most of the townsfolk wanted him to do so. So, in a way, his decision to stick it out to the end and carry out his own sense of justice & honor was sort of vigilante-like; in a way, he was violating the law as much as he was upholding it, especially as he’d resigned from being sheriff to get married and put the badge back out of his own personal sense of duty and pride.] After all, while justice is practiced through the law, it is bigger than the law. If indeed justice is bigger than the law, if the law fails to carry out the justice, does the moral man have the right — and even the obligation — to bend to law to do the right thing? Most of us would like to say Rule of Law should be sacrosanct, but given the nature of the world, even those who pay lip-service to such a principle often violate it themselves. For instance, many Western journalists knew that Soviets committed the Katyn Massacre in Poland, but they pretended that the Nazis did it in order to maintain the alliance between US/UK and the USSR. Many journalists — most of whom are Democrats or Liberals — know Obama violated many laws in office, but they look the other way because they believe that the forces on the Right must be destroyed by ‘any means necessary’, even if it means NSA and IRS illegally working in tandem to undermine the power of Republicans, Conservatives, or the Tea Party who are deemed by American Liberals as no better than Nazis or the KKK. When Nixon was president, the missing18 minutes of the so-called Watergate tapes were a huge scandal, but entire missing files from the IRS elicit almost no interest from the Jew-run media and its Liberal minions. And then, look how the Bush regime’s Neocons essentially ‘planted false evidence’ about Iraq to steer US into war in the Middle East. In that regard, what Pacino’s character did in the past as a detective in L.A. — planting false evidence to convict a child killer — wasn’t all that different from how politics is practiced domestically and especially internationally, where indeed anything goes and principles be damned, despite all the trite yammering about ‘international laws’; if anything, all the noise about ‘international laws’ are used to drown out the fact that international laws don’t amount to a plate of beans; it’s like blacks hollering about ‘social justice’ and ‘white racism’ to drown out the fact that they themselves are the main destroyers of social order and the main perpetrators of racial hostility in America. In many ways, what powerful people in government do is many times worse than what Pacino’s character did. However despicable Pacino’s deed may have been, he acted out of the sincere desire to remove a child-killer off the street. He acted unethically for genuine moral reasons. In contrast, the kinds of people who run the American government are more like the Robin Williams’ character; they are intoxicated with power, don’t care about the countless numbers of dead resulting from US foreign policy, and are utterly nihilistic & egotistical in their agenda to sacrifice everything for to serve the interests of Jewish supremacism and Zionism. Psychologically, they are as devious and pathological as Adolf Hitler, as ironic as that may be. Jews love to mess with goy minds just like Williams’ character loves to mess with everyone around him. Robin Williams’ character isn’t content merely to get away with the murder but to morally justify himself, tag the blame on someone else, and to persuade Pacino’s character & himself that he is indeed innocent, that the murder was not a murder but purely an accidental ‘killing’, and that he is really the good guy since he’s framed the abusive boyfriend of the dead girl for her murder, thereby removing such a potentially dangerous young punk from the community; his logic is a perverse twist of moral logic that says wrongdoers should be removed from society not only for what they did but what they might do; even though the boyfriend didn’t kill the girl, Williams’ character invokes the kid’s physically abusive nature as ‘proof’ that he might one day become a killer; as twisted as the logic is, it’s halfway compelling since the film began with Pacino’s character being so sure that whoever killed the girl will go on killing since once a sicko gets a taste of blood, he can’t stop; we are likely to agree with him, but neither he nor we can be sure, and it is that element of uncertainty that is cleverly manipulated by Williams’ character. Williams’ character isn’t merely practical but moralistic in his strategy of survival; furthermore, he doesn’t merely seek to walk away scot-free but ascend the throne as king-of-the-hill as the moral exemplar of the community who helped nab the ‘real killer’; it’s like Jewish supremacist foreign policy caused so much harm to Christian Arabs in the Middle East and Jewish power did so much to promote the homo agenda & undermine traditional-Christian-conservative culture in America & Europe, but lowlife scum Jews in Israel and the US have