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), and POLTERGEIST(directed by Tobe Hooper) PART TWO.


For PART ONE, Click Here.

Topics discussed: THE MIST, Stephen King, Frank Darabont, THE SHINING, Stanley Kubrick,
Anglo-protestantism, anemic Anglo culture, cult of rationalism,homo intelligence sharing and intelligence shaming, Holosexuals, the rule of taboos,homocarthyism,Carrie Prejean and indirect blackmail, Founding Fathers, Jewish Narrative,Nakba, homos and Red Square, earthen-ness, shallow homo sensibility and genuine homo talent, terracide, mea-fascism or my fascism, Joachim Fest, NOT I, atavision,Blood and Soil vs Sweat and Toil, 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.

Anyway, there is the appeal to the idea of spiritually-concentrated evil because its corollary is the spiritually-concentrated goodness(attained through faith, which is universally available to every man, and unlike talent, which rare possession of geniuses)that may see us through against evil. It’s like Perceval finally completes the Quest and finds the Holy Grail through his power of faith and the sacred knowledge that the King and the Land are One. And at the end of EXCALIBUR, even though Mordred has more men, Arthur and his men win the battle because Merlin returned in the world of dreams and used magic to help them. In this way, even though superstitions seem awful stupid to modern people(and were often debilitating by filling people’s hearts and minds with fears, phobias, and anxieties during, say, the Middle Ages), they also had a kind of empowering element for they imbued even the most ignorant fool with the sense that he could call on some spirit or magic to fend off the horrors of the world. And of course, such fears and anxieties also had entertainment value since they took one’s mind off the dreariness of the world. Indeed, extreme isolation and boredom(along with starvation and other deprivations) often made people hallucinate, and even though hallucinations might be rife with terrifying visions of demons, ghouls, and witches, they could also be ‘entertaining’ because a horror-movie-life was more compelling than a static-art-film-life.

In sense way, even medicine — though the great nemesis of superstitions — had a kind of horror element. The idealistic side of medicine has the men of medicine finding cures to heal people. But the ‘entertainment’ or ‘horroristic’ side of medicine derives from the fact that medicine men seek out all sorts of hideous, gross, ghastly, and monstrous diseases to heal. Such fascination with the horrors of life motivates doctors to put on the masks and gloves and go to work to cure the world of monstrousness, and some doctors seem to get a kick out of it. This is especially true of medical examiners(if they can be considered as doctors); consider the oddball autopsy-guy in GRIZZLY MAN by Werner Herzog. So, the resort to electric shocks/jolts in the previously-mentioned experiment(that purportedly ‘proved’ that people prefer to shock themselves than think) wasn’t necessarily anti-thought on the part of the participants but a conduit for focusing their minds on some stimuli, as the human mind wants to be occupied with specific things, such as the main theme, the main character, the main cause, the main passion, the main agenda, the main objective, the main fear, the main love, etc. After all, when we watch a movie, we focus our attention to that which provokes or overwhelms our senses. In any given scene in TWILIGHT, we are not looking at all the details in every corner of the frame but focusing on the main characters and what they’re saying/doing. And editing in movies often works like jolts to our perception that the focus of attention has made a shift to another character, time, place, or situation. It’s impossible for us to think openly about everything. Some people who are into meditation might claim to be able to do such, but then, meditation is more about emptying the mind than filling the mind(or, it’s about emptying the mind of mundane reality & egotistical fantasies/emotions and filling it with cosmic truth). And the way we consume world news via TV or the internet — clicks of the mouse serve a function not unlike jolts of electricity — is as much about taking our minds off the world as about paying attention to and thinking about the big wide world. There are so many media outlets that claim to give us the ‘news from the world’ or ‘world news’ or ‘world report’, and etc. but what they’re really doing is prodding us with choice jolts of world events to keep our attention. So, BBC New will have categories such as ‘Europe’, ‘Asia’, ‘Africa’, ‘Middle East’, ‘Latin America’, and etc, but of course, it’s impossible to report all the countless things that are happening in those places. So, the news outlets pick and choose what they deem to be most jolt-worthy among all the events and incidents around world, but unless it’s something like 9/11, how could we be sure that a particular story is really more newsworthy than other things happening in the same region? (Consider the Western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis. While exaggerated claims have been made about Russian ‘invasion’ of Ukraine, the horrific burning-alive of Ukrainian separatists in a building was hardly covered in the totally Jewish-controlled Western media — despite the fact that the horror was reminiscent of what Nazis did to partisans during World War II. So, the news we get about Ukraine consists of jolts chosen by the Jewish elites that are meant to prod us into thinking very narrowly about the crisis.) Even 9/11, horrific as it was, was far less destructive than many other bloodbaths happening all over the world around that period. So, the notion of ‘world news’ and the conceit of ‘thinking about the world’ are misconceptions. Much of what is called World New is less about making us really think about the world as about Jews administering electronic-jolts on us to ‘think’ only about certain things that will favor the Jewish Narrative of history and the world. It is then no wonder that even most Americans who do pay attention to world affairs have really only been jolted and prodded in ways that render them increasingly more slavish to the Jews. Indeed, most of American World News is little more than "We like such-and-such nation because it’s good to Jews" and "We hate such-and-such nation because homos are pissed with it."
MIST by Stephen King & Frank Darabont
(THE MIST directed by Frank Darabont from Stephen King’s novella is an interesting take on the appall-appeal of horror. Personally, horror has never been one of my favorite genres though admittedly a handful of horror films have fascinated me for a long time. Most horror movies are pretty bad, and when horror fails, it fails miserably since it is by nature strong stuff; if a drama or western is stale and ordinary, you can still watch it for the story and, at the very least, not be offended, but when horror fails, it rots, reeks, and stinks to low hell. Same goes for comedy because it is also designed to elicit intense responses from the audience; failed joke is like flat champagne. Bad drama or western is like manure; it smells but is tolerable; but a bad work of horror is a like a pile of cat shit that’ll drive you crazy. Anyway, THE MIST provides useful lessons as to the essence of horror and why some horror stories work while others don’t. It’s all the more interesting because much of the action and violence in THE MIST is on the stupid side if we were to remove the context. It’s mostly about giant squids, insects, crabs, insane-looking prehistoric birds, and other such creatures attacking a bunch of humans holding out in a food mart in some small town community. Though the action and violence are pretty well done, the audience is likely to feel they’ve seen such ludicrous stuff before — in so many dumb monster movies. Indeed, when I saw the first monster, my eyes were rolling. In some movies, the craziness of phenomenon is original and inventive enough to work on its own terms — like the morphing creature from outer-space in THE THING by John Carpenter, though to be sure, Carpenter brilliantly loaded it with psychological dimensions that made it all the more interesting, suspenseful, and horrifying; it was like DAWN OF THE DEAD meets INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. And yet, instead of wallowing in the cliches of ‘crazy phenomenon’, THE MIST mainly dwells on the characters — their individual psyches, philosophical rationalizations, coping strategies, and group dynamics — and uses their contrasting responses to accentuate the colorful but troublesome[and even disturbing] range of personalities, psychologies, and sociologies of man. Granted, this TWILIGHT-ZONE-ish concept isn’t anything new — Alfred Hitchcock managed it especially brilliantly in THE BIRDS, which otherwise would have been a ridiculous story about birds attacking people for no reason[yet, if the birds in Hitchcock’s film have metaphorical meaning, the same cannot be said for the creatures in THE MIST even though the mist itself does gain such significance] — , but THE MIST does it with more conviction and inspiration than is usually found in such movies. A common feature of horror movies has a select number of individuals being privy to some disturbing phenomenon and earnestly trying to relay the incredible truth to other people, but, as is the usually the case, the other people refuse to believe[until it’s ‘too late’] and are thus made to look foolish in our eyes for their lack of faith in the startling narrative in favor of their adamant rooted-ness in rational reality. This is one of interesting psychological tricks of how horror works. [As the saying goes, ‘seeing is believing’. The power of sight is such that even though our brains know perfectly well that everything we see in the movies is fake, it seems all-too-believable within the context of the narrative because our eyes have seen it. Absurd made visible renders the rational risible. We may simply dismiss our psycho-emotional responses to movies as ‘suspension of disbelief’, i.e. we’re just playing along and having some fun, and yet, our responses are sometimes so powerful that, on some level, we’ve been made to root for faith in the ‘new real’; play becomes pray. We feel the same kind of powerfully righteous emotion in defense of the ‘new real’ — in the movie — as we do in reality in defense of the real-real. If someone told crazy tales in real-reality, we would think him mad and feel hostility toward him in our commitment to what we know to be reality. Yet, in the realm of movies, we feel the same kind of emotion except inside-out, siding with the apparently crazy characters who are privy to the ‘new real’ while feeling impatience and even contempt for other characters who remain so grounded in the real-real that they either refuse to accept what is happening or become utterly paralyzed by their inability to process what is happening. The truly disturbing thing is that such a psychological reversal — where the irrational becomes the ‘new rational’ — isn’t limited to movies or fiction; we see it all around in religions, cults like Scientology, ideologies, and celebrity culture. Through various means of manipulation — often of sensory nature — , a lot of people can be made to believe in the ‘new real’.] If in real life, some people said they saw alien creatures or vampires, there’s nothing in the world that would convince most of us, and we would be right of course; the people sounding the alarm would either be pranksters, lunatics, or idiots. But in the horror world, we come to believe and come to disdain the rational non-believers as dumb idiots who simply refuse to open their eyes. THE MIST bypasses this emotional cliche of horror and gives credence to the non-believers who insist on remaining true to their sense of normality. A black guy is especially adamant about not falling for what he considers to be ‘horseshit’. There’s a racial dimension to be sure. Because of his ‘victim consciousness’ as a black man, he’s less likely to believe a white person, especially a group of white people whom he considers to be ganging up on him like a clan, if not the Klan. The Negro is neither hero nor villain but an interesting character and a refreshing change from the mountain-sized Negro who wuvs a wittle white mouse in Darabont’s other King adaptation, THE GREEN MILE — as well as from the Magic Negro played by Morgan Freeman in THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. The black guy in THE MIST is something of a prick, but he’s a man of pride, and he won’t let a bunch of white folks fool him with some ‘hick’ story about ‘tentacles’. He won’t believe anything unless he sees it with his own eyes. In a way, one could argue that his mind has been clouded and misted by a sense of historical racial victim-hood, Negro male pride, and self-righteousness. It’s not just a matter of rationality and skepticism when he refuses to take the white witnesses seriously. He thinks he’s only being sane and sensible, but he’s also motivated by racial touchiness, paranoia, and pride. His conceit of rationality is clouded by his own personal and social issues — and so, he walks out into the mist to almost certain death, though we are not shown what really happens to him and those who accompany him. Even so, he isn’t featured as a fool for not believing. Even though we know better — because our own very eyes have been made privy to what the white characters saw — , if we’d been told of an attack by giant ‘tentacles’ in the real world, we would never believe it and would react much like the black guy. [THE MIST forgoes the easy route of showing the black guy to be an unbelieving fool. Because of his powerful sense of individuality and self-dignity — flawed as it is — , he retains legitimacy as a thinking character.] So, even though THE MIST is a genre horror movie set in its own fictional universe, a sense of reality and realism pervades the story more than in most movies of its kind. Though eventually everyone is made to believe in the veracity of the horror, a sense of psychological reality[that rejects the ‘new real’ in favor of the real-real] is allowed its stubborn legitimacy as long as it can hold out. Ironically, even though the crazy Christian woman comes closest to being the villain, what the movie does to us isn’t all that different from what the woman does to the people in the food mart. She makes a whole bunch of them believe in the presence of a violent, vengeful, and judgmental ‘God of the Israelites’ even though there’s no actual evidence of such a being. But then, there are no giant alien creatures from parallel universes either, but THE MIST and countless other horror movies make us suspend our disbelief and visually/emotionally respond to them as if they’re real. In a way, every horror writer and director does what the crazy Christian woman does in THE MIST. They scare us into believing. And one suspects that as much as Stephen King and Frank Darabont despise such loony religious people, in some grudging way they are aware that they too play the same kind of mind-trick on their audience. They use fright, intimidation, and moral blackmail to manipulate us into submitting to their views of mankind and morality. Even though we don’t literally believe in the things that happen in a King novel or movie, we allow ourselves to suspend our sense of rationality & reality and submit to the masterful machinations of the ‘master of horror’ — personally, I never read a King novel, and the only King adaptations I like are THE SHINING, CARRIE, and THE MIST[and maybe THE DEAD ZONE]. On some level, it could be King dislikes crazy Christian people not only because they’re so irrational but because they compete with him as purveyors of irrational fears to grab the audience, scare them out of their wits, manipulate them when they’re most vulnerable, and rake in lots of money. Indeed, at one point in the movie, one of the men becomes so scared out of his wits that he too begins to believe in the crazy Christian woman. He feels so disoriented and helpless that he wants someone/something ‘strong’ to cling to, and it just so happens that the crazy Christian woman possesses the most powerful conviction as to why what is happening is happening. [In some odd way, we can also understand the appeal of the religiously fanatical mother in CARRIE. Though bat-shit crazy, she has unwavering conviction in her blend of sin-hating Christianity and man-hating feminism, and her view of mankind is validated when the secular-material girls at school do something terrible to Carrie, who, having learned her lesson, returns to her mother’s home that, miserable as it is, serves as a safe haven from the nastiness of the world. Carrie is caught between material craziness and spiritual craziness, opposites but alike in their vanities, one obsessed with looking right and the other obsessed with feeling right.] To be sure, what balances out a Stephen King work — based on the little I know — is his attempt to balance the rational and the irrational, the human and the monstrous, the individual and the social. Everything has pitfalls but also advantages. The irrational can drive people insane and make them believe crazy stuff, but it can also make people humble and thoughtful before the great unknown. Rationalism is indispensable but can lead to hubris of knowing everything and excessively trusting our power of senses, reason, memory, and erudition. After all, a pure rationalist living in the 19th century could only have been ‘sure’ about reality with knowledge available only heretofore; he would have known nothing of all the truths in so many fields that came to light in the 20th century. In consideration of all the profound discoveries that emerged in the 20th century, it would have been foolish for a 19th century rationalist to entertain the conceit of being a know-it-all. For a long time, we were told that eggs and butter are killers according to ‘nutritional science’, but new studies are showing that may not be the case. And what do we really know about the dangers of global warming based on very limited data gathered from computers? Besides, computers can only predict the future based on input of known and available data, but there’s still so much about the climate and related factors that we don’t know and therefore haven’t fed into the computers. On the subject of beauty and truth, we are partial to the notion of ‘man as the measure of all things’. We like to believe that we are wondrous whereas the non-human tends toward the monstrous. So, what is threatening to us is regarded as monstrous, and what is good for us is considered to be good. Using this logic, much of nature should be monstrous and