Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascist Consideration of MURIEL(by Alain Resnais & Jean Cayrol) and ATLANTIC CITY(by Louis Malle & John Guare) — and some notes on THE EXORCIST by William Friedkin and William Blatty. Part 2.



















Continued from Part 1 of the Blogpost: http://ostrovletania.blogspot.com/2016/01/neo-fascist-consideration-of-murielby.html

French cultural dominance was served by French political dominance, but even after the fading of France hegemony in economics and military power, French culture maintained its prestige as long as the cultural mode of Europe remained elitist, intellectual, and/or Eurocentric(for lack of a better term). Despite the great achievements in art, literature, and music among Germans, Russians, Poles, and others, France continued to maintain its edge in most areas of culture and ideas. The only real rivals were the Germans and Italians in music and then later, Germans in philosophy. While one could argue that Russia produced a number of writers who were as great or greater than any produced by France, French literature by and large eclipsed the output of all other European nations combined, with the exception of Britain, but there was a continental bias against the Britons who weren’t necessarily regarded as Europeans.
In the age of aristocracy, most new fashions and dances originated in France. (French aura and prestige were such that, instead of coming up with their own styles, non-French high societies just waited eagerly for the French to come up with the new and different. Or, the creative and original among the non-French might move to France, often permanently, to breathe in the creative air and live as expatriates, thus becoming French in espirit.) Great non-French artists, thinkers, and activists often drew their elixir from the French cultural spring.

Lucky for the French and European culture in general, even with the fall of the aristocratic order following WWI, elitism was alive and well in the world of arts and letters, even at the core of Modernism, which, though anti-traditional, also tended to be anti-populist, ala Hollywood and Mass Culture. Modernist Art was clearly not for everyone; one needed to be in-the-know to appreciate movements like ‘cubism’, ‘surrealism’, and other isms. And despite the radical rise of mass politics, intellectualism was very much in the air in a culture that was overwhelmingly literary. Men-of-Letters commanded the most respect. It sure was no strike against Lenin to have written enough material to fill up many volumes. And it was a time of Big Ideas when an intellectual worthy of his name was expected to produce a tome like DAS KAPITAL, THE DECLINE OF THE WEST, or BEING AND TIME.
The deeper meaning of Marxism could only be understood by intellectuals who could make sense out of stuff like DAS KAPITAL. Even intellectuals who spoke in the name of the people most often spoke and polemicized in the language of intellectualism and theoretics, sometimes esoteric and difficult to discern at times — the masses might respect these people in the way that the illiterate and semi-literate in earlier times were impressed by the clergy who could recite Latin, the language of sanctity. Even as intellectuals and radicals spoke in the name of the People, their vanity as thinkers and secular prophets followed in the age-old tradition: They deserved to lead the people because they knew so much more than the people. Consider the Frankfurt School.