the temerity to pose as the ‘best friends of Christians’ around the world; like the Robin Williams’ character, Jews are utterly shameless in their weasly two-faced vileness. Jewish ‘morality’, at least vis-a-vis goyim, is never about consistency of rules or principles but always about finding new ways to twist things around so that they are always right and goyim are always wrong, indeed even when goyim go out of their way to pander to Jews. Indeed, notice how the GOP has been taking advice from Neocons or Ziocons on how to be Good Goyim, but no matter how much American Conservatives have bent over backwards to appease Jews on a whole host of social, economic, and foreign policy issues, Jews still blame white Conservatives for everything. Jews tell white Conservatives to wage wars in the Middle East, and white Conservatives do so, but then Jews attack white Conservatives for ‘war-mongering’. Jews tell white Conservatives to support Wall Street Jews, and white Conservatives do so, but then Jews attack white Conservatives for ‘greed’. Jews tell white Conservatives to mindlessly support Israel, and white Conservatives do so, but then Jews attack white Conservatives for encouraging the extremists in Israel. Listening to Jewish moral logic is like listening to Williams’ character’s moral logic; he sounds just like William Kristol, Alan Dershowitz, or Charles Krauthammer. For one thing, Jews project all their foulness on other people. There’s no way gentiles maintain any kind of genuine morality for themselves by pandering to such a vile and hideous tribe of hustlers and hucksters, and this is why gentiles who do suck up to Jews turn into degenerates themselves like Ted Cruz. Anyway, there’s the old argument that it’s worse for a lawman than for an outlaw to break the law — even for the social good — since a lawman who doesn’t follow the laws becomes himself a outlaw, and there’s no telling when breaking-the-law-for-the-good may morph into breaking-the-law-for-self-interest; and if lawmen violate the law in the name of the law against the outlaws who break the law to break the law, who is the ‘good guy’ and who is the ‘bad guy’ when both sides, though diametrically opposed to one another, share the same nasty habit of breaking the law? And this moral issue comes to the fore when Al Pacino’s character seems to have accidentally — at least to our eyes — shot his partner who, the day before, had blurted out that he was going to ‘cut a deal’ with internal affairs investigating police corruption to the disappointment[even repressed rage]of Pacino’s character. Most likely, the shooting was an accident, but maybe just maybe, Pacino’s character’s subconscious urged him to shoot his partner. Or maybe he shot the partner purely by accident, but a part of him had wished his partner would die for having chosen to be a rat-traitor against fellow cops. [Furthermore, if Pacino’s character’s insight is correct that once a person crosses the threshold — committing a heinous crime or violating some powerful social taboo — , there’s no going back, maybe it applies to himself as well. When he tampered with the evidence to nail the child-killer, maybe he popped the cherry of his innocence as a ‘good cop’ and moved past the threshold into ‘bad cop’ territory. Even if he is still consciously committed to serving society, maybe on the subconscious level, a moral tumor is growing inside of him that hungers for more violation of rules to get things his way as a kind of a jolly. Maybe he’s come to secretly crave for more such transgression — like a vampire that had a taste of blood has to have more — , and perhaps such a mind-set, however repressed, affected his action in the accidental or not-so-accidental killing of his partner.] And it is this aspect of the human psyche that Robin Williams’ character so artfully manipulates to flesh out the duality of the lawman-outlaw identification. To an extent, Robin Williams’ character is right. The two men are more alike than Al Pacino’s character, despite his righteousness, is willing to admit. William’s character is like an evil doppelganger of Pacino’s character. Indeed, Pacino’s character is paradoxically all the more like the Williams’ character precisely because of his self-righteousness; after all, Williams’ character has a rather nifty way of justifying his own actions and playing judge of character himself, especially in regards to the dead girl’s boyfriend. And yet, this identification is a form of moral equivalence that is as misleading as illuminating because, after all, despite his abuses, Al Pacino’s character does have a deep-rooted moral sense and a conscience whereas Williams’s character does not. To make things stranger, Williams’ character, whose sleeping schedule had long ago adapted to northern climes, thinks and acts very rationally, whereas Pacino’s character, overcome with insomnia, becomes increasingly irrational and erratic in his perceptions and actions. It’s like rational evil vs sleepy conscience.)