wicked. And some of the most popular movies have been about monstrous nature attacking humans: JAWS for example. However, even though the creatures that attack humans in THE MIST seem ghastly, aren’t they merely strange wild creatures doing what all life-forms do? Devour and eat? In order to feed ourselves and our dogs/cats, we also rely on mass-killing of ‘innocent’ animals — such as cows, pigs, chickens, lambs, etc. — so that we can live and enjoy ourselves. So, aren’t humans also monstrous? THE MIST takes place in a food store, and all food-stuff was made by killing other life-forms. To cows-pigs-ducks, we probably look like a bunch of evil Nazi-Khmer-Rouge-Idi-Amin-alien-killers. So, what is really monstrous and what is really human? And what is the difference between beauty and monstrousness in nature — in our dimension and in other dimensions? From afar, a mountain range might seem beautiful to our eyes, but what is happening inside the forests? It’s about millions of creatures monstrously attacking and devouring one another. And yet, we ignore all that since it doesn’t affect us. We find nature monstrous only when dangerous creature roaming the woods pounce on us. But minus such creatures — tigers, wolves, bears, cougars, jaguars, leopards, etc. — we stroll through the woods as if it’s paradise when it’s a still a world of horrors where all sorts of animals are devouring one another. So, beauty and monstrousness are not necessarily opposites, an intimation suggested near the end of THE MIST when we see a giant monster lumber past a car; the mega-monster looks horrifying but also awesome and magnificent. And indeed, even though the military that finally arrives to reclaim the world from monsters seem like saviors/good guys, to the creatures of the mist the human forces are the invasive monsters, the ruthless destroyers of life; indeed, one could say humans are worse because whereas forces of nature live in some kind of ecological balance where every creature is, one way or another, devoured in turn by other creatures, humans have created a world where they live off nature but nature isn’t allowed to live off them; such mastery over nature has required the total destruction of all ‘dangerous’ creatures in the proximity of human habitation; in a way, one could say modern man has a need for monster/horror stories because he has vanquished so much natural ‘horror’ from the world; primitive folks don’t need horror stories[at least those that exist apart from reality] since they are surrounded by natural horrors all around and lack a clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural; indeed, as Colonel Kurtz says in APOCALYPSE NOW, primitive folks live in a world where they’ve made a ‘friend of horror’, and indeed to them, it’s not so much ‘horrible’ as just ‘natural’. But modern man has formulated what is ‘human’ and what is ‘natural’, and in doing so, has designated all that is dangerous to humans as ‘horrible’, and in doing so, much of nature that is natural has been rendered into something ‘horrible’ or horror-like’. Anyway, in THE MIST, there’s also the issue of individuality and sociality. We like to believe in the power of the individual to guard his personal identity/pride and think on his own terms. In contrast, the people who are flocking around the crazy Christian woman seems to have surrendered/lost their sense of individuality and intellectual autonomy. But then, in THE SHINING, it is a character’s intense power of individuality that drives him to madness via parasitism by darker spirits that work on his subconscious. Paradoxically, a man’s attempt to be totally independent may make him a prisoner of the ‘spirits’. Man is, by nature, a social creature and was meant to live and work in cooperation and compromise with other people. Every person needs to safeguard his individuality, but individuality left to grow of its own accord can become delusional and cancerous. As social nature remains even in isolated individuals, they too develop a need for company; but since, he’d removed himself from community, he begins to hallucinate imaginary figures, ‘spirits’, and mega-visions that take hold of him, as happens to Jack Torrance in THE SHINING. Though such imaginary ‘spirits’ emanate from within him, they are not really him for they undermine the equilibrium of identity; without equilibrium, identity can feel utterly insignificant like an ant or totally significant like a god. You can see this in isolated crazy people who talk to themselves — like the nutty old lady character in a restaurant in MIDNIGHT COWBOY. Instead of their sense of individuality remaining intact, it breaks down since their need of ‘company’ craves for someone ‘to relate to’. So, in a way, most of what happens in THE SHINING could be said to happen inside Jack Torrance’s head, but as his self is splitting into selves — somewhat like what happens to Norman Bates in PSYCHO — , he is losing control of himself even though he believes his isolation is finally allowing him to discover his true self and nothing but. [Identity is like a billiard ball. It exists in relation to other billiard balls. Other billiard balls lend it meaning through play; they also serve as reminders, as reality checks, that a billiard ball must find its meaning in relation to other balls. So, even as other balls obstruct its path, they also lend significance to its movement as cooperative advantages or competitive disadvantages in the game. If the pool table is too small or if it’s too crowded with an excess of balls, individuality of the ball suffers. Jack Torrance in THE SHINING feels like a billiard ball with no freedom movement. He finally feels free when he’s driving up to the Overlook Hotel. It’s like he’s entering the realm of the gods with grand vistas and wide open spaces. He wants to roll freely, bounce around happily, like the tennis ball he tosses against the wall of the hotel. He’s finally alone to do as he pleases. He has the hotel all to himself. But the hotel, of course, doesn’t belong to him. His individuality and freedom are illusions. The hotel serves as a metaphor for the falsehood of freedom that we think we possess when removed from the pressures of society, the bumps of other billiard balls. By ourselves in our own world, we feel we can move freely — physically and/or psychologically — in any direction, but human movement, be it intellectual/spiritual or spatial/exploratory, is meaningless unless it bumps with and interacts with other humans and their endeavors. Also, even if we were overcome our intellectual/emotional dependence on others, our mental and ‘spiritual’ freedom eventually bump against the limits of our capacity to discover, know, and understand. It’s like the tennis ball flies around freely through wide spaces but always hits the wall and bounces back to Torrance again and again. No mind is infinite. And yet, because the sobering reality checks of other balls are gone, a lone ball may fall under the delusion that it is not only the only ball in a particular place but the only ball in the whole universe — or is itself the universe. It is no wonder that some of the most megalomaniacal ideas arose when individuals went off on their own to ponder the meaning of themselves and the cosmos. Not infrequently, they — Siddhartha, Jesus, and Muhammad — came to conflate their own minds/souls as the very essence of truth of being, the cosmos, or God. And there is some of that happening with Torrance. Consider the scene where he gazes down on the model of the garden maze. A person would be lost in the maze, but Torrance, as if with the eyes of god, looks down on the model that morphs into the maze itself; Torrance is losing the distinction between the model of reality and reality itself; the idea/representation itself is becoming the reality and vice versa. He is still man but feels as a god. Of course, at the end, he dies as a man lost in the maze, learning that hard way that man, despite all his delusions, can never be god.] Of course, there’s also the danger of extreme sociality, of which there are two kinds: the ultra-rigid and ultra-malleable. The ultra-rigid sociability is the kind where a person joins one kind of community — ideological, religious, social, cultural — and totally gives his or her entire being to its values and dogmas. The members of the Heaven’s Gate cult were like this. To a lesser degree — but also troubling — are the sort of people who surrender their individualities to the ‘church’ of Scientology. Scientology cleverly ‘steals’ a person’s individuality by stoking the vanity of the individual ego, i.e. by joining the ‘church’ and submitting to the process of ‘auditing’, the individual will gain his true identity as a kind of sci-fi Nietzschean god-man. Paradoxically, one of the most effective way to turn someone into a slave is to make him believe he is a god. Indeed, this is the appeal of so many superhero movies: all those silly young boys wasting time and money fantasizing that they are cool and badass like Superman, Batman, Spiderman, or whatever; they’ve been turned into slaves of fantasy. [But then, the slavery of fantasy can be empowering too as proven by the resilience of so many religions throughout the ages. The Jewish Covenant with God is a kind of liberation and enslavement. As servants of God with snipped-off puds, they also feel as the favored of God imbued with great hope and confidence. In the case of Jews, it was a case of finding power through servitude to God — power through slavery — , but there’s also the case of slavery through power or the illusion of power. This is certainly the case of Tom Cruise and Scientology. Cruise is clearly a bitch of the cunning bastards that run Scientology, but he’s been made to feel so masterful and magnificent by his adherence to its teachings that he is blind to what the ‘church’ has really done to him. And the same sort of trickery is the key to the AIPAC universe. AIPAC works much like Scientology. It picks and grooms certain key gentiles to feel The Power as masterful warrior-defenders of the helpless and kindly Jews who are said to be hated still by ‘anti-Semites’ all over the world. Though the likes of John McCain are nothing but slaves of Jewish supremacists, they’ve been Tom-Cruised by AIPAC, i.e. made to feel that the world will go to pot and Jews everywhere will suffer horribly UNLESS they step forth to set things right. Of course, setting-things-right amounts to little more than pushing whatever agenda favored by Jews. Nevertheless, because the likes of John McCain are so shmoozed by AIPAC operatives, they see themselves as the indispensable gentile master-warriors who employ their masterfulness to save the world from evildoers such as Russians, Iranians, & Palestinians and prevent another Holocaust, not just against Jews but against homos too.] Anyway, extreme sociability need not be rigid: it can also be malleable, as with the character in Woody Allen’s ZELIG who feels this natural urge to blend into whatever community he finds himself in. If some people believe they must totally belong to a single group and none other, others feel a constant need to belong to whatever group he happens to himself in. Jews have long felt both sets of extremes: for thousand of years, they were obsessed with maintaining their unique identity and sticking with the Jewish tribe. But, as they were a nomadic people who came in contact with all sorts of peoples and specialized in business that required them to intermingle and negotiate with non-Jews, another side of Jewishness wanted to blend in with the goyim, indeed even to the point of becoming ‘more goy than goyim’, at least on the conceptual level. If Jews had only come in contact with one bunch of goyim, things might have been simpler, but in fact, over the many centuries, Jews found themselves among Italians, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Russians Muslims, Turks, Greeks, and etc. and so, Jewish identity was tempted into melding with so many Zelig-ish possibilities. In this sense, it’s not surprising that Jews, more than the Anglos, were more suited to rise to the top in America, especially as America began to lose its uniquely Anglo-flavor by design[as the American Republic was founded as a clear break from British power] and by historical development[as non-Anglo ‘ethnic’ whites rose in numbers through immigration]. If US were pure Anglo-American, Jews might have faced more difficulty in taking over elite positions because, after all, ‘Anglo-American’ identity has specific cultural meanings, limitations, and restriction. In contrast, the notion of ‘American’, especially as it developed in the 20th century, was a less clearly defined and designed notion; it was one that Jews were better prepared, mentally and culturally, to mold and shape in all sorts of Zelig-ish ways and not only for themselves but for everyone else. If America were mostly Anglo-American, Anglo-Americanism would have been established as the heart and soul of what it means to be American. But if the meaning of ‘American’ was opened up, Jews — who’d been playing funny games with identity through the centuries among goy peoples of the world — could use it like playdo to mold something that was more to their own liking and advantage, and today, nothing is as American as MLK cult, Holocaust worship, and homo celebration. [But it’s arguable that even if Anglo-Americans had been the solid majority of America, the Jewish minority would have prevailed just the same because of their stronger cultural identity. After all, Jews similarly took over Canada, Australia, and UK itself even though those nations had solid Anglo majorities. The problem with Protestantism is it’s been a purgative religion. One might even say it was a bleeding-cure religion. Protestants did to themselves what kosher Jews did to cows and sheep. Protestantism favors the purity of the idea over all else. It has no use for particularist customs, for cultural icons and idols, for passion and emotions, for natural animal drives, and etc. It wishes to purge society of everything but the idea. In Protestantism itself, the idea was about the pure and proper attitude toward God and His Truth. But Protestantism had an impact way beyond religion. Even the philosophy and culture of the Anglosphere and some Germanic nations became ‘anemic’, bloodless but for the logic and meaning of ideas. In some ways, this aided in the clarity of thought by defusing the forces of passion and prejudice, which is why Great Britain produced thinkers like John Locke, Robert Hume, and John Stuart Mill. But the downside was the lack of passion and zeal, without which a culture could become colorless and flavorless. Anglos became emotionally blank-slate-ish. It’s no wonder that the term ‘bloody’ became such a epithet among the British. Germans were Protestants too, but their relative backwardness for most of European history, their troubled/competitive proximity with other major continental powers, their powerful musical culture, and their deep reverence for nature kept alive the power of blood: blood and soil, blood and iron. In contrast, the British became fetishists for ideas and manners. British believed that ideas should be divorced from passion, and they upheld & enforced manners to the point of obsession because manners suppressed emotions, thereby creating an ideal environment for the dry exchange of ideas that had been bled of their overt emotional content. This suppression/purging of emotions also made the British experts at wit, a paradoxical mental tool that both fed on and starved emotions; use of wit was often motivated by negative emotions and hostility, but the piercing thrust negated the need for an explosive outburst. It was a way to be cutting and venomous while maintaining the composure of gentility and niceness. Protestantism was also for correctness and properness, so the British were into correct ideas and proper values, and the positive side of this was they were less likely to fall for the labyrinthine intellectualism of the Germans and the dazzling castle-in-the-air intellectualism of the French. But the downside of this adherence to correctness and properness was the all-too-snippy, snobby, and curt dismissal of whatever that wasn’t deemed ‘correct’ and ‘proper, and such an attitude undermined the possibility of depth in British thought. British thought and literature are often witty and brilliant on the surface but lacking in deeper dimensions; Richard Dawkin may be a great scientist on evolution, but when it comes to understanding human nature and people, he’s about the most limited Protestantist snob one can imagine. Anyway, this anemic-ness of Anglo-Protestant culture meant that if the traditional ideas, values, and manners were removed from the Anglo/American heart, there was almost nothing there to feel ballsy about. If you take this or that idea/ideology away from Russians, Russians will still feel Russian because being Russian is essentially a feeling, a passion; it’s about getting drunk and feeling the surge of vodka coursing through one’s veins. British like to get drunk too, but it’s just for fun. For Russians, they feel Russian-ness in the very flow of their blood. This is why Italy, Spain, and Greece, though under considerable sway of PC, are still less PC than Britain. There is a blood-ful sense of Italianness, Spanishness, and Greekness that go beyond ideas and values. Much of it has to do with FEELING Italian, Spanish, or Greek. But because Anglo-Protestant culture has been rendered so anemic, once the old ideas are gone, the culture feels empty and dry. So dry in fact that it thirsts for new ideas, and of course, Jews replaced the old ideas with the new ideas of PC, and not surprisingly, Anglo-Protestant types have been most enthusiastic in adopting them since they are people of ideas than blood. Jews, in contrast, are a people of blood and semen. Even if you were to take the ideas/ideologies from a Jew, a Jew is culturally still an obsessive, driven, and maniacal creature who revels in haggling, conniving, cheating, dick-slapping, and being nasty in so many ways. This is why Jews beat the Anglos. While Anglo-Protestant culture has been applying the bleeding cure on itself, Jews have been pumping their cultural balls with more semen.] Anyway, even though some of the characters of THE MIST are not extreme cases like Jack Torrance in THE SHINING, they too suffer from excessive cult of individualism. The black guy thinks he’s thinking for himself and being true to himself, a rational and proud individual. But his individualism is clouded by sociality because of his race-consciousness in regards to white folks of the town. He is less a free-thinking individual than a black individual; he stands on his own two feet but moves to the Negro beat.