Of course, intellectuals switched gears accordingly, pandering to general readers when not writing for intellectual peers, be they allies, rivals, or enemies. So, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote philosophical tomes and books that made no sense except to those ‘in the know’, but he also wrote popular material for general readers in the mass media. Modern intellectuals wanted to have the cake and eat it too: Establish and solidify their credentials as important thinkers who could only be understood by a select few(with sufficiently high intellect and broad erudition) AND play to the people to show that their ideas were relevant to real people with real problems. And such vanity existed on the Right as well, which is why National Socialists, with their deep inferiority complex in matters of arts and culture — as the great majority of most prominent thinkers, artists, and performers of late modernity were leftist, liberal, and/or apolitical than reactionary or right-wing — , invoked or feted important thinkers and artists to stock their movement with respectability. So, Hitler and other National Socialist intellectual-strivers might quote figures like Nietzsche or show gratitude for the support, even if half-hearted, of men like Oswald Spengler, Martin Heidegger, Knut Hamsum, and others. Though some film scholars have called into question Fritz Lang’s account of Goebbels’ offering him control of German cinema, it wouldn’t have been out of character in the context of Nazi intellectual and cultural aspirations. Indeed, right-wing regimes even reached out to left-leaning artists and thinkers to garner some degree of ‘respect’. (Consider how Franco’s regime tried to win over Luis Bunuel. It was all the more frustrating for the Right because, even though right-wing regimes generally offered more freedom than left-wing regimes did, Western intellectuals still preferred leftism with its tendency toward totalitarianism over rightism that was, at worst, only authoritarian. How is this paradox to be explained? Why would so many Western thinkers and artists feel closer affinity toward totalitarian regimes of the left than to authoritarian regimes of the right? One reason is that rightist regimes could be more nakedly brutal precisely because of the greater freedoms. Since rightist regimes didn’t control everything, there was more opportunity for opposition and resistance. When things got out of hand, the only way to maintain control was to crack some heads. In contrast, because leftist regimes eradicated the very roots of potential opposition and seeded every child with dogma from cradle, the result was more social peace and cohesion. So, leftist regimes externally seemed more harmonious than rightist regimes. Another reason is that Western intellectuals, in their radical zeal, dreamed of having absolute power to change society for the better. Rightist regimes allowed a degree of freedom, but intellectuals couldn’t do much with it except write books and make some art. In contrast, leftist regimes could be idealized as the means for totally remaking society for the better. So, even if most Western intellectuals were likely to be more free in a rightist regime than in a leftist one, the most that rightist authoritarianism offered them was small personal freedoms. In contrast, while leftist regime could mean NO freedom at all, it could also mean TOTAL power in the hands of intellectuals to create utopia. Rightism meant some freedom and limited action, whereas Leftism could mean total freedom and total power for the intellectuals to do as they pleased. It was the risk that intellectuals and leftist artists were willing to take, at least from afar in their role as Western Intellectuals, like the ones in THE DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE by Denys Arcand.) And this became even a bigger problem after WWII as Western Europe, that had come under German invasion/occupation, held the conviction that right-wing Germany under National Socialism was the biggest evil that had ever existed. And once the Holocaust became ever more prominent in the historical/moral narrative, even right-wing or right-leaning thinkers and artists had to be very careful about their political or ideological affinities and affiliations. Though one could argue that the Soviets had been as murderous as the Nazis, Western Europeans hadn’t been directly affected by communism, and besides, Soviet Union had done the most to defeat Nazi Germany. (And with American Empire as the main enemy of the USSR, Western Europeans who resented American power naturally saw Americanism as ‘right-wing’; the Vietnam War especially gave Americans the reputation as the New Nazis.) So, while the European Left could be rabid, virulent, and extreme in the aftermath of WWII, the European Right had to be very cautious(even if it had been anti-Nazi during WWII). The cultural climate was such that Franco’s right-wing Spain eagerly catered to artists like Picasso and Luis Bunuel in the hope of having them return to Spain. Though Picasso was actively allied with communists, anarchists, and the like and even though Bunuel was famous for his anti-clerical subversiveness, the Spanish government hoped that associations with such artists might improve its image around the world. The Spanish government also had an open-arm policy to film-makers. DOCTOR ZHIVAGO was filmed there, as well as many Spaghetti Westerns, even those with leftist and/or anti-American themes.