Things that are too rational and logical in construction lose their fascination and allure once they’ve been figured out. This is why a maze-puzzle that has been solved isn’t worth doing anymore. (As brilliant as the narrative construction of Christopher Nolan’s INCEPTION is, its lasting impact owes to the elusive figure of Mal who stalks the pathways of the subconscious that leads to a place known as the soul. The main character of INCEPTION discovered he could engineer mental images and sounds but could not engineer the soul, and the purging that is necessary to free himself of guilt must be sought ‘spiritually’ than logically. Instead of constructing new walls to contain his demons, he must ultimately confront them face-to-face and find within himself the will to confess the tragedy of his shared delusions with his late wife. It is this element — comparable to the angst in THE LAST TANGO IN PARIS — that provides the extra-kick to elevate INCEPTION above and beyond a very clever sci-fi action flick.) It is why video-games that have been mastered just grow repetitious, mechanical, and tiresome.
But when the magic of imagery and the power of ideas converge, the result could be something like the Bible, various high-concept mythologies(as opposed to mere colorful folklore), or the films of Stanley Kubrick. Entering their domains is like finding oneself in a maze that keeps shifting & morphing in patterns and solutions every time. This has also been said of the works of William Shakespeare and Richard Wagner, which is why they’ve inspired so many interpretations and reinterpretations. Both have also been routinely denounced as ‘anti-Semites’ though, of course, Wagner gets more blame because he was German and the favorite artist of Adolf Hitler. At one time, Wagner was to music enthusiasts/cultists what Kubrick is to cinephiles today. In our time, even though Wagner’s operas are still performed and marveled at, anything associated with IDEAS in Wagner’s works is disapproved, and all of us are expected to dutifully join in the chorus denouncing Wagner as a vile ‘anti-Semite’ whose only saving grace was his musical talent; we must only praise his ear, just like we must only praise Riefenstahl’s eye, and nothing else. Therefore, the full depth of Wagner’s vision cannot be considered or appreciated because ‘antisemitic’ ideas have become such taboos. Of course, if Wagner had been a Jew-lover and a passionate anti-waspite, his social and political ideas, no matter how hateful and deranged, would be most welcome and respected in the Jew-run media, Jew-run academia, and Jew-run cultural institutions. Indeed, consider the much approved vitriol of the likes of Tim Wise and David Sirotta directed against white gentiles but how white gentiles are admonished not to get angry and fight back. When Jews spew venom against white gentiles, they are praised as serious commentators on the social scene, but if whites return the favor in kind, they are denounced as ‘odious’ and ‘noxious’ ‘angry white males’ even though all they are doing is defending themselves from Nasty Jewish Snakes. So, Jews are not against hatred as long as it’s directed at people they hate, such as Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, Christian Conservatives, and courageous critics of Jewish power — though, to be sure, when Jews hate, it’s not called ‘hate’ but ‘passion for justice’. Ain’t it funny now Jewish ‘love’ does more harm around the world than the goy hatred does? Anyway, in the current cultural discourse, the problem wasn’t so much that Wagner was a hater but that he hated the ‘wrong’ kind of people: Jews of course. Indeed, Jews not only have no problem with hate but go out on a limb to promote it if the object of hate happens to be ‘right’ kind of people whom Jews hate too. After all, Hollywood Jews nowadays fund movies that present Russians as nasty villains, but do you see any opposition from the Jewish community?