So, he sees the situation not so much in terms of his individual self vs the mystery but in terms of his black self vs white folks who be taking him for a fool. The main character, David Drayton, comes across as the most sane, sensible, courageous, intelligent, and forward-thinking member of the bunch. The other guy who appears balanced and sensible is a funny-looking store clerk by the name of Ollie Weaks. He looks weak and inept, but he’s actually an ace shooter with the pistol and a capable all-around individual; his characterization was clearly meant to go against type, and it works as something more than a contrarian gimmick. But Drayton is the centerpiece of the film because he’s tall, good-looking, and the natural leader-type. And though willing to take charge, he doesn’t have the ego-vanity problems of the Negro or, say, the middle-aged bald white guy in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Drayton seems like the polar opposite of Mrs. Carmody, the deranged Christian woman who even comes to preach that the ‘beast’ has to be satiated with sacrifice so that others can live. This is maybe the most problematic part of the movie since no Christian, however crazy, would ever call for human sacrifice, especially to appease the forces of darkness, i.e. the Devil. [But maybe King’s point is that worship of God can easily shade into worship of the Devil, especially if one’s faith in God is of the Old Testament variety. Old Testament God commands not only reverence but fear. In the Book of Job, He is seen to ‘conspire’ and ‘wager’ with Satan{though some argue this Satan isn’t the Devil} in the horrors that befall Job. Though the Old Testament God is righteous and said to be perfect & good, He also insists He doesn’t have to explain or justify anything He does. Mankind should just shut up and put up; mankind should worship Him, trust Him, and just tell itself that there’s an ultimate design to everything He does. The problem with such an outlook is it can easily slide into nihilism of power. If God is all-powerful and if His power is never to be questioned, then it’s a question of might over right. In this, the Jewish God has something in common with the old pagan gods that embodied amoral power, one that demanded fear and trembling among the faithful. And yet, the Jewish religion is also about moral righteousness, about faith in God as not only the most powerful Being in the universe but also the most moral. So, the dark side of Judaism is it combined ultra-moral-righteousness with ultra-amoral-nihilism. Though Mrs. Carmody is a Christian, she’s clearly more into the Old Testament God than the New Testament God. And in her fusion of extreme moral righteousness and blind worship of power, even beastly power, she reflects something of the Old Testament God.] Some Christians have been known to do awful things to people to purge them of evil spirits, but that’s still not the same thing as offering humans as sacrifice to the Beast; it’s more like trying to torture the Beast out of the human soul. But then, maybe the movie is saying that even though the Biblical religions and pagan cults are supposed to be opposites, they share the underlying fear of the unknown and obsession with violence. Mrs. Carmody is a Christian than a Jewess, but she prefers the God of the Old Testament, God ‘of the Israelites’, and indeed God did tell the Israelites to go out and wipe out entire communities. Still, one could argue that God simply wanted the Jews to have a land of their own. God didn’t tell them to kill people as an offering to Him. Even so, it raises the question: If God is truly fearsome and ruthless, is there a dividing line between Him and the Beast? Mrs. Carmody sees the monstrous creatures as demonic forces but also as punishment from God. So, in a way, demonic forces are tools of God, and in which case, paradoxically, they can be said to be godly in a sort of an indirect way. Indeed, this moral-spiritual problem is present in the New Testament too, for the Second Coming of Jesus will be preceded the coming of the Beast with the 666 number that will lay the world to waste and save only the few good folks who deserve to rise to Heaven and be with God forever. For there to be light, there must be darkness. Just as Jesus needed a Judas in order for Himself to become the Messiah — via a kind of ‘human sacrifice’— , it’s like the world needs the Beast in order for it to saved by the Second Coming of the Lord. So, was Judas the agent of the Devil or of God. Is the Beast an instrument of the Devil or ultimately of God since the world must be destroyed in an End of Days for Jesus to return and save the few good folks. In a way, this is why some Christians take pleasure in horrible events. Though all Christians recoiled in horror at 9/11, some saw it as God’s punishment for man’s sinfulness. Though such talk is denounced as ugly, divisive, and demented, it is very much in the spirit of the Bible wherein God periodically punishes wicked mankind with all sorts of disasters. [Though such is denounced as an ‘irrational’ view, especially as it seems to condone the destruction of countless innocents in the name of moral righteousness, secular people have their own version of it. For example, consider all the black riots and violence that have been immune from moral condemnation since the Narrative says that History gives blacks the collective right to commit violence against the wicked white race. So, never mind that countless innocent whites have been robbed, beaten, raped, and murdered by black thugs. Because of the ‘original sin’ of slavery or apartheid, blacks are virtually given the right to rain down like a swarm of locusts and wreak havoc on white communities. Or consider the Allied use of violence during WWII. While Germany and Japan deserved to be defeated, so many innocent civilians in Germany and Japan were killed as the result of indiscriminate air campaigns. And yet, Liberals and Conservatives prefer to believe in the Narrative of the Good War, and the logic says that since we were the good guys and they were the bad guys, we had the right to attack them without mercy and even kill/rape millions of their innocents as justifiable sacrifices for the ‘good’. Or consider what Madeleine Albright said about 100,000s of Iraqi women and children who might have perished as the result of Western sanctions. Her response was "it was worth it." There are plenty of Mrs. Carmody’s among the Liberal intelligentsia. Consider cackling Hillary Clinton at hearing the news that Gaddaffi was lynched to death. And today, most of US foreign policy is about stirring up violence in the Middle East and Ukraine to serve the ruthless agenda of the globalist Jews. It’s like Jews are our Old Testament God, and we must do everything to please and appease them. And if millions die as the result, we just shrug our shoulders and say "it’s worth it." The innocent victims must be sacrificed to satiate the Jewish beast that postures as the new god of all humanity. Jews are taking out their trauma under God on all mankind that is now traumatized under the Jews-as-the-beast-god.]Mrs. Carmody the crazy Christian woman is plenty nuts... but then, she is a fictional character in a story created by Stephen King who also seems to be obsessed with great horrors befalling mankind. If extreme Christians are nuts for obsessing so much about the End of Days, why do so many horror and sci-fi authors and film-makers do much the same? Why do they find so much reward, fun, fascination, and excitement where literally millions or even billions of people are killed by some horrible disaster? In this sense, one could argue that the Drayton is something of a ‘psychic villain’ in the way that Tippi Hedren’s character is in THE BIRDS. Though neither consciously mean to do any harm to anyone, the disasters that befall the world around them could be seen as manifestations of their personal obsessions. Tippi Hedren is a ‘liberated’ modern woman whose sexual interest in the man of a small island community unleashes the birds that can be seen as manifestations of her subconscious sexual psyche. And Drayton happens to be a visual artist who specializes in Hollywood genres such as horror and science-fiction. Indeed, we see one of his paintings of THE THING by John Carpenter. And in the beginning of the movie, we see him work on a poster of Clint Eastwood’s character, the Man with No Name, in Sergio Leone Spaghetti Westerns such as FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, where the Man with No Name often functions as a kind of angel of death who enters a town and leaves with few people left alive. THE BIRDS and THE MIST are both, on some level, about the clash between cosmopolitan out-of-towners who tend to be more urbane & sophisticated and the provincial townsfolk who are more conservative and communal. [We notice a certain duality in the social dynamics between the out-of-towners and local towners. In one way, the crisis brings both groups closer together — as they are all are faced with a common threat/enemy — , but in another way, it drives them further apart since out-of-towners prefer rational solutions whereas local towners are more likely to fall under the sway of someone like Mrs. Carmody. And yet, we also see the simple dichotomy between out-of-towners and local towners loosen. The Negro is an out-of-towner, and Drayton is like a semi-out-of-towner in the sense that, even though he is of the community, he has professional links with the bigger world. Negro is a renowned judge, and Drayton is a successful artist who had contacts in big cities. At any rate, both the Negro and Drayton seem more urbane and worldly than most people of the town. The Negro has a vacation home in the town. And yet, we learn early on that there’s been bad blood between them in the past. And when the crisis hits, the Negro goes from urbane cosmopolitan guy to an Angry Black Man who talks about ‘his people’. He becomes like a racial Mrs. Carmody. Also, it would be too simplistic to say all local towners are socially conservative or provincial. An elderly local teacher looks Jewish-Radical-ish. So, even within the local community, people are likely to think and feel differently along class and professional lines.] Anyway, even though Drayton is freaked out by the horrors, the things that are happening are exactly the stuff he specializes in, indulges in, and wallows in as an artist. Though he’s an urbane/modern person who seeks a stable and rational life with his wife and child, the world of his imagination is one of endless horror, violence, suspense, and strife. So, in some way, it’s as if everything that is happening in THE MIST is the physical manifestation[or many-infestation] of Drayton’s imagination that is perpetually fascinated with the macabre, monstrous, outlandish, grotesque, and weird: a sort of ‘imagifestation’. It’s like the world of his ‘creative’ imagination has poured into reality. Furthermore, even though Mrs. Carmody is made out to be the lunatic who demands a scapegoat for ‘expiation’, she too is a kind of scapegoat of Stephen King so that he can dump all his own obsessions and darkness on her ilk while pretending to be a man on the side of reason, sanity, and goodness. After all, it’s King’s dark imagination that created the ‘end of days’ scenario in THE MIST where innocent people get killed — and where we the audience enjoy the thrills — in a world of beastly horror, so how convenient it must have been for King to shift all the moral blame on Mrs. Carmody. The denigration of Christian nutjobs[though the spiritual cuckoo-bananas of a mountain-sized Negro in love with a little white mouse warrants him the status of a holy angel] in the novels of King strikes me as disingenuous since the worlds he creates are indeed crazy and filled with all kinds of demonic spirits. If the world King presents is so monstrous, then craziness would be the norm, and a crazy Christian wouldn’t be any crazier than the stuff happening all around him/her. Mrs. Carmody is our scapegoat; she, as the vilified witch-hunter, is our witch who must be burned at the stake — or shot in the head — in order for us to restore our sense of order and sanity, which is rather a foolish hope since how can there be any true sanity where giant squids and mega-crabs from another dimension run amok to devour folks? To be sure, one could argue that even in a world gone mad, Drayton and his gang are coping with a higher degree of reason, caution, and sense than someone like Mrs. Carmody who only relies on the power of faith.[On the other hand, despite the greater caution of Drayton and his team, there’s something about rationalism that can make people less cautious in some ways. We generally assume that faith leads to incaution whereas reason makes us more cautious about what we do. After all, it was the Imperial Japanese with their mythic world-view who attacked Pearl Harbor. And it was the Muslim nutjobs with their faith in Allah who carried out 9/11. Those driven by faith may toss caution to the winds and plunge into action on a prayer. Consider all those African militiamen who ran into gunfire with the superstitious belief that they’d been made bullet-proof by black magic. But on the other hand, there is something about faith that can make people more cautious. As their faith is with higher powers, they might be willing to just hunker down and leave it up to God or gods to deliver them from evil; indeed as aggressive as Mrs. Carmody is, she urges everyone to just stay put and pray to God for salvation. In contrast, rationalism tempts mankind to figure things out and solve problems on its own.Of course, rationalism urges caution, but much of our data about the world is incomplete and unsure. But even with flawed or incomplete data, the rational mind has the habit of seeking some kind of solution. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it blows up in your face. I don’t know about the validity of the global warming scare, but we certainly don’t know enough to reach definitive answer, but the media, academia, and Wall Street — eager to cash in on Green Energy — have leapt to conclusions that SOMETHING must be done. Rationalism is great in making us proactive in searching for solutions, but proactive-ness can become a cult or fetish. We can get into the habit of being proactive with stuff we hardly know about. But as long as we’re under the delusion of rationality and factuality, we can end up supporting something like the Iraq War that was justified on the basis of mountains of intelligence reports, data, slam-dunk calculations, and theories... much of which turned out to be either wrong, bogus, deceitful, or hopelessly flawed. We say Japan acted irrationally in WWII whereas we acted rationally in the invasion of Iraq, but both decisions were really based on looney tunes calculations. But the cult of rationalism has, time and time again, blinded Americans to their often incautious proactive-ness. Nevertheless, the proactive spirit is what made the West, indeed what set it apart from other civilizations, such as that of the Persians, Egyptians, Byzantines, Chinese, Turks, and etc. Most civilizations throughout history have been reactive than proactive, or they were proactive mostly militarily but not in other endeavors. But then, military proactive-ness was often a kind of a preemptive reactiveness, i.e. the goal of waging war was to procure greater peace over wider territory for the long-term, thereby allowing for greater stability and constancy over the land. True proactive-ness seeks change and innovation from within for their own sake. The Byzantines, the Persians, and the Japanese tended to be reactive, i.e. unless met with external challenges, they preferred to keep things the same as much as possible. Japan only decided to change when it found itself hopelessly outmatched by superior British and American forces. Without such outside challenges, Japanese were content to leave most things as they were. The Ottoman Turks also got into the same habit and were forced into modernization only because of the threat from the West. In contrast, Western societies developed a mind-set that, even without external challenges, sought new ideas, possibilities, and solutions in every field. The Western mind-set had made the switch from the reactive to the proactive. Japan was forced to change as a reactive response to external challenges, whereas scientists, doctors, philosophers, artists, and businessmen in places like France, Germany, and Britain were committed to finding new things for the sake of finding new things. With the entire world having caught the modernization bug, we have yet to see if the non-Western modernization is in the reactive mode — catching up with the West to survive in the New World Order — or if it has genuinely caught the proactive bug and is committed to seeking new ideas, possibilities, and solutions for their own sake.] But then, one could also argue that the real problem with her is less her religiousness as madness or demented personality with which she was born. In other words, she didn’t become crazy because of her religion but chose a crazy form of faith because she was mad to begin with. Indeed, this has been the dangerous side of religion — and even ideology[at one point, someone mentions that Fidel Castro’s speeches are like those of Carmody]. People who are nuts or have personality issues have trouble grappling with reality and tend to develop a rather fantastic view of the world, and so, they naturally gravitate to something like religion, ideology, cult, or special cause that may serve as a kind of mental-moral-social underpinning in life. This is why religions and ideologies or movements like Communism, National Socialism, Homomania, and others have attracted so many people with the ‘true believer’ personality. People with mental/emotional issues have a weak grasp of reality, so they gravitate to a powerful vision/explanation of reality so as to feel their feet firmly planted in the world. Especially as modernity led to social/cultural disorientation, alienation, displacement, isolation, atomization, and disruption among so many people, individuals with problematic personalities were especially vulnerable to the crisis of confusion. In a more traditional social setting, they might have found a modicum of continuity and stability in age-old truths, traditions, and custom shared by all of the community. But in the modern setting, people with problem-personalities felt like lunatics dumped on the streets, and they sought a ‘home’ in a powerful cause, movement, ideology, or faith in order to feel rooted and grounded once again. So, the Middle East has seen a resurgence of Islam, Jews in Israel underwent an upsurge in ultra-nationalism, Leftists in the West found new meaning in the Palestinian cause, and urbanites in the US and EU have found the grace in their devotion to homomania. [In a way, mental problems have become almost universalized in the modern world. In truth, most people are normal and only a handful of people have real mental issues. Still, even for most normal people to feel normal and take pride in their normality, they depend on a social culture upholding and encouraging normal values and standards. Even the normal need to be aided and buttressed by a culture of normality. But the modern world is dominated by hideous/devious Jews, hissy/pissy homos, deranged feminists, pusillanimous white gentile elites, anemic Wasps, and rootless globalists. So, normal standards no longer exist, and if anything, young kids are raised with the idea that something is cool if it’s ‘subversive’, ‘radical’, or ‘transgressive’, and that explains why even all-too-normal white folks go out of their way to berate other white folks for being ‘too white’, presumably meaning ‘too normal’, while elevating themselves as ‘different’, ‘progressive’, or whatever. When cultural normality goes out the window, a kind of mass mental panic occurs even among those who are predisposed to normality. Everyone feels lost in a world where nothing is normal and begins to crave for the ‘new normal’, and this craving is so powerful that people will begin to cling madly to whatever offers them hope & meaning as the ‘new normal’ or the ‘new morality’. So, paradoxically, the forces of abnormality has been aided in the culture war by human nature that is wanting of normality. Just because the traditional normal has been degraded and disposed of, it doesn’t mean that people have come to reject normality altogether. Their natural desire for normality calls for something to take place of the old normal, and if a particular ‘new normal’, such as homomania, is put forth as the next great thing, the idiot masses will flock to it like flies to shit. This also explains the great success of Nazism in Germany and communism in Russia. As the old normals had been tossed aside, there was a powerful craving for the ‘new normal’, and when the Soviets and Nazis offered ‘new normal’ in the form of Stalinism and Hitlerism, people just mindlessly flocked to them. So, even though the ‘new normal’ is actually abnormal, its success owes to the natural desire for some kind of normality in the human heart/mind.] Of course, many such ideologies and causes are crazy or deeply flawed, but then, the people aren’t so much searching for the truth as for truthfulness, and something doesn’t have to be the truth to feel truthful. Just as being Liberal is not the same as being liberal, embracing the Truth is not the same as being concerned with the truth. It’s more a state of mind/feeling than state of knowledge. ‘Anti-racism’, for instance, is a kind of Truthfulness that has little basis in the actual facts about race, but people would rather cling to their sense of Truthfulness than deal with truths with their ambiguities and complexities. But then, it’s also the case that truth and facts can be debilitating in their own way since there are mountains of truths and facts about everything. Indeed, if we had to know with absolute certainty every little fact/detail about something before we take action, we’d never be able to do anything. This is why a perfectionist like Stanley Kubrick was only able to make only a single film in the 12 yrs between FULL METAL JACKET to EYES WIDE SHUT. He became obsessed with nailing everything down to the last detail. Every time we do something, there’s an element of faith since we can’t know everything about everything. Also, even if we could know everything about everything that ever was and is, that’s still no guarantee that our actions will bear fruit in the future. Even the best economists and financial experts don’t know what’s really going to happen. Even medical specialists can’t know or foresee everything, and indeed, science has, as often as not, progressed by trial-and-error by people who took a leap-of-faith with a new drug or procedure based on educated guesses or speculation. Rationalism has a decisive advantage over religionism in that it has a system by which the knowledge can be expanded, advanced, and improved. Today’s science is far beyond the science of 100 yrs ago, whereas religious ‘truth’ of a 1000 yrs ago is no truer than religious ‘truth’ of today. Also, if rational science becomes better the more it engages with the world, religion grows wiser the more it removes itself from the world, which is why the God of the Bible became ever more abstract and why Buddhism receded essentially into a ‘science’ of how the mind works than about how the world works. Improvement of reason relies on more engagement with the material world, whereas improvement of religion relies on more disengagement from the material world, and yet religion has a timeless quality lacking in science; the methodology of science may remain a constant, but the conclusions keep changing. Once religion has reached a certain elevated point as a system of thoughts and emotions, it beholds a Truth for all time, whereas science is tirelessly looking for new truths and new discoveries that may well overturn entire paradigms as to the ultimate nature of reality. The contrast between Mrs. Carmody and Drayton is sort of like the one between the bald middle-aged white guy and the black dude