At any rate, even after WWII, intellectualism and elitism defined much of Western Culture. European leftism was also organized around elitist attitudes. The most influential intellectual-cultural figures of this period were arguably Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus whose novels and plays administered heavy doses of socio-political philosophy. Indeed, both figures alternated among creative writing and philosophical writing and political writing, and often, the three modes were combined. And with the rise of the middle class in America in the post-war period, there was a mass desire for respectability, phenomenon that came to be denigrated as ‘mid-cult-ism’ by Dwight MacDonald. MacDonald’s point was that low/popular culture could be perfectly entertaining for what it is(honest trash), but high/elite/serious culture required the best of vision, depth, originality, and/or truth. It required genius and purity of commitment. MacDonald was fine with both honest low culture and singular high culture. What got his goat was this kitschy thing called ‘middlebrow’ culture that either inflated the low to faux-seriousness(or faux-respectability) OR diluted the high to something more generic and accessible. And MacDonald wasn’t entirely incorrect about the middlebrow audience not really being interested in art; they were really into ‘Art’ as status symbol, like the Shelly Winters’ character in Kubrick’s version of LOLITA. They might hang a reproduction of a Picasso or Vogh because it signified Kultur. They might attend operas because it was what the ‘best kind of people’ did. And they might mistake movies like BEN HUR or JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG as ‘art’ while being blind to the merits of HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR or L’AVVENTURA. (Or they might pretend to appreciate the Resnais or Antonioni film because it happened to be the ‘talk of the town’. Middlebrow audiences generally had no intellectual or cultural ‘agency’ of their own.)
Anyway, the immediate postwar era in America saw the dramatic rise of the middle class. The working class was also doing well, and ‘middle class consciousness’ began to infect their identity as well. In earlier eras, the ‘middle class’ didn’t necessarily mean those in the middle; it generally referred to white collar workers, the relatively affluent, the professional class. Varying among Western nations, the middle class might up 10 to 20% of the population, the majority of which was still made up of working class, servant class, underclass, and small farmers.
Prior to WWII, many American working class folks didn’t entertain notions of joining the middle class. They might want their kids to gain middle class status through education and social striving, but there was a clear class division between the working class and the middle class, and everyone knew that the vast majority of the population was well below the so-called ‘middle class’; and of course, middle-class-ness varied from race to race, ethnic group to ethnic group. Thus, the black middle class might be only 5% to 10% of the entire black population, and there would have been far fewer Italian-American middle class folks than among Anglo-Americans in a state like NY. Also, standards for ‘middle-class’ status varied among different groups. What might be considered ‘middle class’ among ethnic immigrant populations might have been deemed lower among the Anglo-Americans. After WWII, there wasn’t only a vast expansion of the middle class by the numbers — those working in white collar jobs, professional jobs, or owing small businesses — but by a change in consciousness whereby even those in working class occupations felt themselves to be part of the ‘middle class’. As working class folks got higher wages, could afford homes(with help of loans), own a car or two, and send kids to college, the working class became like a lower-middle class in America, especially as class consciousness in America had never been as strong as in Europe. Part of the reason was the relative freedom and greater fluidity of social mobility in America, but there was also the factor of ethnic diversity. Generally, class consciousness thrives most in homogeneous nations where the working class might unite against the upper classes. In America, the ethnic and even racial diversity of the working class and farming class made it less likely for American workers and farmers to come together to form a coalition based on class. So, even if the Irish-American working class, Italian-American working class, Polish-American working class, Jewish-American working class, Anglo-American working class, black-American working class, and etc. shared certain common economic interests, they favored tribal unity over class unity, especially as the fortunes among the various groups differed greatly. Furthermore, some groups were more adept at socio-economic elevation, and it made little sense for such groups to cling to lower-class identity when their child had a good chance of rising to higher classes. (If West Virginia hillbillies were stuck in their working-class or lower-class status — seemingly permanently — , Greek-Americans might rise high within a few generations.) Thus, a poor Irish-American might feel closer to a rich Irish-American than to a poor Italian-American, and vice versa. When Italian-Americans needed special help, they might to mafia bosses than Union bosses, but then, Union-related organizations ran along ethnic lines(and could even be managed by people connected to organized crime). Thus, Irish-Americans had their faction in the Unions, and so did other groups, just like blacks in Congress have their Black Caucus. Since poor Irish-Americans felt closer to rich and powerful Irish-Americans, poor Italian-Americans felt closer to rich and powerful Italian-Americans, and poor Jewish-Americans felt closer to rich and powerful Jewish-Americans, America was bound to be more pro-capitalist. Even if an Irish-American remained poor, the sight of a rich and powerful Irish-American made him feel pride and power by association. Things were different back in Ireland, of course. Since almost everyone was Irish, there was no need to worry about tribal loyalty or national power since it was understood that all Irish, leftist or rightist, were for Ireland. So, the divisions, such as they existed, were more about class.