(Jews say we must be careful not to say anything that might smack of ‘antisemitism’ since hostility toward Jews led to the Holocaust that killed millions of Jews. But Jews have no qualms about indulging in the worst kind of ‘Russophobic’ rhetoric even though anti-Russian sentiments also took on a racial tinge and led to the deaths of millions. Because Russia had once been ruled by Mongol overlords and because Russian imperialism incorporated non-Russians[even some non-whites]in the peripheries of the empire, some Europeans came to see Russians as tainted with impurity, and such a mind-set was behind Hitler’s plan to exterminate tens of millions of Slavs to make room for German settlers and to enslave the rest permanently into a race of helots to serve the ‘Aryans’. Because the Nazi Germany waged a total war of extermination and enslavement, Russia wasn’t fighting merely to win but to survive as a people and culture. But what drove Hitler to despise Russians and hold them in such contempt? Because of radical racist views of ‘Russophobia’. But then, ‘Russophobia’ had been fueled by the British as well. As Brits conceitedly saw themselves as a great sea power spreading liberty around the world, they came to fear Russia as a great land power and rival in Central Asia and Middle East who stood for Slavic barbarism. In order to rally the British public in the campaign of encirclement against Russia, hysterical ‘Russophobia’ was employed during the 19th century. Of course, with the rise of Germany as the premier land power, Britain’s ‘Russophobia’ abated somewhat periodically, especially during World War I when Brits found themselves on the same side with Russia against the ‘German Huns’. But if British ‘Russophobia’ was political and strategic than racial in character — even though British were, by far, the most racially conscious and discriminatory of the great imperialist powers — there was a strain of ‘Russophobia’ among the Germans that became increasingly racial in tone. As Brits had defamed the Germans as ‘Asiatic’ Huns during World War I, Germans of radical racist persuasion saw Russians not only as the puppets of Jewish Bolshevism but as subhuman mongrels who occupied land that should rightfully belong to clean and industrious Germans. Such a mind-set led to an invasion of extermination and enslavement, and even though Russians weren’t initially targeted for mass extermination in the way that Jews were, they faced the same eventual fate and indeed millions were killed, and of course, it took millions of lives for Russians and their Slavic allies to drive the Germans back. So, WWII in the East wasn’t just about Judeocaust but about Russocaust. Hitler’s mind was poisoned not only with extreme antisemitism but extreme ‘Russophobia’. So, if we follow the logic that we should be careful about spewing ‘antisemitic’ sentiments lest such pave the ground for a new Holocaust, then it also follows that we should be careful about ‘Russophobic’ sentiments since such might lead to another Russocaust. But Jews don’t care about the millions of Russians who died in World War II, and they apparently don’t care if millions of more Russians die — no more than Jewish communists and leftists did during the 1930s when Stalin and Jewish communists killed millions of Russians, Ukrainians, and others through forced collectivization, slave labor in the Gulag, and outright executions. Jews certainly don’t care about Palestinians and all the Arabs who’ve died as the result of Zio-con or Neocon meddling in the Middle East. Consider what Jewish-controlled foreign policy has done to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Lebanon, and Syria. Similarly, Jews don’t care if millions of Russians die or suffer in coming years as the result of political or military crises triggered by the agents of World Jewry. Jews will collectively target and harm an entire people just to have things go their way. If anything, Jews have been fanning the flames of extreme ‘Russophobia’ in the West — and for this reason, anti-Jewish-ism is not only justified but necessary as we should hate those who hate us. Jewish hatred isn’t aimed only at Putin and his inner circle but on the entire Russian nation and culture. We saw how ludicrous the Western-Jewish coverage of the Sochi Olympics was. We saw how slanted and ridiculous the Jewish-Western coverage of the Ukraine crisis has been despite the fact that it was Jewish-controlled US that destabilized the democratically elected government in Kiev and then gave full support to the new Kiev regime’s war of ethnic cleansing on the Russian populations in Eastern Ukraine. So, Jewish attitudes toward Russia are hardly different from those held by Nazi Germany. Jews, like Nazi Germans, see Russians as subhuman cattle who should be owned and controlled by Jewish oligarches