in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Though the two men of Romero’s movie don’t bicker about religious issues, the bald white guy is conservative and prefers to stick with what he knows, whereas the black dude is more adventurous and tries to improve his chances of survival. The bald white guy says they should all hide in the cellar, but the black guy says they won’t have anywhere to run, and so, with the blood of fugitive slaves in his veins, he wants to strategize a plan to make a run for it. In THE MIST, Mrs. Carmody wants everyone to stay put. Even though her reasons are not rational or even reasonable, she and her followers would rather stick with what they know than with what they don’t. Indeed, she believes mankind isn’t meant to know more than God wants it to know. Venturing out of the store to find answers/solutions would be rather like scientists trying to find the secrets of life and the universe. Stick with what you know, hunker down and pray, and have faith in the Lord, and that’s all you need, Hallelujah. Drayton, like the black guy in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, isn’t content with sticking with the known in the confines of the store. He is adventurous by nature — in his imagination as an artist and even in the choice of his vehicle designed for traversing rough terrain — and wants to use his head to things out. And yet, both Carmody and Drayton are walking contradictions. Carmody prefers to stick with the known, but she is totally obsessed with God, the Being that cannot be known by any person except through blind faith. Also, a part of her sees the crisis as a blessing since she finally got what she’s wanted all her life: recognition and validation — and power — as the most fervent servant of God. Prior to the crisis, people saw her as just a screwy religious lady of the town, but people are listening to her now, and the store has become like her own church, her own kingdom of heaven. But then, the crisis is sort of thrilling for Drayton and Weaks as well for they get to play the role of heroes. Without the crisis, Drayton would be just another a ‘yuppie’ artist, and his imagination would be limited to the canvas in his studio. As for Weaks, he’d be just a store clerk filling up the shelves. The crisis gives them the chance to play killer, hunter, leader, protector, philosopher, daredevil, and hero. Carmody seems more cautious and pragmatic in urging that everyone stay in the store because it’s a known & familiar environment, but then she is willing to make entire decisions based on her twisted faith in God. Drayton seems more rational and calculating in the actions he takes, but then he takes a huge leap of faith in driving away with a few others into the mist. For all he knows, the mist might extend over a few miles, over the entire eastern seacoast, over the entire nation, or the entire world. He has no way of knowing for sure, and yet he makes a leap of faith by driving into the mist; and yet, he thinks he is acting rationally. In the end, one’s rational powers are only as good as one’s rational knowledge. If someone forces you to pull the trigger in a game of Russian Roulette and you don’t know and have no way of knowing which chamber holds the bullet, your rational guess is no better than a religious one. The problem with the cult of rationality is it fools us into thinking we know even when we don’t. Surely, there’s world of difference between a dumb rational person and a smart rational person. A dumb person, no matter how rational and calculating, has a cloudy mind that can’t see very far. Try as he might, his mind is a foggy mist of low intelligence. But then, even smart people can act intelligently based on the intake of knowledge through their senses. Whatever their minds process has to be seen, heard, and/or felt. But, what is the use of rationality in a physical world in THE MIST where one can hardly see anything? Drayton is a smart rationalist. But, if Drayton has no way of knowing if the mist covers only the local area or the entire world, his decision to take his chances by leaving the store is based as much on faith as on reason. Also, he’s not only risking his own life but that of his own child and those who agreed to come along. And yet, he is searching for something real, for the genuine possibility that he might finally break out of the mist and find help. In this, he’s like Columbus and other European voyagers who took a leap of faith when they decided to travel the seas to find new worlds or new routes. As the character in Christopher Nolan’s INCEPTION asks at one point, "Would you like to take a leap of faith...?" In so much of what we do, we must be prepared to take a leap of faith because the future will always be cloudy in some way. And sometimes, it’s not always easy to tell if one’s actions are motivated more by reason or faith. At the end, did Drayton act more out of reason or faith? His plan sort of made sense, and he certainly knew the risks. But there was no greater chance that he’d be safer driving away than in staying put in the store. Maybe the mist would end some distance away, and he’d be out of the danger. Or maybe the mist will thicken and even scarier monsters will be up ahead. Worse, he could end up stranded in the middle of nowhere without food and water. And being inside his car would be even less safe than being inside a big store with people with whom one could cooperate. Though one reason for Drayton’s departure was to escape from the cultish mob mentality surrounding Carmody, another reason could be his restless nature. If Carmody is the sort of person who can never shut up, Drayton is the sort of person who always has to be doing something. It’s been said women are naturally more verbal than men, whereas men are naturally more into doing stuff like hobbies and going on adventures. Women need to yammer, and men need to hammer. So, it’s not very surprising that Carmody feels a constant need to talk on and on, whereas Drayton, as the archetypal alpha male, feels a constant need to doing something to come upon a solution. It’s OPRAH vs THIS OLD HOUSE. In the end, however, Drayton’s sense of reality is clouded by a ‘faith’ of what will happen based on his very limited grasp of reality as most of reality remains hidden in the mist and all communication links have been shut down. He receives no radio signals in the car, so he has no idea what is happening in the world outside the mist, if indeed such a world still exists. Like the character in MIRACLE MILE, he’s just acting on a few clues and hints. The human mind is such that, even with a few fragments, it instantly connects the dots and draws up entire scenarios. Consider how one only needs to read few paragraphs of a novel to found oneself immersed even though one hardly knows the locations, characters, backgrounds, and etc. The theory of Universal Grammar says children are hardwired to understand language, so just by being exposed to adults talking, kids naturally unlock the secrets of language. They don’t have to be taught every detail or structure of language to get the gist of how language works. Something effortlessly activates inside their minds and completes the language development. The human mind has also something like a Universal Grammar when it comes to processing the contours of reality. Just by telling someone just a few details about something, his or her mind begins to fill in the details in his or her own fashion. It’s like what the Leonardo DiCaprio character says in INCEPTION: "You create the world of the dream. We bring the subject into that dream, and they fill it with their subconscious."[This is why the cult of rationalism can be misleading. The rationalist believes what he thinks and knows is the product of his conscious reasoning, but what if his subconscious automatically filled his mind with conclusions that his rational/conscious mind hasn’t yet processed? Suppose I give a small set of clues to a rationalist, and he reaches a conclusion that seems to make perfect sense to him. But suppose his sense of certainty owes less to the facts — limited as they are — than his subconscious having filled in the blanks on facts that had been withheld from him. The subconscious has its own innate tendencies and impulses, but it can also be emotionally conditioned in association to certain ideas and images via media, education, and etc. As our media and academia are controlled by Jews, the subconscious of many people have been filled with images, fears, and paranoia about ‘white racism’ and ‘white privilege’, so all it takes is to say something like ‘white males’ and ‘black rape victim’ for a whole bunch of white Liberals leap to the conclusion that KKK-like college frat boys have raped and mauled an innocent black woman, as in the Duke Lacrosse case. It’d be totally crazy, but Liberals think their responses are entirely rational because their subconscious had been conditioned to make certain connections and leap to conclusions. Because white Liberals have been made to worship at the altar of MLK, they want to believe in a world of evil white ‘racists’ and innocent black victims. Of course, the reality is the opposite, with black thugs beating up whites and raping white women. Because the reality is so skewed against the Liberal Narrative and Liberals are so starved for any news stories that might confirm their prejudice-pretending-to-be-progressive, when Liberals come upon any tidbits of news where whites might be ‘racist’ villains, they lunge into motion like famished sharks in a feeding frenzy. Liberalism as it exists today is irrational; it’s mostly about the Liberal subconscious filling in the blanks and leaping to conclusions about evil white ‘racists’ and poor innocent blacks, as with the Ferguson and Trayvon Martin cases. Such conclusions are not the result of careful study of facts but of subconscious completing the pre-ordained picture favored by the Narrative based on incomplete facts. But the cult of rationalism on the Liberal side keeps Liberals fooled that they are indeed responding rationally.] So, even if a novel just gives a few hints about the characters and their backgrounds, the reader’s mind instantly begins to fill in all the extraneous details and connective links that weren’t even mentioned in the book. Our minds complete what were only hinted at. Of course, some artists can use language and expression very skillfully to trigger the desired responses in the reader. This is also how news works. Even when people see and hear just a few details of some event, their minds actively fill in all sorts of details that may or may not pertain to the actual story. So, if you go to a white nationalist and say a ‘teen robbed a white woman’, the mind will picture a street, some hooded nasty Negro, some innocent and helpless white woman, the ghastly violence, and etc. And if you were to use the terms ‘the Deep South’ and ‘murder’ and ‘bigotry’, many white Liberals will automatically create image-narratives in the mind of big fat nasty KKK brutes whipping a helpless Negro who then be roped and hung from a tree. This explains the KKK hysteria at Oberlin. Someone likely saw a passerby with a white blanket, and the silly Liberal subconscious went into overdrive, filled in the blanks, and saw the grand wizard of the KKK; and then when the rumors began to fly, all the other silly Liberals at Oberlin began to see in their mind’s eye an army of KKK riding into town to kill all the Jews, Negroes, homos, and Liberals. This is why the mind is both so effective and so dangerous. With even just a few facts, details, and information, the human mind can fill in the gaps and ‘see’ all kinds of possible scenarios. The problem is we can easily lose sight of the fact that our minds are only in speculative mode and take the leap-of-faith conflating speculation with absolute truth. And when such an assumption becomes associated with one’s pride, vanity, and sense of self-righteousness — and the fear of the shame/humiliation of being proven wrong — , what is often useful can become poisonous. Of course, gaps in the evidence are filled with images and sounds that are already familiar through personal experience or through exposure to education, news coverage, and entertainment. Since US media and education are so dominated by Jews, our minds are pre-supplied with all sorts of sounds and images that fill in the gaps whenever we hear the news. Since the Jews in the media have filled our minds with so many negative images and sounds about Putin and Russia, the moment we hear just a little about Russia, our minds are likely to fill in the gaps and blanks with nasty images of Russia, Russians, and Putin previously stored in our minds through our exposure to Jew-run news media, Jewish Hollywood[where Russians have been portrayed as villains countless times], and Jew-run education that conditions young people to worship the homo and hate Russia because it doesn’t allow ‘gay pride parades’ in Red Square. Like I said, Jews are always preparing for future power, and indeed, one effective way to prepare is to fill our minds with the kinds of images, sounds, and ideas that will automatically go into overdrive whenever we hear any tidbit of news. As Jews have filled the minds of countless Americans with negative images, sounds, and impressions of Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and white folks, the only thing that the likes of Rachel Maddow have to do is mutter a few details and show a few images in order for millions of American minds conjure up wicked and vile images of the-peoples-that-Jews-don’t-like. But the, American Conservatism works the same way, which is why so many American Conservatives are brainwashed idiots and dolts who are so easily swayed by the worthless likes of Rush Limbaugh. Their mind are pre-packaged and pre-loaded with so many pat assumptions that even a few details of a new story will make their minds leap to ready-made conclusions in a we-told-you-so manner. But as Jews control much of the media, our seemingly free will and free thought are really shaped by the globo-Zionist elites. The Jew-run media filled the minds of Americans with images of hideous & imbecile Westboro Church as the face of opposition to ‘gay marriage’ and with images of well-scrubbed & more-normal-than-normal homos standing on green lawns as the face of support of ‘gay marriage’, and so, whenever Americans hear about the ‘gay marriage’ issue, their minds automatically fill up with ‘hateful nutball Christians’ vs ‘clean-cut and oh-so-nice gays’. Since young people grew up with such images, sounds, and impressions crammed/streamed into their heads, they’re much more likely to fall prey to the ‘gay agenda’ than older generation of people who were less subjected to such Jewish-homo or Jomo brainwashing... or brainfilling. Indeed, the true danger of mind-control has more to do with brain-filling than brainwashing. What we know and come to believe cannot be washed away though we can try to repress it. So, the real trick of mind control is to keep filling the mind with new references of images, sounds, and impressions that will instantaneously, spontaneously, & automatically kick into gear whenever we’re bombarded with news stories. Anyway, though Drayton acts according to the best of his tactical and ethical reasoning, he also sort of ends up like being like Mrs. Carmody. In a world where the use of reason can reach only so far[given the paucity of what can be seen, heard, or verified], even the most reasonable is forced to fill in the unknown and mysterious with the best guess, speculation, or assessment, and this ‘best guess’ could actually be no better than faith. It’s like if you lack access to how the stock market really works, you ‘rational’ guesses are likely to be no better than guesses made on faith or by a monkey. Our impulsive need for action often undermines reason because, in order for reason to function properly, it needs ample time and patience to collect and process the data. But humans are always compelled to make decisions on politics, economics, social policy, personal matters, and etc. A company competing with other companies in the dog-eat-dog world of global capitalism cannot wait for all the facts to be analyzed and understood in order to make the best judgement because its delayed action or inaction will lose the advantage to its more dynamic rivals. [In times of war, it’s often a case of "damned if you, damned if you don’t". As all sides are pressed for time and space, they feel must be decisive and act boldly. If your side sits back, it will only play defense and its borders will be chipped away by the offensive rivals. Also, your commanders may suffer in morale because they are hampered in carrying out counter-offensives. But if you make bold/rash decisions based on insufficient knowledge, you can lose everything almost at once. This is the problem of the Takeda clan in Akira Kurosawa’s KAGEMUSHA. Following the death of their great lord, the clan goes into cautious defensive mode. But such inaction makes the rival clans suspicious and bolder in their advances against the Takeda clan. Playing only defensive creates a sense of inertia in the clan, and no clan can win in the long run if it only plays defense, especially as the ultimate goal of all the major clan is to unify all of Japan. But then, there’s also the danger of acting too boldly, which is what the son of late lord does as he leads a major offensive with everything he has. By playing only defense, you can lose it all in the long run, but in playing total offense, you can win everything or lose everything in a single day.] A war commander is fighting against time as well as against his enemies, and he doesn’t have the luxury of all-the-time-in-the-world to figure everything out before making his decision to attack or retreat. This is why gathering intelligence is so crucial in the competition for power, and this is why every government has a vast network of intelligence gathering. The less your enemies, rivals, and competitors know about what’s happening on your side, the less they can formulate effective offensive strategies, and the more you know about the other side, the more effectively you can devise on the proper course of action. Unsurprisingly, Jews hate Edward Snowden for blowing the whistle on how the Jewish-Zionist-controlled US government — in collusion of Israel, of course — have secretly been gathering data not only on enemy nations but on friendly nations and even US citizens. This gives the Jews a leg up on all of us, and of course, Jews are the masters of stealth. The Rosenbergs were Jewish, and they ferreted out the most closely guarded US secrets — atomic bomb — to Stalin’s totalitarian empire. When Jews hadn’t constituted the dominant power within the US government, they traded or exposed as much of Wasp secrets as possible in order to embarrass and discredit the Anglo-American order. But now that Jews control America, they are eager to guard as many secrets as possible, all the while violating the secrets of other nations & governments and the privacies of US citizens. If Jews and homos act like this for political gains, why wouldn’t they do this for economic gains in places like Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley? So, Jewish success and power aren’t only about intelligence as in I.Q. but intelligence as in stealing/exposing secrets of others, sharing secrets among themselves, and guarding their own secrets from their potential rivals. And the Jewish-run media are in on this as well, which is why Jewish-dominated publishing companies in the US will not release Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book about Jews and Russians: TWO HUNDRED YEARS TOGETHER. And since Jews run the media and academia, they can always spin the Narrative so that, when Jews suspect their rivals of guarding and sharing secrets, Jews are made out to be honest and courageous seekers/tellers of the truth and the champions of transparency; but, the same Jewish-controlled Narrative will demean anyone who probes and exposes Jewish power as ‘irrational, paranoid, odious, noxious, rabid, and virulent anti-Semites addicted to conspiracy theories.’ When it comes to Jewish power, it’s not only a matter of their Intelligence Quotient but their Intelligence Quality, and it just so happens that Jews have a vast and powerful intelligence-gathering-sharing-and-guarding network all across the globe — not only in government but via private companies like Google and Facebook that are totally Jew-dominated. Of course, other nations also have such apparatuses, but Jews are powerful not only in Israel but in the US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Ukraine, and yes, even in Russia. Vile American Jews routinely defame and beat up on Russia even though Putin has been very accommodating to Jews. But, Russian Jews are snakes just like American Jews, and even as they pretend to serve Putin, they are sharing all kinds of Russian intelligence with dirty American Jewish intelligence community. Remember how Armand Hammer worked both the US and USSR, while making billions off both. Consider how Arnon Milchan the ‘movie producer’ once used to cut deals with the Apartheid government in South Africa but now goes around producing movies like 12 YEARS A SLAVE and making himself out to be some ‘anti-racist’ humanitarian, all the while supporting the ongoing Zionist slaughter of Palestinians — that said, we must give credit where it’s due and acknowledge Milchan as the man who made it possible for Sergio Leone to make his masterpiece ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. Jews shamelessly play all sides. In person, Milchan can come across the nicest guy, but we must always remind ourselves that Jewish niceness is a kind of a cultural and possibly even evolutionary strategy to disarm opponents and rivals. Though there are plenty of nasty pushy Jews, some Jews are the masters of the shmooze, like the Sydney Pollack character Ziegler in EYES WIDE SHUT. It’s niceness as fatal warmth to melt the goy butter so that Jews can spread it on the bagel. In this sense, the nice Jew can be more dangerous than a nasty Jew for it is the nice Jew who likely to be more disarming of their opponents. Indeed, powerful nasty Jews often hire a bunch of ‘nice Jews’ to do the trick. [Though some Jews are just downright pushy and abrasive, there’s also the obsessive passive/aggressive Jew who seems nice on the outside but won’t ever give up on the inside. This kind of Jew was played to perfection by Charles Grodin in THE HEARTBREAK KID and MIDNIGHT RUN. They appear to be pushovers but they are actually pushy to the max. Even when they seem to be stepping back and surrendering, they are actually digging deeper through your defenses like the crazy gopher in CADDYSHACK. This kind of Jew is like a combination of Mr. Rogers and Harry Callahan. Notice how the Jewishy character in THE GRADUATE and the Jewish character in THE HEARTBREAK KID simply won’t give up even when they seem beat and finished. They are still in mode of the door-to-doors salesman who won’t leave you alone until you buy something. It’s like the Marx Brothers who act so funny and harmless but pull every dirty trick in the book to make you submit to their doggedness. Because of their faux-niceness, such Jews pretend to be the ‘nice guy’ and ‘victim’ even when they are the betrayers or transgressors.] Homos have learned the same trick, which is why they put on the ‘we are sooooo nice’ act, especially with powerful people. So, powerful people feel flattered that these clean-cut smiley-faced homos act ever-so-nice with them and become disarmed, and then, they find themselves bending over to the homo agenda in the spirit of reciprocation for the homo ‘niceness’ even though homo niceness was really just a ploy. Behind such ‘niceness’ is an ice-cold icepick agenda for power and control. Though all societies have had their secrets, Jews have become especially obsessive with and adept at guarding their own secrets and stealing secrets from others because Jews have long maintained a spiritual-and-ethnic separateness from the gentile populations. [Jews are also paradoxically the most contentious and cohesive of peoples.