But no such ethnic or national sense of power could be taken for granted in America where each ethnic group had its own stake in its struggle for the ‘piece of the pie’. So, the default mode of each group was to root for the successful and powerful of their own kind. Thus, Irish-Americans came to place their hopes on powerful Irish-Americans, and this was true of blacks as well(though, to be sure, blacks came to rely on rich Jews who funded black movements in order to paralyze white gentiles with the stinging venom of ‘white guilt’.) In the South, poor whites sided with rich whites, and poor blacks sided with rich blacks.

Anyway, the huge middle class boom after WWII led to cultural neurosis among many Americans. Before middle-class-ness became the norm, most Americans had no great aspirations; they knew that life was about going to work, raising a family, growing old, retiring, and dying. They knew they weren’t going to college and their kids won’t be going to college either. Their cultural life revolved around Church, family, and the local community. But with the rise and spread of middle-class-ness, many Americans felt they should know some fancy art and culture. No longer could they snub the arts & culture with attitudes like, "What’s the big idear?" To keep up with the Joneses — who might have traveled to Europe, bought fashionable clothing, joined the Book Club, and saved money to send their kids to college — , many Americans figured they should have some taste and intellect. Maybe they should take their kids to the museum once in awhile. Maybe they should watch a foreign film now and then. Maybe they should buy the Harvard Classics for the library in the basement. Maybe they should subscribe to some ‘intellectual’ magazines like The New Yorker. And maybe they should lose some of their provincialism, whether it be rooted in small town values, Old World ethnic customs, or Christian moralism. Maybe they should gaining an inkling of sophisticated stuff like ‘psychology’, especially the fashionable theories of Freud that challenge the so-called New England Puritanism that supposedly made America repressive(politically as well as sexually), though to be sure, the Catholic communities probably had more to do with cultural censoriousness in the 20th century, and besides, the classic Communist Left was hardly made up of ‘free love’ libertines, and they loathed Rock n Roll as ‘capitalist-hedonistic-consumerist’ music and flipped out when Dylan ‘went electric’ at the Newport Festival. Anyway, because of all such aspirations of the nouveau-middle-class that didn’t know how to be truly ‘middle class’ — in the respectable bourgeois and/or intellectual bohemian sense — , they needed lessons and cues from the ‘better’, ‘smarter’, and/or ‘hipper’ kind of people.
Of course, there were plenty of newly-minted middle class folks who were happy to be like Ralph Kramden or Archie Bunker(of "All in the Family") and mocked all the fancy stuff — ironically, it’s Gloria and Meathead who are more middle-class strivers despite their professed ‘radicalism’ because they have a craving for socio-moral elevation and ‘intellectual’ sophistication & respectability — , but the first few decades after WWII was a hopeful and anxious time for many middle class Americans who were optimistic about improving living standards and rising expectations. And instead of the lower-classes striving to climb up to the classic definition of middle class status — as had been the case in earlier periods — , it was as if middle-class-ness took on a life of its own and flowed downward as an all-inclusive concept. The idea of class became ‘fluid’ in the US long before sexuality did. So, even if one remained in the working class — laboring in an auto factory for example — in the technical sense, one could earn sufficient wages to afford something like a ‘middle class lifestyle’. If some nouveau middle class Americans were happy enough with shiny cars and home ownership — like the Clint Eastwood character in GRAN TORINO — , others were more like the James Mason character in BIGGER THAN LIFE. They might feel that middle-class-ness was not enough and hankered for higher status, even elite status, and such obsessions were widespread among middle class Jews, which is rather ironic since the political ideology among Jews was generally to the Left, i.e. Jews yammered about ‘social justice’ and ‘equality but focused on attaining socio-economic success or cultural influence that further separated them from the ‘rabble’. It’s no wonder that there are so many affluent Jews in Manhattan who enjoy the finest and most exclusive privileges but constantly harp and yammer about how ‘evil, wicked, and racist’ white folks(meaning white gentiles) are. Since Jewish hypocrisy is plainly visible to anyone with an honest pair of eyes, one would expect much criticism and satire about Jewish power, but it simply isn’t so. As Jews dominate the media, comedy, and satire, most of social criticism and commentary in America would have us believe that a ‘white Hispanic’ like George Zimmerman and the fictional KKK at Oberlin college pose the greatest threat to justice in America.