as the rightful rulers of Russia. Jews love to promote hate — even genocidal hatred — as long as it’s ‘good for the Jews’. Jews don’t care if hateful sentiments against Russian might lead to another Russocaust if tragedy for Russians will mean triumph for Jews. As Jews see it, all gentiles are potential Palestinians who should be crushed and dehumanized for the sake of Jewish supremacism. In a way, Jews and Anglos are very different, but they sort of came to see eye to eye by accidents of history. Britain is a small nation but, for a time, became the premier power around the world. This was bound to make the British both very proud and very anxious since the only kind of permanent power is demo-geographic. It’s like China is still China since Chinese hold a lot of territory, and India is still India because there are lots of Indians there. This applies to Russia as well, though one could argue there are too few Russians to hold sway over all that territory, and Russians should worry about Chinese encroachments into Siberia and the burgeoning Muslim population — though, to be sure, most Muslims in Russia are white folks who are rather a handsome bunch: consider the Chechens, a strikingly attractive people even though a bunch of them happen to be into bomb-mom-hood. Anyway, Brits were awful proud but also very anxious because their empire could fall like dominos, and that is just what happened soon after World War II. Especially when UK lost India, the Jewel in the Crown, the empire came tumbling down and there was nothing Britain could do about it. In contrast, even after the fall of dynasties and regimes, China is still great China and Russia is still great Russia. Thus, the Anglos felt a certain affinity with the Jews and vice versa since both their powers were very great but also very unstable and vulnerable — indeed, if Jews hadn’t taken over US, Jewish global power would be far more limited. If British power depended on British elites ruling over natives in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, Jewish power depended on Jews gaining influence/control over gentile elites in gentile-majority nations. Jews understand that real power rests with the elites, so if you control the elites, you control the masses. But Jewish power is more pernicious than Anglo imperialist power ever was because, at the very least, natives around the world could tell who the real bosses were: the British overlords, though to be sure, British Imperialism, via ‘indirect rule’, did employ native elites as buffers in some areas. In contrast, since Jews hide behind their gentile fronts-buffers-puppets, the gentile masses went on thinking they were still being ruled by their own kind. But really, do the likes of David Cameron and Mitt Romney lead their own people or do they serve their Jewish masters who hide behind the curtain? Jewish power is real but depends on the power of elite networking, and if that falls apart, Jewish power can vanish overnight, and it may not be recoverable again. So, Jews naturally hate the kind of power that Russia represents: gentile elites leading gentile masses over a huge territory. Anglos hated Russia for the similar reasons.[All the Russia-bashing is also a means to prop up the myth that the West is all about ‘liberal democracy’. With the rise of Political Correctness, Jewish supremacism, the coercive cult of ‘diversity’ crammed down the throats of whites, the nasty homo agenda pushed up the butt of the entire nation, expansion in speech codes, and blacklisting-firing-and-shunning of any real dissident voices, the West hardly stands for liberal democracy anymore, and of course, the Jewish elites know this. So, in order to cover up the repressive nature of Jewish-controlled West, we’ve been fed the false dichotomy of the Free West vs autocratic Russia and China. True, China is a repressive nation, and Russia, though a democracy, is corrupt and autocratic in certain ways, but the West today, with its PC and Jewish-supremacism that pressures all politicians to grovel before AIPAC, is in no position to tell anyone about liberal democratic values. Thus, the only way the Jewish elites in the West can fool the populace that they are living in a ‘liberal democracy’ is to create a us-vs-them situation whereby we in the West are supposedly so free whereas Russians are so enslaved. But in truth, most Russians feel more empowered under patriotic Putin while most whites in the West feel totally browbeaten and castrated under the rule of Jewish kings and homo queens.] As for Anglo-Americans, they developed a certain yen for Jews — despite lingering distrust and even hostility — since the myth of America’s founding was like the narrative of Jews settling the Promised Land. And even though Anglo-Americans eventually became settlers, they had to be in nomadic mode