A bunch of Jews are more likely to argue and compete among one another over just about anything than a bunch of goyim are likely to. But because such competitiveness have turned off a lot of gentiles who’ve dealt with Jews, Jews have had to stick together for protection against gentiles distrust and anger. Also, there’s the powerful sense of shared roots, blood, and mythology among Jews that has had a tempering effect on individualist Jewish egotism. Anyway, because Jews are always practicing contentiousness among themselves from an early age, they are better prepared to be contentious and competitive with non-Jews. But because Jews, who consider themselves to be smarter, feel nervous and even paranoid about the resentment of dumb majority of goyim, they always remind themselves that they must stick together against the goyim.] This was one reason why many Jews continued to speak Yiddish than gentile languages. Gentiles wouldn’t know what Jews were saying if Jews spoke in Yiddish. As for homos, they had to remain in the closet for a long time, and such secretiveness honed their psychologies to be especially adept at working-in-the-dark and being secretive. Also, as anyone’s reputation could be ruined in the past if he was exposed as a fruiter, homos became especially careful and creative in handling secrets. Today, Jews and homos are masters of intelligence sharing, which is used for intelligence shaming. If reputations could be destroyed in the past if someone were exposed as a homosexual, in the current Jew-controlled order, anyone’s reputation can be destroyed if he or she is exposed as a ‘homophobe’, i.e. someone who cracks a ‘gay’ joke or finds the act of fecal penetration among men to be anti-natural and gross. Since so many people have some ‘homophobic’ skeletons in the closet — surely even lots of Liberals said ‘fag’ at some point or cracked a ‘gay’ joke or laughed at one — , they are essentially living under a cloud of possible blackmail, and so, they better do like the Jews and homos tell them. If they go along and work as running dogs of Jews and homos, their ‘dirty secrets’ will be kept under the lid, but if they do anything to displease Jews or homos, the Jewish-Homo or Jomo intelligence network will kick into full gear and use the media to expose, shame, and destroy the person as a ‘homophobe’, someone’s said to be clinically sick in the head because he may have once that he thinks it’s gross for a male penis to ejaculate inside a fecal hole of another man or because he once said lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to adopt since orphaned children should ideally be raised by a father-figure and mother-figure since all human life is created through the sexual union of man and woman. It’s been surmised that one of the reasons as to why Walter Duranty of the New York Times didn’t report truthfully on the Ukrainian Great Famine — in which Stalin and his Jewish communist henchmen killed up to 5 million Ukrainians — was because he was blackmailed by communists for being a homosexual. In the current order, Jews and homos have many people by their balls because Jews and homos got the ‘dirty’ secrets on them; given the decadent morality of our world, your mind is ‘dirty’ if you believe in true marriage and your mind is wonderful if you believe fecal penetration among homo men is biologically just as legit as real sexuality between men and women. Blackmail operates according to the prevailing taboos of a society. So, in the past, it was damaging for a person to be exposed as a homo, which is why even Liberace sued a British newspaper for describing his style as fruity — even though the paper didn’t explicitly say he’s a homo — , but today, if someone comes out as a homo, he or she is showered with admiration and awe, as if there’s nothing more wonderful in the world than a guy sucking another guy’s dick and having his bunghole be rammed by another guy’s penis. So, homos cannot be blackmailed anymore, but anyone who may have cracked a ‘gay’ joke or muttered something unkind about homosexuality can be blackmailed and destroyed for merely thinking that it’s gross, anti-natural, and unhealthy for a male sexual organ to be sliding in and out of the fecal-stained anus. Even if that person is entirely for tolerance of homos and even for ‘gay marriage’, he could well be destroyed if he said something even mildly critical of homos, homo power, or homosexuality; it’s like even the mildest criticism of Jewish power can get you in hot water. And it’s getting so that if someone even laughed at or made a joke about transvestites or trannies — though using such a term can also get you in hot water — , his or her career can be destroyed too. So, no matter how ridiculously or ludicrously homos and trannies act, we are not supposed to laugh or mock them but look upon their behavior with awe, wonderment, and boundless affection-adoration-adulation. Switch the taboos, and the rules of blackmail are also switched. The current order is ruled by homosexuals and Holosexuals — Jews are ‘Holosexuals’ as neo-Jewishness is more obsessed with the Holocaust than anything else in Jewish tradition — , and the homo men and the Holo men surreptitiously gather and share intelligence among themselves on other groups so that if someone happens to do or say something that displeases homos or Holos, the Jomo cabal in the media will spring into action to bring that person down. Homocarthyism is many times more vicious and deadly than the short-lived McCarthyism ever was; also, whereas McCarthyism was loathed by much of the American intellectual and cultural elites, homocarthyism has the full backing of America’s media, government, Hollywood, and Wall Street elites. America today is so debased that anyone can be brought down for being exposed that he or she may have laughed at a ‘gay’ joke just once. And remember what happened to the Beauty Contestant Carrie Prejean who, when asked about ‘gay marriage’ by Perez Hilton, said she supported traditional marriage? The entire Jomo Cabal media apparatus went into overdrive to expose unflattering things about her secret life. Now, would the Jomo Cabal media have done the same to her IF she’d given the answer that Hilton preferred? No, she would have been celebrated and praised as the most beautiful and noblest person in the world. Such cases of shaming-and-destroying by the Jomo Cabal media demonstrate how blackmail can be used legally through indirect means. If the Jomo Cabal had threatened Carrie Prejean with an explicit message that it will smear her reputation UNLESS she comes out for ‘gay marriage’, that would have been criminal blackmail. But by creating examples like her, the Jomo Cabal sends a message to all Americans — especially those who aspire to be famous — that they better not say or do anything to displease Holos or homos since the Jomo Cabal will do to them what was done to Carrie Prejean. Now, one might say such a beauty contestant could have found solace among Conservatives who might have defended her right to and her rightness in standing up for true marriage, but there’s little comfort in the Conservative community for people chasing after glamour since all the vanity-and-popular-culture industries are owned and controlled by Holos, Homos, and their ilk. Unless Conservatives can create their own vast entertainment industry, even conservative-leaning wanna-be-stars and wanna-be-celebrities are going to have to put out ideologically and even sexually to the Jewish-and-homo or Jomo Cabal that uses most talent as tools or pieces of meat for them to cook, prepare, and market — after enjoying it for themselves. Furthermore, as today’s mainstream Conservatism is so slavish to Wall Street, Jewish elites, and the super-rich, it doesn’t even have the guts and spine to stand up for true marriage. If Wall Street super-rich want it, mainstream Conservatives either support it or refuse to fight it — consider Orrin Hatch of Utah who says he still opposes ‘gay marriage’ in principle but will no longer fight it since, well, uh, there’s nothing that can be done about it, especially as he wants Goldman Sachs to invest in Salt Lake City. Conservatives are worthless craven whores who suck up to the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Lloyd Blankfein. Anyway, returning to Drayton in the final scenes of THE MIST, his rational faculty is forced to make decisions with very limited information since he can’t see through the mist, has no understanding of the military experiment that dissolved barriers among parallel universes, has no contact with electronic media, and is exhausted almost to his wit’s end. He’s like a person in the dark trying to make his way through a minefield. Rationality beats irrationality, but it all depends on the context: Rationality is useless without a sufficient supply of facts. The advantage of irrationality in times of powerlessness and lack of information is it imbues people with a sense of power and meaning despite their clueless-ness and helplessness. From THE MIST, we can see how and why evolution came to favor the ‘religiosity’ gene. For most of human existence, mankind knew nothing or very little about science and how the world around them really worked. Indeed, outside Ancient Greece and some parts of Rome, even most advanced civilizations like China, Persia, and India failed to develop the scientific mind. Since mankind knew so little and couldn’t make sense of most things, their main recourse to having some meaning in life and feeling in tune with the universe was through the fear and faith in gods or God; furthermore, such faith gave people a chance to reason and think about the truth in a ‘Platonic’ way; consider how, even before kids are introduced to science and facts, they learn to think about stuff through games, imagination, and stories. In many apocalyptic movies, the emphases usually happen to be on the physical struggle for survival, i.e. breakdown of Rule of Law turns the world into a struggle of ‘every man for himself. Such is less of a concern in THE MIST since people are inside a food store amply stocked with food, water, and other basic necessities — like the survivors in the shopping mall in DAWN OF THE DEAD — , and instead, the movie’s primary focus is on the psychologies of the characters who are confronted with a mystery and horror so awesome and fearsome that they are rendered nearly powerless. They feel powerless on the physical level as the creatures outside are so terrifying, grotesque, and/or huge. Also, the mist has made it impossible for them to see much of anything, so no one WHERE the monsters may be lurking. But even more frightening and ‘disempowering’ is the utter surrealism of the event that defies every rule of reality they’d know all their lives. [Indeed, if such things were to happen in our world, how would we react? What would we think? They would undermine so many of the fundamentals of science that we’d been taught since grade school, and we would lose conviction in any sense of rational certainty. Even Richard Dawkins might be tempted to get on his knees and start believing in higher powers if not exactly in God. The events would defy and overwhelm even the minds of the greatest scientists who would be at loss of words as to what’s happening, and why & how. In this sense, the ‘good guys’ of THE MIST are, in some ways, the crazy ones because they cling to some measure of sense in a world that has gone utterly crazy. Suppose you were to wake up one morning and see the sun dancing around and singing "Mrs. Brown You Got a Lovely Daughter" by Herman’s Hermits. It’d be batshit crazy, and you’d be batshit crazier if you consulted an astronomy book to figure out why the sun is acting that way.] Maybe craziness is the norm. We understand the natural world much better now — how storm clouds form, how hurricanes develop, why volcanos erupt, and etc. — but in the past, many natural phenomena would have struck most people as utterly inexplicable, horrible, unreal, and mad. Since they couldn’t make sense of the world in physical terms — modern science as a universal knowledge is a recent development, even in the West —, they sought order within the framework of the human mind and heart that reveled in religious notions of magical or mysterious beings/forces commanding the forces of nature. All such notions turned out to be factually wrong, but they were psychologically ‘right’ in the sense that all minds seek some kind of equilibrium and ‘the answer’ for things even when true answers aren’t available. This is why the likes of Richard Dawkins tend to be shallow and vapid in their sneering dismissal religions and spirituality as so much bunk. They fail to realize that, prior to the rise of science as a reliable foundation of human knowledge[and the rise of modern economies that made universal education possible], it was all too natural and understandable for people to rely on religions for some semblance of order in the world, inner and outer. ‘Spirits’ served as connective links between man and the world, i.e. even though man knew little of how the world really worked, his belief in spirits assured him of the existence of higher powers behind both man and the world; and through such powers man and the world were thought to be ‘spiritually’ interconnected in some way. It was man’s power of fiction that enabled him to better cope with facts he couldn’t rationally understand. Of course, the likes of Dawkins are correct in complaining that religious people[especially in the Western world]have no excuse for being so ignorant and stupid they have access to universal education that more than amply teaches the basic facts of science. But then, the main culprit might not so much be religion as the degradation of popular culture and the undermining of family life. As the problem of broken families increases and as so many kids are into hedonistic junk culture, they don’t pay attention in school and fail to develop properly critical, let alone scientific, mentalities. And even though Political Correctness is secular — mostly anyway — , it is also antithetical to critical thinking, skepticism, open discourse, and rationality. Instead, it favors taboos, shaming, witch-hunts for heretics, group-think, clerisy-as-neo-clergy, culture of feminist hysteria, blank-slate homo indoctrination of children from kindergarten, the irrational cult of ‘white guilt’, and etc. It pushes secular dogmas than secular facts, and, as with the case of communism, it employs tools and tactics perfected by religious orders. [Let’s face it. Most secular elites of power and high intelligence have very little confidence in the mental abilities of most people — despite the Liberal elite’s lip-service to egalitarian principles — , and they much prefer to use quasi-religious or pop-propagandistic means to sway the masses. But PC isn’t just about smart people using taboos and emotional/sensual manipulation to control the dumb masses; it’s also about unintelligent people leaning on the crutch of dogma and emotional righteousness against people with higher intelligence and superior abilities. After all, the righteous feel they’re right even when they’re wrong. If, for example, 2 + 2 = 5 is said to be ‘anti-racist’, the righteous will feel justified in attacking the smarter person who can demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4. Consider the film OLEANNA in which a dumb female student feels so powerless when it comes to her mental abilities but then feels so empowered upon taking up an officially sanctioned dogma. Many middle-level managerial type prefer dogma because it is easier for their mediocre minds to understand and empowers them with the simple Truth. They know they can’t match wits with higher-level people but they can win in the battle-of-wills if they have righteous dogma on their side. Of course, the power of quasi-religious dogma is also used by smart people against other smart people. Suppose smart Jewish elites fear that their Narrative will be undermined by the scientific findings and rational arguments of other intelligent people who don’t care for the Narrative. Since smart Jews cannot win factually and rationally against people like Nicholas Wade, they use the power of dogma to rile up respectable and populist opinion against the ‘heretics’ or ‘inheritics’.] Dawkins ought to know all about the pitfalls of secular dogmatism because he got in hot water over criticizing a stupid ‘atheist’ woman who hysterically and falsely accused a man for ‘sexual harassment’ simply on the basis that he confessed admiration for her and asked her out on a date. PC is about as scientific as Marxist materialist ‘science’ or Nazi racial ‘science’. I mean what can one say about a form of ideology that promoted the fraudulent lies of Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin as Absolute Truth for several decades? But of course, there are certain taboos that even the secular-rationalist-and-free-thinking Dawkins will not touch since they constitute the third rail of PC as controlled by Jews. Dawkins is right to mock stupid Christian Creationists and idiotic Muslims who literally believe everything in their holy books, but that is too easy and too safe. If he were really courageous, he would challenge the anti-scientific biases and taboos that exist WITHIN the academic, intellectual, and scientific communities, a failing that is far more egregious since people who claim to be for science and truth should not be using taboos and upholding dogmas to shut down debate & research, ruin reputations, and distort or prohibit entire areas of knowledge. At any rate, in a bright world where everyone can see everything equally well, the person of reason is to be favored over the person of faith since the eyes can see, assess, and figure out things as they really are. One would be blind to stick to faith and only faith in such a world. However, if both the man of reason and man of faith are enveloped in darkness — even to the point where reasons is rendered almost useless — , is there an advantage in reason over faith? If you know a lot about how the stock markets work, your power of reason is a real advantage. But if lack access to the knowledge, you might as well rely on a fortune teller. In a way, this is why THE TRIAL by Franz Kafka goes from legality and sociality — where rationality is of paramount importance — to religiosity and ritualism. Try as he might, Joseph K has no access to his case on any factual level, so he finally submits to power as a dark mystery; it goes from modern to medieval. Though Mrs. Carmody is the one who called for human sacrifice whereas such an idea would never cross Drayton’s mind, it is ironic that he is the one who kills four innocent people in his car. Of course, he does it for what seems to be rational and moral reasons: better that they die quick merciful deaths than be devoured gruesomely by monsters; in a way, his act seems a noble act of self-sacrifice because, out of bullets, he faces the prospect of dying painfully at the claws of monsters unlike the others who were killed instantly. And yet, his killings are a kind of a human sacrifice to his cult of reason. Without knowing for certain what may happen in the next hour or two, Drayton took a leap of faith and rationally surmised that monsters will soon arrive and devour the passengers. Actually, one problem with the decision for the mercy-killings is the survivors should have known by then that monsters generally don’t attack people inside buildings or cars. So, wouldn’t they have been safe inside the car for at least a day or two? But then, minds on the edge of despair are not thinking very clearly; but then, even a cloudy mind that is used to thinking clearly still thinks it’s thinking clearly when it’s not. It’s like a person who’s used to jogging fast still thinks he or she’s jogging fast even when he or she’s slowed down considerably from exhaustion. I wonder if the rationale for monsters-generally-not-entering-the-food-mart is a metaphor for the movie experience where the horror consumes the screen but doesn’t enter into the realm of the audience — though, to be sure, a few giant insects do crash through the window at one point in THE MIST. Anyway, according to Wikipedia, the ending in King’s novella differs from the ending in the movie. In King’s original story, Drayton thinks he heard something on the car radio and, filled with uncertain hope, drives on into the distance. But what both endings have in common is the suggestion of how reason can slide into an article of faith. After all, if Drayton-in-the-original-story just barely thinks he heard something on the radio and drives into the mystery in search of a hope, he is operating on faith as well as on fact — or maybe ‘faict’. Anyway, when the mist lifts at the end of the movie, it creates the strangest kind of effect on our emotions: the paradoxical shock of the normal/obvious. The clearing of the mist doesn’t merely dissolve the unknown — the mystery mist harboring strange monsters — and replace it with the known/knowable but almost seems to transpose us from one universe to another. And yet, because this ‘new’ universe is the ‘old’ reality, we feel a sense of both liberation and enclose-ment; it’s like someone digging out of prison to arrive back in prison. [It’s sort of like the ending of THE PLANET OF THE APES where the Charlton Heston character finally breaks free from the ape society only to discover that he’s been ‘home’ all along.] The human mind and senses being what they are, when faced with the unknown, they aren’t merely content or careful to acknowledge the unknown but tend to fill the unknown with their presuppositions. Anyone who has walked into the dark woods know this. The mind doesn’t merely think ‘the woods around me are dark’ but tends to see the darkness as a vast and infinite universe of all sorts of possibilities. Or it can even be woods during daytime. One could enter a tiny forest but, surrounded by trees all around, could easily feel that the forest stretches on indefinitely on all sides. The mist has a similar effect on Drayton. His mind hopes that the mist will stretch on for just a few miles, but another part of his mind fears — and is fascinated by — the possibility that the mist may cover the entire world. Thus, even though Drayton and others can’t see much through the mist, the fact that they’ve driven for a quite a stretch in the mist[though, to be sure, even a short distance can seem epic when so much remains unseen and unknown] — and even seen a super-giant monster lumber past as if to claim the world as its own — subconsciously convinces them that the mist has taken over everything and probably envelops all the world. It is now The Reality, and humans have lost their world to the mist and creatures from parallel universes. And we come to feel the same way. So, when the mist lifts and we realize that it had affected only a small part of the American Northwest — and humans will soon restore order and reclaim their world — , the effect is far more jarring. It comes as a relief but also ‘disappoints’ because the profundity of our imagination is deflated.