Anyway, there was a new striving for respectability among the nouveau-middle-class. But because of the influence of modernism & avant-garde-ism and the fashionableness of ‘radicalism’, the neo-respectability wasn’t like traditional bourgeois respectability centered around manners, sobriety, and propriety. While the traditional bourgeois ideal didn’t fade overnight, the American intellectual elites looked to Europeans and European emigres for Big Ideas, and one of the biggest figures was Jean-Paul Sartre, who even visited America in the 1950s and wrote something in the spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville. The problem was Sartre was a radical Marxist, anti-capitalist, and anti-American(despite his bourgeois privileges). Indeed, many of the ‘leading’ thinkers, intellectuals, artists, writers, and performers of the postwar era in America were radical-leaning, not least because American culture, both elitist and populist, had been transformed from the 1930s to the 1950s with the arrival of European, especially Jewish, emigre elites. On the one hand, due to their intellectualism and European-ism, the Jewish emigre thinkers were conflated with seriousness and respectability. After all, the unwashed masses didn’t read philosophy or attend art galleries featuring the latest avant-garde works. It was the elites and the aspiring middle classes who did. But such works were ideologically ‘radical’ and ‘subversive’ even if they were mainly consumed by privileged sophisticates who hung around ‘respectable’ institutions such as museums and universities. Indeed, consider the films of Luis Bunuel that ceaselessly mocked the bourgeoisie in the name of the Revolution or some radical notion. And yet, the great majority of people who watched his films were members of the bourgeoisie and their children who, for all their ‘radical’ or ‘neo-Marxist’ posturing, were headed to college and sought social elevation. Thus, ‘radicalism’ and respectability merged into one, into ‘radictability’. To be sure, this was nothing new as the European bourgeoisie had constituted the bulk of the audience and patrons of modernism in art and produced children who were most likely to adopt fashionably ‘radical’ ideas — that were increasingly less about the substance of economic revolution and more about styles of transgression that hardly threatened the economic powers-that-be and, if anything, served it with mocking flattery — , but what differentiated the postwar period in both Europe and America was that the middle class was much larger, and many more people had access to this fusion of radicalism and respectability. To watch and discuss a film like Jean-Luc Godard’s BREATHLESS was both respectable and ‘radical’. It was indeed a new kind of cinema with dangerous ideas and a subversive outlook, but it was also the favorite of film festivals organized and attended mostly by those with means and sensibility(attained through higher education). And the film was written about mostly in journals for the ‘better kind of people’. So, while the ‘unwashed masses’ — who were, to be sure, the well-showered masses due to mass availability of modern plumbing — were more into Hollywood movies and pop music, the more ‘intellectual’ and ‘sophisticated’ types were ‘thinking’ about Godard’s film and the French New Wave(and Modern Jazz), and of course, the bulk of such people tended to be middle class types in big cities or college towns. You can see the combination of respectability and radicalism in the Folk Movement, especially in the figure of Bob Dylan.
A Jewishy Italian-American folk-rocker artist(who carried on his shoulder an orange tabby cat if not a Siamese one) in INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS by the Coen Brothers who want to be the Bob Dylan of cinema.