to claim a piece of turf for themselves. As the only book many adventurers and settlers carried with them in their Westward expansion was the Bible, the Anglo-American narrative became ‘existentially’ intertwined with stories in the Bible — stories not only as read but as relived — , and this may explain why much of the American narrative seems more in tune with the Old Testament than with the New Testament. After all, the story of Jesus is about a lone Man going against a giant established power[of Rome] and the entrenched orthodoxy & corruption of Rabbinical authorities. In contrast, Anglo-Americans who moved westward faced no great power; there was nothing like the Roman Empire to stand in their way. Also, as they were moving into wilderness, they didn’t have to worry much about the crushing weight of established orthodoxy. Rather, they had to contend with the wilderness, displace primitive natives from the territories, and build a moral/social order from scratch; and in this endeavor, Anglo-American settlers of the westward expansion were more likely to find parallels with Jews in the Old Testament than with Disciples in the New Testament, especially as Anglo-Americans weren’t too keen on spreading the Gospel to Red Savages whose fate was rather more like that of Canaanites and Philistines rubbed out the Ancient Israelites. Also, as the American mythology was about newly liberated people using freedom to find happiness and success, there was bound to be parallels with the Jewish narrative of the Emancipation from the discriminatory practices of traditional Europe. Anglo-Americans and Jewish-Americans flattered themselves that they were a forward-moving people marching away from the strictures and repressions of Old Europe. But despite such conceits, both groups also shared a profound sense of the past because, after all, the culture of Anglo-Americans had deep roots in Britain and the culture/identity of the Jews went back over 3,000 yrs. Both people were also very race-conscious even though, due to the accident of history, Jews came to be associated with ‘anti-racism’. But in truth, Jewish ‘anti-racism’ was paradoxically a means to protect Jewish race-ism. Only by promoting racial tolerance and diversity among the larger gentile population could Jews protect their own race-ism from the race-ism of the gentile majority. It’s like hardline Muslims in Europe politically side with ultra-Liberals and Leftists, not because they care for Liberalism or Leftism but because the PC policy of Tolerance provides the Muslim population with the leeway to protect and promote their own intolerance. It is natural for the dominant people of any nation to uphold their own racial/cultural identity as THE essential character of the land, and this could lead to pressures on minorities to either depart or assimilate to majority norms. If indeed Jews were really ‘anti-racist’, the first thing they would have done is reject their own cultural/racial identity and assimilate with the rest of humanity. But Jews wanted to maintain and serve their own racial/cultural interests, and ironically, the most useful way of going about it was by promoting ‘anti-racism’ among the gentile majority so that the racial identity of Jews would be protected under the umbrella of Tolerance; it’s like Rahm Emanuel is an extreme Zionist and Jewish-supremacist but also one of the leading figures in the Democratic Party that is supposedly about ‘liberal values’. It’s like Jews used the peace movement in the past to aid and abet communist war-mongering. By promoting peace in the West, leftist Jews were trying to render the non-communist world defenseless against communist aggression. If indeed Jews were really for peace during the Vietnam War, why didn’t they press upon North Vietnam, China, and the USSR to stop the aggression as well? Why was all the burden placed on America and South Vietnam to lay down arms and promote the peace? Similarly, if Jews were truly ‘anti-racist’, why didn’t they forgo their own ‘irrational’ and ‘atavistic’ identity based on blood-and-God? But then, Anglos and Anglo-Americans also had a rather complicated view of race. Paradoxically, it may have been that Anglos and Anglo-Americans had a special dislike for Nazi Germans precisely because they themselves were so ‘racist’. After all, Anglo imperialists were far more racially conscious, exclusive, and discriminatory than were the Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese[who promoted some degree of race mixing with other Asiatics, especially Koreans and Taiwanese], Russians, Turks, and others. And Anglo-America enforced far stronger taboos against race-mixing than was the case with Latin America or French-Canada that, from the beginning, instituted a policy of race-mixing between the French and native savage population. Yet, because