[It’s like the mice-and-the-maze scenario. Suppose mice are left in a very familiar setting but a maze structure is imposed on them. Sudden, the familiar-and-known environment becomes very strange and fascinating to the mice. The mice will be filled with anxiety & fear but also intense interest and curiosity. It will try to figure out this ‘new’ environment, but then, suppose the maze is lifted and the mice suddenly feel the shock of familiarity, normal, and the obvious. The moment would be both a relief and a disappointment. The mice would realize they’ve always been in the same place, but it would also be boring to realize that the maze had only tricked them into believing they’d been transposed to a strange and fascinating place.] At the end of THE MIST, we’ve not only regained sight of the real world but lost an entire universe we’ve come to believe in with fear and terror but also fascination and awe. Imagine if, like the mice in the above scenario, you entered and became trapped inside a maze for days on end. Though your conscious mind would know that the maze is finite and there has to be some way out, some part of your psyche will fear and be fascinated with the trepidation that the maze goes on forever and there’s no way out. But then, suppose the maze were to vanish just then and reveal that you’d been ‘going around in circles’ within a small area and you were actually standing pretty close to where you’d started from. There would be relief but also a kind of disappointment in the sense of "So, is this all there is?" This is why a Kafka’s stories are so unnerving. The mazes within them could be real, could be infinite, or could be just a prank. But then, if God is into pranks, even a silly little trick could be epic and infinitely mysterious for us insignificant creatures. Or consider the Zone in Andrei Tarkovsk’s adaptation of STALKER. Are the rumors about the Zone real, fabricated, or speculative? Is what has been said about the Zone the accounts of reliable witnesses, unbalanced kooks, or government propagandists[to keep people out or to distract dissenters with the hope of some kind of escapism? All systems of power rely on the element of myth because, once the curtains are lifted and the mechanisms are exposed — as in THE WIZARD OF OZ and ZARDOZ — , it becomes apparent that the actual operators of the system are people like you and me. They may be more intelligent and capable, but they are just people with all the problems and flaws that we have. For example, we are told that the Oscars are given by the ‘academy’, but what does the academy really consist of? It’s a bunch of industry people who don’t know or care much about cinema as art. And who actually decides on the awards handed out at Cannes Film Festival? The likes of Quentin Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, Whoopie Goldberg, and Kirk Douglas invited to serve as panelists. Or, consider something like the Nobel Prize that garners so much respect around the world, but who are the sort of individuals who really get to pick the winners? Many of them are hustlers, opportunists, and dogmatists of low moral character. Stanley Kauffmann, upon watching D.A. Pennebaker’s THE WAR ROOM, admitted being rather let down that the grand spectacle of politics was actually directed by guys like George Stephanopoulos and James Carville[the ugliest mofo that ever lived]. This isn’t to say that some systems aren’t indeed very powerful and awesome. Who would deny the real power of America. But no matter how powerful a system, its rulers are always emperors-without-clothes to an extent since they all-too-human despite their special aura of power and greatness. [Generally, while political leaders are propped up to seem more powerful than they really are, the true oligarchic masters who pull the strings are made out to seem far less special and powerful than they really are; indeed, many even remain anonymous and unknown to the public eye despite the tremendous power they exert through their puppets in government, media, academia, and various institutions.] The powerful may hide behind departments of this or that, or something called the ‘Federal Reserve’ or ‘Supreme Court’ or whatever, but behind such mythic titles and mystique, they are only individuals. And as individuals, they can be brought down. No individual is invincible after all. This is why the Wasp elites were brought down, in spectacular fashion I might add. This is why the seemingly permanent and impervious Soviet Union crumbled overnight. This is why the Russian Tsar lost everything overnight in 1917. Though they ruled over vast and powerful systems, they were still nothing but individuals, and when powerful people are ‘exposed’ as fools, idiots, and flawed morons, they are vulnerable to the forces arrayed against them. This is why Castro in Cuba, the Kims in North Korea, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and other such clowns rely so much on maintaining the myth because the true nature of power in those nations is so piss-ant pathetic and ridiculous. Of course, dumb rulers come to believe in their own grandiose myth of invincibility and may be brought down by their own absurd ambitions. Or, when rulers promote themselves as almighty and invincible but chinks in their armor began to show, they could be headed for a steep tragic fall; bigger they are, the harder they fall. This is why Jews, as powerful as they are, are careful to hide their power and use goy buffers/fronts[the shabbos goyim] to do their bidding[and take the blame when things go wrong]. So, if the Jewish agenda blows up, the bulk of the blame falls on the likes of Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and etc. Jews always remind themselves that history giveth, history taketh away. When the French people looked upon their king as magnificent and regal, they were awed by the mystique of power. But when the Revolutionaries debunked and mocked the mystique as phony baloney, the awe and reverence surrounding the king evaporated almost overnight. Jews did the same thing to the Wasp elites, ‘exposing’ them as an unearned privileged class of phonies, poseurs, old-boys-network, shallow bigots, vapid snobs, and etc. And this is why Jews monopolize the media. The media are the mist-machine that determines what we see and what we don’t see. Jews get pissed and hysterical if we try to remove the smoke-and-mist from their own power. They want us to see Jews — even rich, powerful and privileged ones — through the fog of Holocaust forever and ever. If we were to see the real Jew at last, we’d realize that we are being ruled by a conspiratorial network of arrogant, sniveling, nasty, contemptuous, self-righteous, venomous, and hideous individuals of low moral character who think, plot, and act in ways that only confirm the accusations of ‘anti-Semites’ through the ages. No matter how great and powerful a system, the people who run it are just people like the rest of us[even if they’re many times smarter than us], and if we see past the mystique of power and see them for what they are, we’d realize they can be attacked and brought down like the rotten French monarchy. This is why Jews feel they must monopolize the media in order to be the only ones with the power to weave the mist that fools us with their mystique of power combined with their mystique of eternal tragedy. Of course, this Jewish-made mist hides and/or obfuscates up all the truths about Jewish ‘historical crimes’ against gentiles, but that’s how Jews play the game. If the mist of Jewish power were to lift one day, we would see with clarity that the elites of this country are a bunch of nasty vile Jews who pull the leash on their craven goy running dogs. Anyway, ending of THE MIST is especially jarring because Drayton suffers from a kind of double remorse. A part of him is relieved that humanity is winning the war and rolling back the mist. But that development has nullified what he’d done to his son and the passengers in the car. For his mercy killings to be justified, the monsters of the mist should have triumphed over humanity. That way, his killings would have been morally sanctioned; furthermore, his own death at the hands, claws, or tentacles of the monsters would have ended his own misery. And yet, to wish the destruction of humanity just so his deed would have been justified is also terrible and likely guilt-inducing. [But given the nature of the ego, people sometimes subconsciously root for great tragedies if only to be proven right/righteous. Something in us would rather be proven right with the end of the world than proven wrong with the continuation of the world. This is true of religious folks. The end of the world would be a terrible thing, but some religious folks live with the conviction that the world will end on a certain date, and that conviction becomes the centerpiece of their lives. Since their pride and vanity are so wrapped in being proven right by events, they want to end to happen than not happen. If the end doesn’t come, it’d be a good thing, a blessing for humanity, but the devotees will be disappointed as if the continuation of the world is an affront to their righteous egos. When Noah built the Ark, he didn’t consciously want humanity to be drowned and killed in the flood. And yet, because he staked his pride and righteousness on the prophecy of the flood, a part of him found satisfaction in the providence of the Higher Power. Or consider the outcome of the Iraq War. A part of all of us — even anti-war people — didn’t want Iraq to turn into a fiasco since it would entail horrible suffering and bloodshed. And yet, another part of those who’d opposed the war were happy to see the implosion of the war because they were proven right and could say "See, I told you so." Righteous pride is very satisfying and addictive, even when it entails great destruction. Ron Paul may not be a drug user, but he sure got a high from right about the Iraq War and Wall Street. And consider the character of MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. One of the locals — the guy who played the ruthless fruiter in NO WAY OUT which should have been called No Gay Out — begins to hear messages from some being called ‘Indrid Cold’. He hears some numbers in his head, and the next day, a plane crash happens to be associated with those numbers: flight number and number of casualties. Initially, the local guy is distraught by the horror of such prophecy, but when another number he hears matches another tragedy, he begins to feel a certain pride, a sense of self-importance. He’s been a nobody all his life, but suddenly he feels special, like the chosen, like Noah who hears warning from higher powers. He’s gotten into the habit of wishing his prophecies to be confirmed though such confirmation will mean more innocent people will die in future tragedies; and we’re not sure if Indrid Cold causes such tragedies or merely warns some people of them; we are not sure if he warns some people to aid humanity or if he’s hustling humanity to go for the ultimate kill. The local guy is not an evil man and he’s grateful to the higher powers, of which Indrid Cold seems to be agent, for supplying him with premonitions of the future, but his bloated pride also makes him kinda crazy, like Roy in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. But even the main character of the movie — played by Richard Gere — falls into the same kind of mind-set. He surmises that the messages he’s been getting from Indrid Cold constitute a warning about some disaster at a chemical factory. Consciously, he wants to save lives. He sees it as his moral duty to convince people to shut down the factory. Consciously, he doesn’t wish for anything to happen at the factory. But because his righteous pride has become so entwined with the disaster, he is rather disappointed when, in fact, nothing happens. MOTHMAN PROPHECIES is a strange movie because we are never sure if Indrid Cold is a divine or demonic figure, or both. It belongs to a different kind of horror where the barrier between good and bad break down. It’s like THE OTHERS and THE WARD where nothing is really as it seems. Both films trick us into thinking in terms of ‘us versus them’ when the ‘reality’ in both films are, at once, far more complicated and far simpler, or they are far more complicated because they’re far simpler. Both movies work like human complexes. Complexes are formed by repression of simple problems. The repression makes the simple problem fester into dark complications in the psyche. And yet, because the complex has taken over the psyche, there needs to be a sophisticated means to drill through the complications of the psyche and recover the repressed simple problem.] So, Drayton is truly trapped within himself. If his fears had proven correct, his killing of the passengers — including his own son — would have been justified, but then it could well mean the end of humanity. He would be redeemed, but the world would be lost. As it happens, the world is redeemed, but[and/or therefore] Drayton is lost. When Abraham was ordered by God to kill his son Isaac, God intervened at the last moment, but US military, the great man-made power of the world, fails to stop Drayton from killing the passengers. Even though the military isn’t to blame, Drayton’s psyche may well feel cheated by the secular god of human-technological power. The mist partly serves as metaphor for the paradigmatic nature of the mind, i.e. the mind, when faced with an impenetrable mystery, takes few available clues and weaves them into a ‘world-view’ that takes on a life of its own and, in some ways, becomes as certain as the mystery is uncertain. Indeed, the greatest example of this is God. Mankind created a concept of utmost certainty in the face of unfathomable uncertainty, and the paradigm of a universe ruled by God came to be truer and more certain than the mystery of the universe itself. Especially when pushed up against a wall, the mind craves certainty because contemplation of uncertainty is too taxing as a luxury when one’s very survival is at stake. Paradoxically, though the mind works to clear away the mist and make sense of the world, in doing so the mind weaves a mist of its own by creating entire paradigms on limited or even flimsy evidence. Anyway, even though THE MIST is no masterpiece and not even a great movie — though it does have some remarkable moments — , it’s one of those interesting movies; and interesting movies aren’t necessary the best ones or even good ones. Some films, despite their greatness, don’t linger in your mind, whereas certain other films leave a long-lasting impression. They ‘shine’ in the way the bald-headed Negro Halloran explains in Kubrick’s movie: "It's just that, you know, some places are like people. Some ‘shine’ and some don't. I guess you could say the Overlook Hotel here has somethin' almost like ‘shining’... when something happens, it can leave a trace of itself behind. Say like, if someone burns toast. Well, maybe things that happen leave other kinds of traces behind. Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who ‘shine’ can see. Just like they can see things that haven't happened yet. Well, sometimes they can see things that happened a long time ago. I think a lot of things happened right here in this particular hotel over the years … and not all of 'em was good." Though ‘art films’ are thought to be more serious and deep, genre films can often be more provocative because genres work as a kind of game, and they become especially interesting when the game is expanded, complicated, subverted, twisted, and revised by intrusions of art, reality, personal vision, and etc. Also, it helps if there are more than one dominant author as a game is usually more interesting with multiple players. It’s like poker is more interesting and fun than a game of solitaire. It’s like a dialogue, trialogue, quadrologue, or polyogue is more interesting than a monologue, though monologue can be very intense. Though there are lots of riches to be mined in the films of Ingmar Bergman, Michelangelo Antonioni, and Robert Bresson, they are like intense monologues. There isn’t much of a game for the audience to play since it’s a one-man-show and one-man-vision. And the meaning is single-layered since there’s a single dominant author who served as both writer and director. Also, their films are meant to be art taken rather earnestly. But, directors like Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick almost always relied on other writers and often based their films on novels. As a result, there were multiple levels of game-playing: between the novelist and screenwriter, between the screenwriter and director. Instead of a dominant artist hitting the ball against the wall, there were several creative figures hitting the ball back and forth, making it a more varied game, though not necessarily a more meaningful or deeper one. Hitchcock and Kubrick – as well as Orson Welles — really stand out among the giants of cinema for, on the one hand, they were total masters who played the role of dominant authors[indeed no less than Bergman, Bresson, and Antonioni] but, on the other hand, preferred to ‘play’ with the stories of other men[usually novelists] and with the ideas of collaborators[hired screen-writers] — as well as with some of the most original and talented technical people in the business. If ‘pure film artists’ like Bergman and Bresson generally served themselves and if movie professionals generally served the story/vision/ideas of the writers[or just did as ordered by the production company], Hitchcock and Kubrick served themselves by serving the ideas of others, and it was this contradiction that made their films especially memorable and provocative. They were, at once, megalomaniacal in transforming the material to serve their own visions and generous in creatively playing a subservient role[as well as subversive game]with material originally laid out by the novelists/writers. It’s like in THE SHINING, Kubrick is sometimes the servant of King and sometimes the master of King, bending and molding the novel with the help of the screen writer Diane Johnson to tease out meanings and implications that either totally escaped King’s mind or came nowhere near his intentions. When such a creative game is played, it can’t possibly please everyone since the writer will feel that his original vision has been altered or corrupted whereas the director will insist on the validity of his own vision despite the writer’s displeasure, but it is this unsettled friction that keeps producing the sparks of controversies of interpretation. Indeed, the sort of films that have inspired the most discussion, analysis, and controversy are those ‘unsettled’ ones that are the products of multiple artists working both in contrast and collaboration. Consider VERTIGO, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, THE SHINING[which is now rightfully considered as a masterpiece], STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, THE SEARCHERS, HIGH AND LOW, THE GODFATHER, and etc. This isn’t to suggest that the films of Bergman, Antonioni, or Bresson are less important but rather that their meanings