The Folk Movement, though ostensibly inspired by rural and rustic tunes, was essentially an urban movement with a lot of city-slicker Jews. Though it was supposedly for The People, it’s main supporters and fans were socially aspiring middle class folks, many of whom could afford to attend college. Most working class types and Negroes couldn’t stand the Folk Movement. It’s like the Fonz flips out when he discovers that folk music is the new craze in HAPPY DAYS. They were into rhythm-n-blues, rock-n-roll, or real folk music of the local community. Real folk culture was about hillbillies singing hillbilly songs, cowboys singing cowboy songs, Negroes singing Negro songs, Polish-Americans playing the Polka, the Irish-Americans singing "Danny Boy" for the umpteenth time, and etc. Though over time, different ethnic styles did influence one another, the borrowing across cultural lines happened to be ‘accidental’ than willful. In contrast, the Folk Movement was a kind of earnest charade where mostly city-slickers sampled various styles and pretended to represent local cultures of which they were not a part. (It was earnest in the sense that many in the Folk Movement tried to be as faithful to the original music as much as possible. It was later that musical interest in ethnic music became post-modern in the manner of David Byrne and others who reveled in the fusionary joy of irreverent eclecticism.) Jews were especially adept at this, not least because their Zelig-ish nature had already cornered the market on writing Christmas songs. The Folk Music Movement combined elements of American strains of puritanism — ‘pristine’ music of the souls of honest salt-of-the-earth folks as opposed to popular music concocted by cynical profit-driven capitalist industries — , progressivism, populism, and elitism/respectability. It was less about what the masses were really wanted and liked than about what the educated, idealistic, radical, and/or respectable members of the Movement thought the masses should really like. It was more about idealism than realism, even though the appeal of Folk Music was supposedly that it had risen from the ‘real’ people.
But over time, middle class kids soon tired of "Erie Canal" and "This Land Is Your Land"(already a pseudo-folk song by Woody Guthrie who was something of a faker as a ‘hobo’ poet-of-the-people). The stuff was getting boring, and so, the arrival of Bob Dylan in the folk scene was like godsend. He looked and sang rougher than the others, thereby seeming authentic, even though he was a Jewish kid from a middle class family. More significantly, despite the earnestness of songs like "Blowing in the Wind", there was wit, originality, brilliance, and eccentricity generally lacking in the other folkies. Instead of being the typical boring Mr. Do-gooder who was dime-a-dozen in the Folk Movement, Dylan was infected with the edgy hipsterism of the jazzy Beat Generation. And even his moralistic songs had a certain irony and playfulness that went beyond the kind of save-the-world drivel sung by Joan Baez whose falsetto voice turned everything into a holier-than-thou homily.
Also, there was a cerebral component to Dylan’s songs even in the early years — logical gamesmanship, crazy quilt imagery, or allusions to historical and literary sources — that was like cheese and wine to the Folkie community composed of intellectual types repressing their own intellectualism(lest it be overly elitist for a movement committed to the People); Folk Movement was made of intellectually-repressed intellectuals.
So, a song like the "Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" wasn’t merely a sermon but a kind of thought experiment, with Dylan posing certain mind-games: "But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears, Take the rag away from your face, Now ain't the time for your tears." Dylan seemed to be both flattering and mocking his listeners: flattering them for having the decency to care about the death of Hattie Carroll and raptly listening to his song, but also mocking them down for their preference of comfort of self-righteous sentimentality over commitment to real action. And yet, the song isn’t a simple call for action either — like John Lennon’s later song "Power to the People" — but self-reflective and self-mocking as well. Thus, it sermonizes but subverts its own sermonizing; it praises the caring audience but sneers at the narcissism of ‘caring’. Dylan was playing it on several levels and shaping folk music from a simple moral matter to a twisted moral maze. Dylan’s impact on the Folk scene was so fast and profound that it soon couldn’t do without him, which is why it was all the more jarring to see him go ‘electric’ at Newport. It was one thing for Dylan to add sugar and spice to the Folk Movement. It was quite another for him to feed alcohol to the kids. It was as if Moses descended Sinai not with the Ten Commandments but with the Golden Calf. It was as if the Negro in LILIES OF THE FIELD got the nuns into Charlie Parker than merely singing gospel in a more vibrant way.