Anglos and Anglo-Americans were so race-ist, they were very mindful to keep it respectable and classy. Their race-ism would be orderly, calmly rationalized, and compensatory. It’s like the Southern conceit of ‘separate but equal’ or how the British elites window-dressed their race-ist attitudes by summoning the genteel element of class in their dealing with non-white natives. So, even though the Anglo attitude was "if you’re black, step back" and "if you’re brown, stay down[you silly clown]", Anglos elites would invite and entertain non-white elites on certain occasions to demonstrate that, when it came to class at least, the best Anglos were on par with the best non-whites, indeed more so than with the white underclass. So, even as Anglo elites offended native elites with a racial attitude that said ‘my race is better than your race’, the bad feelings were somewhat assuaged with the message of ‘our higher class — white or brown — is better than the lower classes of any color’. So, the native elites might feel somewhat flattered to the extent that they were considered superior to lower-class whites by the upper-class whites; and of course, such attitudes still linger among the British elites that would rather rub shoulders with rich Pakistanis and Saudis while turning a blind eye to poor ‘trashy’ white girls raped by Muslim thugs. Anyway, as far as the Anglos and Anglo-Americans were concerned, their own race-ism was civilized, decent, well-mannered, and sort-of-fair. So naturally, they were bound to be offended by the raw, crude, and openly nasty ‘racism’ of the Nazi Germans who seemed utterly lacking in proper manners and form in the management of race-ism. It’s like hunting aficionados are more likely to be offended by people who hunt badly. As hunting is unpleasant and bloody business, hunters wanna show the world and convince themselves that they do it right and responsibly. So, when others do it badly, they see it as an affront to the proper ritual/sport of hunting, as an embarrassment that reflects badly on ALL hunters. Likewise, Anglos and Anglo-Americans may have especially loathed Nazi Germany not so much because it was ‘racist’ but because its crudeness gave race-ism a bad name. And this is why some Liberal Jews are worried about Israel’s brazenly right-wing antics. Even though most Liberal Jews are race-ists when it comes to Jewish identity, power, and interests, they wanna present their Jewish ethno-consciousness as something classy, sympathetic, and enlightened. So, when right-wing Israelis candidly spill the beans about how they really feel about goyim and act like gangster thugs out in the open, Liberal Jews get mighty nervous.) Because the Jewish elites have waged war on Russia — in order to depose Putin and replace him with Jewish oligarches — , they not only tolerate but encourage any amount of anti-Russian hatred. With Jews acting so vilely, it’s no wonder so many peoples have hated Jews through the ages. Jews are a vile and hideous people who, as Mel Gibson said in his more ‘sober’ moment, start all wars. In a crazy world intoxicated with PC, you sometimes have to get drunk and lose your inhibitions to speak the sobering truth. In a tyranny, soft or hard, there are too many things you cannot say. Ideally, a sober mind should be best able to assess the truth. But most people will choose the truth-of-the-situation over truth-of-the-matter. If speaking the truth-of-the-matter will endanger one’s place in the truth-of-the-situation(controlled by Jewish power), the sober mind will choose career over courage. Remember in CITIZEN KANE where the Joseph Cotten character mustered the courage to speak the truth under the influence when the election was lost, thereby endangering his friendship with Kane. Years later, he gets drunk again to write an honest review of the disastrous opera debut of Susan Alexander, and it leads to him getting fired. In a free world, the drunk are likely to say stuff that are less true. In a tyranny, the drunk are likely to say stuff that are more true. That Mel Gibson spoke his greatest truth — that Jews have triggered so many crises around the world — under the influence is a good indication of the kind of system we are living under. We live under the iron heels of Jews, and most sober people do their best not to say anything — no matter how true — that might offend the Jewish elites who can destroy their reputations and careers. And most people will say anything — no matter how ludicrous — to please and appease their Jewish masters. It’s like in highschool where a bunch of kids who wanna be ‘popular’ will go to any length to be approved by and allowed into the ‘popular’ crowd. Wall Street and Washington D.C. are like highschool for adults. Just look at Walter Russell Mead, one of the biggest goy whores to Jewish power.