tend to be self-contained since they are the intense works of single dominant authors, and as such, there’s less of the ‘game’ in them. And this is why best films of Alain Resnais are, in many ways, more ‘fun’ to revisit because he collaborated with writers with their own visions, therefore playing a kind of game where he, as director, batted the ball around with the writers with their own ideas. To be sure, a writer-director can do it all and create a work of immense interest as a mind-game, but he or she usually happens to be juggler of genre and art or of different forms of art. Think of David Cronenberg, David Mamet, and David Lynch. Cronenberg has often been a writer-and-director using ‘puerile’ genre cliches as raw material for his intellectual concerns. Mamet has often grappled with real world problems that fascinate/obsess him most but on the poker table of genre formulations, a kind of test of truth vs trick. Lynch’s MULHOLLAND DR. is about as low and high — hide-and-seek game and tragic lamentation — as a work of cinema can be. It’s this tension between the puerile and the pure, between the game and the gravitas, between the apparently unserious and the deadly serious, and between the professional and the personal that make their films so difficult to pigeonhole but so easy to revisit as a kind of game that can be played over and over in search of new hints and meanings. At any rate, some art forms are necessarily ‘monologue-ish’: most authors write alone, most painters paint alone, and most sculptors design their works alone. But something like cinema requires so many levels of creative input that it’s often too much for one person to play the role of Total Author. And indeed, Bergman, Antonioni, and Bresson were able to sustain their high quality of work because they generally made smaller-budgeted films — though for the big production of ZABRISKIE POINT, Antonioni relied on American writers. Woody Allen, as writer-director, also made small-scale films. But for big productions, it’s difficult to imagine someone functioning as both the dominant writer and director. Terry Gilliam might see himself as a super-director, but he’s usually a total disaster. He can do well enough servicing the ideas of other people, as in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL. And he got real lucky with FISHER KING. But just about everything else he did is unwatchable. Art isn’t only about what to add but what to take out. While ‘less is more’ may be too simplistic as a formula, more certainly isn’t more in art, but Gilliam just piles on his movies with everything he can get hold of; it’s like pizza with 100 toppings, including potato chips and jelly beans. Hitchcock and Kubrick knew how to use the chef’s knife. Gilliam cooks like the Three Stooges. Quentin Tarantino is another who takes great pride as a kind of super-auteur, one who does it all, but most of his story ideas are merely rehashes of exploitation B-movies, and most of the dialogue is about filling the mouths of his characters with nonsense talk about everything and nothing, though some of it’s very cleverly written. Tarantino is like someone who sits on the potty at the dinner table and thinks he’s a genius because he talks with food in his mouth while pissing and shitting at the same time; you see, he can do everything at once. How far he’s sunk morally and artistically since his first and best film RESERVOIR DOGS. If Nero or Caligurla became film-makers, he would have been someone like Tarantino. A writer-director of genre works has a less daunting task than a writer-director of art films because any work in genre is already half-prepared. Even if you want to write an original Western, the genre formulation already provides most of what you need, and your job is to rearrange and revise things for the ‘reboot’. In contrast, imagine if someone were to be a writer-director of an ‘art film’ about the actual West that might have been. He would have to do a lot of research into the history and culture. He would have to delve deeply into the personal psychologies of the characters and unearth truths that go against the cliches of the genre. Art is about seeking the truth against the legend than just printing the legend. This is the difference between GOODFELLAS and SCARFACE. It is also why Sam Peckinpah’s BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA failed rather miserably. Instead of creatively interacting with someone else’s script, Peckinpah played the dominant roles of writer[though he did have a collaborator] and director. Such a dual-task calls for double-the-concentration-and-effort. Alas, Peckinpah took on double-duty with half his usual input. Besides, Peckinpah was best as an interpreter and reviser of another man’s vision than a creator in his own right. It was bad enough Peckinpah was having problems drinking and directing, but when he opted to drink, write, and direct, it was all too much, and the film was a disaster, though a fascinating one like those grotesque car crashes. For BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA to work as art, Peckinpah needed to dig deeper into his characters, but the emotions reek mostly of drunken macho cliches and whatever focus/clarity exists in the film is too hung-over with morbid self-pity to illuminate anything. But it fails as genre too because Peckinpah mopes and gropes with too much earnest intensity for the material to come alive as narrative or game, as in THE GETAWAY. Frank Darabont, as far as I can tell from THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and THE MIST, is no more than a crafty professional. He’s very good at what he does but lacks the personal vision and mastery of Hitchcock or Kubrick[or even John Carpenter at his best]. Even so, he seems to have given much consideration as to the possibilities and meanings of THE MIST, and his effort, even if confined to Hollywood conventions, is effective and interesting enough to have produced a work of considerable interest that’s worth revisiting a few times. I wouldn’t go so far as to claim, as indie film-maker Shaun O’Connor did, that it’s a very great movie, but it is the rare horror movie that I found engaging on several levels instead of making me wonder when the next big fright is gonna hit. Anyway, though Stephen King is a big Liberal, I wonder if he’s as really naive as most Liberals are. He seems to have a mind and some knack for irony. In the early part of the movie when an MP[military police] enters the store, an old woman — a school-teacher as it turns out — complains about how it’s so wrong that so much money is spent on military technology when it could be spent on education. It’s the sort of Liberal cliche claptrap we’ve heard a million times. Spend more on students, less on bombs and missiles, blah blah. But do such Liberals ever realize that we spend so much on bombs and missiles precisely because we spend so much on education? US spends a tremendous amount on public education, private education, college education, elite education, and etc. Indeed, if US didn’t spend so much on education, it would also spend a lot less on the military since many more people would be uneducated, without skills, and without the know-how to run businesses and government. It’s because US spends a vast amount on education that a lot of people become businessmen and make a lot of money and hire a lot of people. And all those people pay taxes to the government, and when a government has lots of money, it can afford a massive military for self-defense and to exert its influence around the world. Also, knowledge = power, so naturally, lots of highly educated and highly intelligent people want to work at the cutting edge of science and technology, and some of them are going to be fascinated with military technology since nothing is as powerful as bombs and missiles. Think about it. If you’re a smart kid and provided with education, you will likely go to a top science and technology school. Since you’re so smart, you’re going to want to advance technology to come up with better stuff whether in the private sector or government-military sector. After all, it wasn’t illiterates who manned the Manhattan Project. No, it was the culmination of American system of mass education and elite education. Though for most people, education means learning the basics to get by in life, for really smart kids education means gaining super-knowledge to push science and technology in new directions, and this is as true with military technology as with consumer electronics. If Bill Gates had been interested in the military, he might have committed his time and energy toward making better bombs and missiles. So, I wonder if King just naively agrees with the sentiments of the old teacher or was aware of the ironic connection between massive spending on education and massive spending on the military. After all, if knowledge = power, then more knowledge will crave more power, and where is power more exciting than in the military? Republican presidents or Democratic presidents, they sure get a kick out of the fact that US can kick ass all over the world. And Jewish Liberals take great pride in the fact that America and Israel spend a great deal on education and produce world-class Jewish scientists who can build better weapons with which to massacre untold numbers of Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians. Anyway, those who want to hold the power must also control the Narrative. It is the Narrative that either lends spiritual or moral justification in seeking, holding, and expanding the power. One can have power without the ownership of the Narrative, but the power will seem unjustified and unwarranted in the eyes of the masses. It’s like gangsters can have control over a neighborhood, but people would still see gangsters as gangsters, thugs with illegitimate power. It’d be power as power without moral justification. This is why even gangsters have gone for public relations stunts, posing as Robin Hoods of their neighborhoods or as the lesser of two evils. Italian mobs, for instance, rigged things in Italian-American communities so that ‘moolies’ would be kept out[a sort of crude working class version of what rich Jews do in Manhattan through their politicians, judges, and lawyers], and that much was indeed appreciated by the community as the even the mafia is preferable to Negroes. Better to have organized crime than jungle-ass crime. Also, as the early generations of Italian-Americans didn’t know their way around Anglo-American or Irish-American dominated big cities, they had to rely on community organizations, and the mafia sometimes offered social advice and protection, which was also the case with the Chinese gangs — or at least in the movies. The story of the American Revolution presented a Narrative that made the Colonial rebels out to be committed freedom fighters willing to sacrifice life and limb for Liberty and made the British King out to be the worst tyrant that ever done lived. The truth was very different. The British had been almost as beneficent to the colonial folks as Wasp elites were later to the rising Jewish elites. However, the British feared that if the colonials were given equal footing in every sphere, their power would eventually surpass that of the motherland since the New World was so vast in size, resources, and potential population. So, total equality was out of the question IF the goal of the British were to maintain dominance. Some colonial elites took umbrage at this — as well as being fired with ambitions for themselves to take over as the new elites — and cooked up some simple-minded Narrative about freedom vs tyranny. Rising Jewish elites felt sort of the same way. Though they’d been allowed to succeed beyond their wildest imaginations in the Wasp-controlled America, they knew that Wasps had gotten used to being the ruling elites of America and employed all manners of controls — subtle and not-so-subtle — to ensure that Jews would rise high but sufficiently high to challenge Wasp dominance. So, Jews figured that the way to undermine Wasp power was to gain control of the academia, media, and entertainment and change the Narrative so that white gentile folks, especially of Wasp stock, would be castigated and derided as especially wicked, bigoted, privileged, odious, noxious, toxic, rabid, virulent, and etc. So, even though Wasps continued to wield elite power well into the 70s, their moral advantage premised on the founding myth of America had been pulled from under their feet. The new Narrative said the American Founding had been on sound principles but the Revolutionary elites ultimately chose privilege over equality, power over freedom, ‘racism’ over universal values, and provincialism over the Proposition. With the New/Jew Narrative breathing down their necks, white elites found themselves on the defensive, trying to justify their power and privilege by becoming more politically correct themselves, teaching their own kids to be anti-white, increasing ‘diversity’ in elite ranks, and, most of all, sucking up to vile, nasty, and hideous Jews. That said, even without the Old Narrative, the rule of white gentile elites would be assured in an overwhelmingly white gentile nation since white rulers would have been supported and buttressed by the great white majority. But it’s different with Jews. As Jews are a small minority in the US and an even smaller minority in EU and Russia, they rely on the control of the Narrative to morally browbeat and humiliate the much larger gentile population. Without the control of the Narrative, gentiles would look upon Jews as too powerful, too influential, too subversive, too privileged, too aggressive/pushy, and too arrogant. But the Jewish control of the Narrative lends moral justification to Jewish judgmentalism. This is why Jews are nervous about the Nakba Narrative. For the longest time, Zionist Jews and their allies in both Israel and the US insisted on the lie that most Palestinians had voluntarily left what-is-now-Israel-proper because Arab authorities had sounded the alarm and scared them into fleeing from Jewish military advance. According to this Narrative, Jews had wanted the Palestinians to remain in their homes; Jews wanted to live with Arabs in peace as fellow Semitic brothers & sisters and next-door neighbors. But, or so the Narrative goes, the paranoid Arab demagogues had spread the ‘canard’ about Jews coming to spread terror and violence upon the Palestinian population, and that is why all those Palestinians departed from what-is-now-Israel-proper on their own. But in truth, the reason why over 700,000 Palestinians fled from Israel proper was precisely because the so-called ‘canard’ was true, indeed not just as prophecy but as practice. Jews did enter Arab territories and did spread terror-looting-violence-rape-beating-killings to drive out the Palestinian population. Jews take great pride as speakers of truth to power, so why did they lie about the Nakba for so long? Jews only admitted the truth when the mountain of evidence simply could not be denied. Even so, Nakba Denial had been the backbone of the Zionist Narrative well into the 80s; and the great majority of Americans never even heard the word ‘Nakba’ and have no idea what really happened; and many who do know just giggle at what happened to the Palestinians while being totally oblivious to the fact that Jews are engineering the Nakba of white populations in America and Europe. If Jews had to choose between Truth and Power, they’ll go with Power. Now, if Jews could only choose between Truth and Survival, I could understand them choosing the Lie in order to Survive, but there’s no threat to Jewish Survival in any part of the West. What Jews want now is supremacist power; indeed they are addicted to it like a degenerate gambler is to gambling. And so, they keep pushing the Narrative in order to morally justify their power since, without such moral justification, people would see the Real Jew at last. So, Jews have to keep flashing the Holocaust yellow Star of David because if the Narrative fabric were torn off, we would see not some holy tragic Jews but a bunch of rich arrogant degenerate Jew a**holes intoxicated with power, lust, hatred, contempt, bigotry, hypocrisy, and hideousness. Same goes for the Chinese Communist Party. Surely, the Communist Party elites know that the actual modern history of China isn’t as simplistic as they pretend it to be. It wasn’t a simple case of wicked British Imperialists invading and selling opium to weaken the helpless and tragic Chinese. If anything, thanks to Britain’s forced opening of China, a great deal of progress has been achieved by the Chinese in the following century. But the power of the Chinese Communist Party is based on the Narrative that the China since the 19th century had been controlled by ‘foreign devil’ invaders and their running dog lackeys[or racial/national traitors] who’d chosen self-interest over national pride, BUT THEN, the great Communist Party under the leadership of Mao Zedong drove out the foreigners, quashed the greedy running dog lackeys, and enabled the Chinese to ‘stand up in the world’ once again. Without such control of the Narrative by the Communist Party, the Chinese people would find out about all the horrors committed by the Communists and realize that today’s Communist officials are a bunch of self-serving autocrats who say one thing but do something other for their own personal interests. So, the Narrative is very important. Without moral justification[or the mandate of heaven or mandate of the ‘people’], power tends to be shaky. Batista found out as much in Cuba. He had the money, the connections, and the military on his side. But he was seen by most people, even his allies, as just a lackey of international gangsters. He power seemed raw and repulsive than cooked with moral flavoring. Same with the Shah of Iran. He amassed huge fortunes, had big powerful allies around the world, and had the military on his side, but he never controlled the Narrative could have morally justified his power in the eyes of his people. This is why Jews are fanatical in controlling the Narrative. It’s not about serving truth or justice but about morally justifying Jewish power by morally shaming white power. Jews are never ever to be trusted. Indeed, the evidence of the Jewish nature can be found in the Bible. Consider the tag-team match of God and Moses in the Exodus. Moses goes to the Pharaoh and insists that the Hebrews be freed and allowed to depart. Pharaoh tells Moses to kiss his ass. So, God sends all sorts of bad shit to Egypt. So, the Pharaoh figures it’s not good to have Jews around and allows Moses to lead his people out of Egypt. But then, God messes with Pharaoh’s mind, and the Pharaoh reverses his command and orders the Jews to remain. And then God punishes Pharaoh for not letting the Jews go. Then Moses again goes to the Pharaoh and tells him to let the Jews go, and the Pharaoh tells Moses to please take the freaking Jews out of Egypt. But then, God messes with his mind and he reverses his order again, and so, Egypt is punished again for not letting the Jews go. This is how Jews play the game. We saw it with Saddam Hussein. No matter what Hussein did, Jews found another reason to mess with him and destroy Iraq. Or take Iran, Syria, or Palestinians. It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t with the Jews. The Pharaoh was fuc*ed whether he decided to let the Jews go and make the Jews stay. If he decided to let the Jews go, God messed with his mind to make him reverse his command, and then he got punished again. Same with Putin, Russia, and Ukraine. No matter what Putin does, he’s made out to be the big bad pharaoh. As Jews control the governments of the richest & most powerful nations and the international media, they have the power of god. One bunch of Jews play the role of Moses and another bunch of Jews play the god-like role of messing with the minds of world’s leaders. Jews want Putin gone; they want him assassinated like Stolypin got assassinated. So, it doesn’t matter what Putin does. He’s a marked man because Jews are hideous, disgusting, power-mad, and venomous. Jews are the rats-and-snakes of the world — and weasels too, of course. Just look the vile countenance of Victoria Nuland. And then, consider the New Testament where Jews, time and time again, go to Roman authorities and demand that ‘heretics’ — those hated by Jews — be punished and killed. Most of the time, Romans are like, "Look, we are tolerant, so just as you Jews have the right to be Jewish, people you deem to be ‘heretics’ have the right to believe what they wanna believe." But Jews ultimately couldn’t tolerate Jews like Paul who deviated from the orthodoxy, and so Jews kept insisting that Romans flog and/or kill the ‘heretics’ such as him. We see the same sort of thing in America where Jews of all stripes go to goy authorities and say such-and-such heretic must be blacklisted, defamed, fired, shunned, punished, sued, demoted, destroyed, and etc. In a way, it’s much worse today than in Roman times since Romans really held the power over the Jews and could & often