One wonders. Suppose Dylan hadn’t joined the Folk movement, and it came to be defined by the likes of Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, and Peter, Paul, and Mary(without the songs contributed by Dylan). The Folk Movement may never had an ‘edge’ and might have petered out as a cultural statement in the early 60s(and may not have sprouted a branch called Folk Rock). Dylan infused the Folk Movement with new life, and without him, it might have had nowhere to go.
Dylan did most for the Folk Movement in the 1960s but also did most to undermine it by leaving it. In leaving, he wittingly or unwittingly played pied piper to a whole bunch of others folkies — like members of the Byrds and Buffalo Springfield — who chose to compose personal music than stick to old folkie standards. And once power of personality took precedence over populist politics in what remained of the Folk Movement, all sorts of creative possibilities opened up.
If Pete Seeger hated Dylan’s electric songs, imagine how he probably felt about the Byrds’ "Eight Miles High" or "Hey Mr. Spaceman". (Though men like Pete Seeger were all for Negro rights, they also subconsciously feared the wild-ass muscular Negro and believed that traditional Folk Music, white or black, was the best way to bring the races together. Such music would tame their wilder energies — especially those of the jive-ass Negroes who be stronger than white folks — and make them more reverent toward older folks, noble workers, and social values. If Negroes were encouraged to act wild and crazy, race relations would fall apart. So, Seeger saw Rock n Roll and ‘electric music’ akin to feeding alcohol to the Indians. Given the history of Black Rampage that soon followed the Civil Rights Movement, Seeger wasn’t entirely wrong even though, of course, he never spelled it out that way. Rap music is all the rage, but Rap Culture makes it more difficult for non-blacks to get along with crazy-ass Negroes into Thugro Culture.) Once Dylan went electric, inhibitions began to drop like flies in the Folkie community despite the opposition of diehard purists, and many soon followed in Dylan’s footsteps. Folk went from Protest music to Personal music. It was more about self-expression than save-the-world.
Yet, if the infusion of hedonistic and neurotic strains loosened up the Folkie community, the ‘defection’ of Dylan from ‘folk’ to ‘pop’ made pop music more serious than ever before. Folk music was about ‘save the world’ while Pop music was about ‘see my girl’, but as Rock musicians began to see themselves as messengers(as Dylan had been during the Protest phase) than mere entertainers, they felt compelled to make grand statements, such as "All You Need Is Love" by the Beatles and "We Love You" by the Rolling Stones.
Bob Dylan as Personal Artist
And yet, there was the third factor in all this: Art. Bob Dylan’s standing even in his Protest Music phase owed to his extraordinary creativity. He wasn’t merely righteous but ‘writeous’, expressing himself in words and attitude that posed double-edged challenge; his persona stood apart from mainstream values and radical activism, both of which had their own rules of conformism. Even though the likes of Pete Seeger were pretending that Dylan was the heir to Woody Guthrie, the inconvenient truth was that Dylan — despite his genuine appreciation for Guthrie — wanted to be something more than a singer, activist, or spokesman. Despite his hobo-protest persona, he was too smart, too curious, too cultured, too literate, and too ambitious. He wanted to be an Artist. Since art-for-art’s-sake was anathema to the Old Left(that had a strong presence in the Folk Movement) that believed in the moralistic, even Stalinist, notion of art serving the masses, Dylan the artist initially remained in the closet, but with every new song and every new album, Dylan composed songs that had increasingly less to do with ‘saving the world’ and ‘loving your brother’ and more to do with love, desire, obsessions, and neurosis. And even as Folkies appreciated Dylan for his do-goodiness and political consciousness, they were also turned on by his eccentricity, imagination, and originality. This artistic side of Dylan was unstable in the Folkie community. It was radioactive and could lead to a meltdown. In DON’T LOOK BACK, we see Dylan performing a song in Britain, and the audience listens with rapt and reverent attention. Even when they laugh, they are cued to laugh by Dylan who signals that he’s making a joke. The demeanor of the audience is anti-Beatlemania. If Beatlemaniacs lost control and screamed like