Walter Russell Mead - Worthless Suckass Sockpuppet of Hideous Jews 
(The advantage of the enigmatic or the ‘unknowable-knowable’ is that it provokes thoughts in ways that something that can be known and answered does not. The unknowable-knowable is ‘intellectually’ stimulating enough to suggest an answer or solution but always remains beyond grasp, like the Fernando Rey character in THE FRENCH CONNECTION. Its elusiveness is, of course, frustrating but also enticing because our interest is most piqued by something that seems within reach but never really is. One reason[among many]why 2010: THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT is so inferior to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is because it explains everything and reduces the mystery into A-B-C. So, it turns out the extraterrestrials went through all that trouble with Bowman so that ‘something wonderful’ will end the Cold War and make us all happy-smiley-faced. Everything is spelled out, and the result is sillier than Mike Nichols’ THE DAY OF THE DOLPHIN, which at least has some dark undertones not unlike in Arthur Penn’s NIGHT MOVES. In a similar vein, consider the mystery that surrounds the friezes of the Parthenon. Many scholars have interpreted the sculptures as depicting the preparation of an offering to Athena, but Joan Breton Connelly in THE PARTHENON ENIGMAcontends that it really depicts preparation for human sacrifice for the collective good for Athens. Mary Beard, the famous Classical scholar who reviewed Connelly’s book, rejects Connelly’s thesis but concedes that no one can know for sure since the sculptures are worn and eroded, and it’s difficult to make out all the details. Also, there’s still a lot about Ancient Greece we still don’t know — and a lot more we will never know — , and much of what we know comes from indirect, circumstantial, and ambiguous archaeological evidence, much of which is shrouded in controversy. Therefore, much about the Parthenon remains enigmatic, which is precisely why, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, it’s been the subject of much contention, heated, scholarly, or otherwise. Now, suppose the entirety of the Parthenon could somehow be restored to its pristine form by some kind of magic along with all the relevant texts about its uses and functions. Suppose we could know all the facts we ever wanted to know about Ancient Athens. That would certainly solve the controversy of the Parthenon, and we would know for sure the true meanings of the figures carved in the frieze. But then, there would no longer be any mystery to inspire further speculations and interpretations that, misguided as they may be, could be quite informative, thought-provoking, and brilliant in their own ways. This is why Debra in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA wants Noodles to keep the myth when myth became fact. As long as Noodles knew something happened but couldn’t fit all the pieces of the puzzle together, he had the tragedy but also mystery of the tragedy and poetry of the tragedy. But once all the pieces of the puzzle are in place, there is only the cold hard fact, though somehow, Noodles, having become accustomed to his dream-state for too long, still manages to salvage something like a myth from the final fact that stares straight into his face. Something is most alluring when the little that is revealed hints at the rest that remains concealed. No point in playing hide-and-seek if the hider yells out "I’m here". Perhaps, it’s not wise to tell kids too early about the facts about the sun, moon, planets, and etc. Why tell them it’s just a big burning coal or piece of rock when their imagination can fire up so many possibilities? Indeed, consider all the interesting speculations people used to have about Mars. Percival Lowell came up with some fantastic theories about Mars based on his observations through the telescope. Like Joan Breton Connelly with the Parthenon, Lowell could see just enough to speculate[and rather spectacularly too] but not enough to verify. Had he been able to see everything, he would have instantly recognized what we know today: Mars is a cold lifeless planet. And if the truth about Mars had been known ever earlier, maybe H.G. Wells wouldn’t have been inspired to write THE WAR OF THE WORLDS. So, except for astronomers who are fascinated with the minutest details of other planets, Mars is no longer so fascinating to most of us. But when we could see ‘just enough’ but ‘not fully enough’, Mars was a place of endless fascination, imagination, and wonders. Would Ray Bradbury have been inspired to write MARTIAN CHRONICLES had he grow up after man-made space voyages of the 1970s and 1980s? And there was a similar dynamics in the relationship between Jews and their God, a Being who could be felt and known within the heart of every member of the Tribe — after all, the Old Testament is filled with truths and laws supposedly revealed to Jews by Yahweh — and yet could never ever be known and felt in His full power, grandeur, and profundity. This God Enigma had Jews exercising their minds through endless imagined conversations with Yahweh and endless discussions among themselves for thousands of years.)

TO BE CONTINUED.