rejected the Jewish request in the interest of fairness for all, whereas Jews now control the elite institutions in goy majority nations. So, it’s like Jews have both the power of the Roman imperial court and the power to Rabbinical authority to stone all heretics they don’t like. Imagine a hypothetical Ancient World where Roman elites were stooges & puppets of Jews and felt compelled to fulfill every Jewish request. Instead of Romans ruling over the Jews with Roman version of Rule of Law, Romans would essentially be rubber-stamping the aggressive and nasty agendas of Jewish elites in Jerusalem. Today’s goy elites in America are like that. There was a time when GOP elites lent an ear to Jews but didn’t necessarily agree with or pander to Jewish requests. There used to be a place in the GOP for both pro-Zionists and the so-called ‘Arabists’ who called for a more balanced policy in the Middle East based on American than Jewish interests. But look around today, and the goy elites of the GOP has completely caved into Jewish demands. They are paper tiger caesars who kneel before the Big Neo-Rabbi like Darth Vader kneels before the Emperor.) Anyway, we were saying something about how Jews tend to dismiss and degrade as ‘atavistic’ the attachments and emotions that gentiles feel about their identity, tradition, land, and roots. We need to break out of Jewish-imposed mental straitjacket. To be sure, emotions of blood-and-soil can be atavistic if they’re blind, extreme, and crude. Who with sense would deny that Germans and Japanese in the 1930s overstepped their bounds on matters of ‘blood and soil’; but then, keep in mind that UK, US, and USSR all, in the end, fought for their motherlands than for any abstract ideas. The British people really got into war when the Germans began to bomb London, not when Germans were bombing Warsaw. Indeed, before German attack on the UK, many Anglos had wished UK had never declared war on Germany. And it was the love of motherland that inspired Russians to make tremendous sacrifices to roll back the German tide. And Chinese surely loved their own nation when they resisted ‘foreign devils’ and the Japanese. And it was when Pearl Harbor was attacked that Americans finally came together to fight the ‘lemon-colored characters’ — as John Wayne called them in SANDS OF IWO JIMA — and rack up another victory of good ole USA(that is before Jews, homo, Negroes, and craven white cowards made this into a shit country). And why did Americans feel as they did on 9/11? Because their homeland was attacked. But the lessons of 9/11 and the Iraq War should remind us that unscrupulous and opportunistic politicos can manipulate nationalism to hijack mass passions for actions that have little or nothing to do with national interest. Oddly enough, the new ‘atavism’ in America is a kind of ‘anal-vism’ as the homo ‘rainbow’ is the new Red, White, and Blue(the new patriotism as ‘gaytriotism’), and the Jomo Cabal wants to reignite the Cold War against Russia over the fact that Putin doesn’t like ‘gay pride’ parades and homo propaganda in Russian schools. (For Russians, Red Square shouldn’t be turned into a Pink Fair. It’s sacred ground where Russian soldiers have marched in honor of the millions who perished for the motherland in the Great Patriotic War. But dirty Jews and flaky homos have no respect and reverence for such things. They feel revulsion toward Russian people and Russian culture. Jews hate Russians as much as they hate Palestinians and ‘white trash’ in America. Jews want to desecrate the holy ground of Russia, just like they want to desecrate the holy holes of white women with Negro dicks and jigger-jiver cum. For Jews and homos, a ‘gay pride’ march down Red Square wouldn’t only be a triumph for ‘gay rights’ but a ‘gay victory parade’ over Russian patriotism and pride. It is ironic that Red Square especially became sacred for celebrating the defeat of Nazi Germany but Jews and homos attack Putin and Russians for being the ‘New Nazis’ for not bending over to the Jomo agenda. The ultimate Jewish fantasy is to see a bunch of homos take Russian flags and dump them on Red Square in front of Russian-Jewish oligarchs. Jews are really the scum of the earth. Homos have no sense of roots because their form of sexuality rejects and denies the truth of sexuality. Homos are obsessed with surfaces, with the looks of things. They like the flowers but ignore the stem and roots that make the petals possible. Homos don’t like to get their hands dirty with the soil in which the roots extend and from which the stem sprouts — though they don’t mind getting their penises dirty with fecal matter. Most homos can’t have much feelings for a film like SIBERIADE that is about family, village, community, tradition, earth, and roots — though there are exceptions like Terence Davies and Hanif Kureishi who do have a profound sense of family and roots, however troubled it may be. The essence of Russian culture isn’t even Orthodox Christianity. It’s what might be called earthen-ness. It’s something Jews and homos are hostile too since rooted-ness to one’s soil makes people conservative and ‘identitarian’. Jews are not opposed to attachment to soil per se as they are the biggest pushers of ‘blood and soil’ ideology in Israel. But when it came to goy lands, the gentile attachment to their own lands could mean Jews being regarded as aliens and outsiders. Also, because Israel is so small, its cannot survive and prosper on its own. It needs the support of other nations around the world that are controlled by Jews. So, while Jews are all about ‘blood and soil’ in Israel, they go out of their way to weaken such consciousness in other parts of the world. Also, earthen-ness isn’t exactly the same as blood-and-soil. Earthen-ness is a more spiritual and sentimental quality. Blood-and-soil is a crude form of nationalism, whereas earthen-ness is a matter of the heart. Blood-and-soil is a literate elaboration of one’s tribal passions, whereas earthen-ness is something that’s felt even by illiterate peasants who never even saw a book. Despite the mockery, Woody Allen nailed the essence of earthen-ness in LOVE AND DEATH where some Russian guys holds a clump of earth close to his heart and says he hopes to build on it. Such feelings of earthen-ness, as dim-witted as profound, are missing among Jews. Even blood-and-soil Jews in Israel lack this earthen-feeling. Jewish culture, having developed in the arid Middle East, looks to Heaven for its meaning. So, even though Jews love their Holy Land, it’s special because God blessed it. Earthen-ness is a feeling of one’s feet upon moist dark soil. Even without Orthodox Christianity, Russians would feel a sense of earthen-ness as its deeper roots are pagan. This is why the communist revolution was especially damaging to Russia. As in the short story "Antaeus" by Borden Deal, Russian culture was uprooted from the earthen soil, and Jews were especially zealous in carrying out this ‘terracide’ because they saw Russian culture as a field of poison weeds that must be destroyed at the root level. So, if Putin really wants to save Russia, he mustn’t focus only on ciities but foster a feeling of Russia’s attachment to the soil. Every Russian should be made to carry around a patch of earth and say "I wish to build on it." Anyway, homos today are especially trashy and vapid because they can proudly and happily be homos. Homos do have a special aesthetic sensibility, and in the past, when they weren’t allowed to be openly homo, they lent their talent to themes and subjects of gravitas, depth, and meaning. So, even though the homo sensibility generally tends to be narcissistic and shallow, when its keen eye and delicate touch were put in service of matters of substance, homos made a great contribution to civilization as a whole. Homo sensibility is shallow but homo talent is genuine. In the past, homos had to repress their shallow narcissism and use their talents for things of higher value. Today, homos can use their talent in the service of nothing but their shallow narcissism, and the effect of this on culture has been dire and trashy. It’s like Negroes are naturally animalistic & savage but have genuine musical talent. In the past when Negro savagery was socially repressed or controlled somewhat, Negroes used their musical talent to make music of great worth. But since Negroes are now allowed to be happy wild savage Negroes 24/7, their musical talent is mostly in the service of thug-porn rap music.) Some ‘analvists’ are cheerleaders for World War III because their most important duty as ‘good Americans’(addicted to late night talk shows that promote Zionism and homomania as the very essence of Americanism) is to rid the world of ‘homophobia’ as no good and decent American could tolerate a world that doesn’t see the beauty and glory of ‘marriage’ between two guys who ram each other in the fecal hole. I mean if American-as-Apple-Pie Archie Andrews was willing to give his life for a homo Senator, then all those young American men and women should sign up for the armed forces to defeat Russia so that homos in Russia can have a massive victory parade down Red Square to be renamed Pink Squeer. (Jews and homos are so aggressive in their perverted form of proselytizing that they’ve even inundated the sphere of apolitical entertainment with their hysterical agenda, and of course, Mainline Protestantism, emotionally famished due to its rejection of traditional values, hungrily feeds on PC as its neo-puritanism. You can’t escape from PC propaganda even in escapism. As Jews control everything from elite academia to mass entertainment, the Message is crammed down your throat and up your ass wherever you turn.) Anyway, while any set of emotions can become perverted, turned extreme, and/or exploited & manipulated by demagogues, there’s no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. For example, we don’t have to do away with public education and public libraries in the name of opposing of Marxism, Stalinism, and Maoism. And we don’t have to reject blood-and-soil identity and passions in order to prevent something like Nazism, Japanese militarism, or unhinged & twisted form of American patriotism that led to the invasion of Iraq. One way to guard ourselves from being manipulated by the powers-that-be(of any stripe) is to opt for a kind of mea-fascism or my fascism. The problem with both Italian Fascism and German National Socialism was they happened to be one-man fascisms where everyone had to bend to the one-man-fascism of Il Duce or Der Fuhrer. But if every Italian was his own ‘Mussolini’ and if every German was his own ‘Hitler’, they would have had a stronger sense of selfness and independence. After all, both Mussolini and Hitler lived by the Frank Sinatra motto "I did it my way." Thus, paradoxically, the problem of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany was not so much that Mussolini and Hitler were leaders but that not enough people were like Mussolini and Hitler, at least in the sense of sticking to their own sense of rightness. In other words, the problem was less Mussolini and Hitler’s powerful sense of their own individualities as the lack of such sense among others. If every Italian male was like Mussolini, he would have followed his own sense of rightness than just blindly following Il Duce, and if every German male was like Hitler, he would devised his own ‘Mein Kampf’. (This is why Joachim Fest’s father portrayed in the memoir NOT I was a kind of mea-fascist. He had his sense of rightness and refused to budge under socio-political pressure. Though his values were opposite of Hitler’s, he had one thing in common with the man he loathed. He felt he was right, and he wasn’t going to surrender his soul to anyone whatever the price. He stood apart from so many Germans who either surrendered their own minds to Der Fuhrer OR saw Hitler for what he was but went along since ‘everyone else seemed to be doing it’ and for their self-interest. But Fest’s father refused to go along no matter the price he would have to pay. What he did was extremely difficult, especially as he lived under a ruthless regime that could have even had him killed. To be sure, he was lucky as Nazi Germany tended to be mild domestic/German dissidents as long as their opposition wasn’t overt; in contrast, Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China were totally paranoid and even went after loyal supporters of the regime as potential enemies, so one can imagine what happened to anyone with just a sniff of dissent. For the most part, Nazi Germany built concentration camps for their perceived enemies, whereas Stalin and Mao built huge prison systems not only for class/political enemies but anyone who might be enemies and that could be just about anyone. Anyway, when we consider the level of cowardice among white Americans in relation to Political Correctness, ‘anti-racism’, Jewish supremacism, and homomania, we should honor and respect the level of courage on the part of Joachim Fest’s father. He was no Fascist in the ideological sense, but he was a mea-fascist who did it his way to the end. He not only refused to turn over his mind/soul to Hitler’s crazy regime but refused even on the practical level for the sake of his professional life. How many white Americans are willing to risk anything in the defense of their conscience, values, and principles? Rather, we have so-called ‘conservatives’ in the GOP bending over to every Jew-Zionist-homo demand because the power to make or break anyone is with Jews and their mini-me allies the homos. Fest’s father stood his own ground Hitler because he was ‘his own Hitler’.) Though both Mussolini and Hitler railed against individualism — as did Lenin and Mao — , they insisted on their own individualities. Thus, everyone should be, at least to a certain extent, indulge in mea-fascism or ‘my fascism’ that insists on one’s own free will, one’s own freedom of conscience, and one’s own freedom of vision; a mea-fascist is much less likely to be the dupe of men like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Mao, William Kristol, Barack Obama, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and etc. If being ‘atavistic’ is to be blind and closed-minded to new ideas and different values, there is the way of ‘atavision’ that values the sanctity of blood-and-soil bonds while also being open to possibilities of change, progress, reform, and even revolution, for sometimes, revolutions aren’t so much about destroying the old/traditional/conventional as about sweeping aside the moribund, false, and stale to clear the way for the true, vital, organic, and living. Though conservatism/rightism has become associated with the musty, moldy, and crusty, it can also stand for the rebirth and revival of the earthy, fecund, and fertile against the trivial, frivolous, faux, and sterile fashions of decadent Liberalism gone stale and corrupt. The problem with many conservatives is that they prefer dead wood over the living soil. They’ve become so attached to the great tree that grew out of the soil that it is their object of worship even long after it has stopped growing & bearing fruit and is beginning to wither and die. But there’s no way to reverse the process of dying, let alone revive something that is dead. And yet, the soil is forever fertile and give birth to new trees. So, the living soil fertilized with the blood and sweat of those who toil over it should be the true basis of conservatism. It’s like China and Russia have seen the passing of so many dynasties, kingdoms, ideologies, and etc, but the sacred motherland remains because China is still the land of Chinese and Russia is still the land of Russians. New systems will arise from the blood and soil of the people in China and Russia, but the great constant shall remain that China is China and Russia is Russia. So, conservatives need to remind themselves that all systems — political and ideological — that arise in any nation will eventually grow like a tree, grow old like a tree, and die like a tree. One shouldn’t fixate on the tree. Greater than the greatest tree is the soil that gives birth to new trees. The real agenda of conservatives should be to keep the soil fertilized with the blood, sweat, and tears of one’s own people so the trees of the future will be theirs. This is why, when a people come to rely on foreign labor, they may own the trees and reap the fruits but the soil may be claimed by the rising tide of people who toil over it. This applies to class dynamics as well and explains why noblemen couldn’t maintain control forever. For example, though Russian aristocrats claimed ownership of everything that grew on the land, the people who sweated and toiled over the soil were the peasants, and in time, they demanded their freedom and ownership of the land. This is why Americans are so short-sighted when they demand more cheaper labor from abroad. With the help of foreign laborers, American farmers will grow lots of trees & fruits and profit from them, but as the number of aliens increase and eventually outnumber the population of white Americans, the newcomers will claim ownership of the blood-and-soil of America. If the newcomers are white, they could meld in with the native white population and adopt the existing national/cultural identity — consider how a lot of Irish immigrants in Britain became British(both John Lennon and Paul McCartney have Irish ancestry) — , but if the newcomers are of another race, they are likely to insist on their own identity, especially if their numbers keep increasing. (In the past, the failure of non-whites to integrate fully was blamed on white racial discrimination, but the problem persists despite 180 degree change in white attitudes because multi-culturalism and natural race-ism among the non-whites who tend to be immune to Political Correctness that mainly targets white gentiles with certain ‘sins’ of history. PC has vilified whiteness to such an extent that the New White Pride among white ‘progressives’ is showing off how they loathe whiteness — among white Conservatives, New White Pride is showing off how much they adore ‘diversity’, which is why they go out of their way to praise the likes of Ben Carson to high heaven, aka "We got ourselves a Negro!" With white people acting like that, why would non-whites respect whiteness? So, even mixed-race people tend to emphasize their non-whiteness than their whiteness, as if the white part of them is a disease. And yet, on the subconscious level, part of the reason why non-whites fume against whiteness is paradoxically because they admire whiteness and want to be white or whiter. Take a mestizo who looks more white than Indian. He or she will likely emphasize his or her non-white blood and act offended if someone says he or she is ‘white’. But do you really think he or she really wishes not to have white blood? Would he or she really prefer that he or she be a pure-blooded Indian with darker skin, short neck, stocky body, and clueless Guillermo-like demeanor? What he or she wants is to have the cake and eat it too. He or she is glad to white features because such is favored by most people, but he or she also wants to play the ‘noble victim’ card. As for people who aren’t white at all, they could be fulminating against whiteness to assuage the fact that they are not white. Subconsciously, they might want to be white or have white features. But since they are not what they secretly want to be or don’t have the features they desire, they are likely to feel inferior and unworthy if they were to be honest about themselves. So, PC serves as a kind of crutch for their wounded egos. By spitting on whiteness, they can make believe that they don’t harbor feelings of inferiority complex, that they don’t want to be white, no sirree, no mammie. But action speaks louder than words. If yellow PC tards really hate whiteness, why are so many yellow girls putting out to be white guys? Why do they want their babies to have Eurasian features? And why do all those Negro men go for white women if they hate whiteness so much? How come even funny-looking Hugo Chavez dumped his original wife for some blondie?) This was why a city-state like Sparta was doomed to eventual failure. Though ruled by Spartan militarist overlords, most of the work was done by Helots who made up 85% of the population. Though the Amish are rather backward in many ways, they have the right idea in their own communities. Owning the soil is far more important than owning the trees that grow out of the soil. While a tree that grew from the soil with the help of alien/foreign laborers may make you rich, it’s only a matter of time before those foreigners come to claim your land as their own as they’re the ones who poured their blood, sweat, and tears into it. Initially, many Mexicans and Central-Americans came to California as ‘humble laborers’ looking for any kind of work, but as their numbers swelled, they are now saying the Golden State is theirs since so much of brown sweat and labor have been poured into the land to make the fruits grow and restaurants run.

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.

TO BE CONTINUED.