lunatics, Dylan’s audience in the film seem so very serious and concerned about the world. It’s like they’re at a church service. And yet, elements of middle class anxiety could be discerned among the audience. Dylan seemed more respectable than the Beatles or Rock n Roll because he was being serious and meaningful. The postwar nouveau-middle-class in US and UK were in search of a proper way of being respectable and ‘modern’, and Dylan the Folkie appeared to be offering a way, an alternative to traditional/serious culture that seemed old-fashioned and Pop Culture that seemed shallow and inane. Dylan was both fun enough but also serious enough. Also, the literary quality of Dylan’s lyrics — notice how the British audience in the film sit ever-so-still and quietly, listening to every word as if their life depended on it — gave him the cachet of ‘intellectualism’ then lacking in pop music and Rock-n-Roll, the lyrics of which was mocked by Steven Allen in his reading of "Be Bop a Lula" as a poem. Though song lyrics can’t be read like poetry, even literary folks were impressed by Dylan’s literary prowess in a song like "A Hard Day’s Nights Gonna Fall", which was only a prelude to masterpieces like "Visions of Johanna". If Dylan’s artier folk songs could be depreciated as pretentious middlebrow — a kind of Ezra Pounds meets Woody Guthrie — , this was no longer the case beginning with HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED and BLONDE ON BLONDE. Middlebrow-ness, after all, is marked by a certain calculation and insecurity. In balancing populist and elitist elements, the middlebrow artist seeks respect from above but also holds onto his existing popular audience. Furthermore, middlebrow-ness offers cover against both sides. If dismissed by the elites, the middlebrow artist can claim that his arty stuff was only in jest and fall back on his existing populist audience. If rejected by the popular audience, the middlebrow artist can appeal to the elites as the only ones who can truly appreciate his intentions. Middlebrow sensibility inflects a song like "Gates of Eden" that, though impressive, strains to be poetic even while passing itself as a protest song. And even though "Desolation Row" on HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED is a great song, it too has elements of strain with its endless name-dropping allusions. But most of the songs on HIGHWAY and nearly all the songs on BLONDE ON BLONDE are not products of calculation but of eruption of creative stresses and contradictions that had formed over the years. The energy and power seem beyond conscious control. It’s as if Dylan’s wits and passions all melted into magma that went volcanic into stratosphere. While Dylan did his best to control and channel these forces into music, he couldn’t have known how these forces were being created within him and when they would erupt. And when these energies had run their course, he was drained and struggling regain equilibrium.
Dylan's Retreat in Woodstock from the Peak Creative Period in 1966
Few artists fully recover from such overflow of creativity. They ponder their achievement feel either intimidated or emboldened, leading to excessive anxiety(as if to wonder, "How did I do that?"), excessive arrogance(as if to feel, "Whatever I touch is magic."), or excessive self-consciousness(as if to consciously formulate what had been a creative ‘miracle’). Genius, especially the creative kind, can never be entirely conscious and thus remains mysterious. Highly intelligent or talented individuals often achieve remarkable things through conscious calculation, but their greatest achievements, sparked by inspiration from an unknown place, surprise even them.
Anyway, Federico Fellini didn’t recover after 8 ½, and Sam Peckinpah never came close to anything on the level of THE WILD BUNCH again. It took nearly a decade and half for Tarkovsky to make another film comparable in greatness to ANDREI RUBLEV: the ‘science-fiction’ film STALKER. (Though there’s been talk about computers making music in the future, will it ever be capable of producing something like BLONDE ON BLONDE? Will it have personality, eccentricity, and sense of biography that makes Dylan’s album so singular.
Already, we have people composing music with the help of test-marketing, advanced electronics, and psychological studies. It’s almost as if they’ve turned the art of music into a computer software, an app. To maximize market share and profits, music industries recruit psychologists to test market what kinds of beats, rhythms, melodies, and harmonies appeal the greatest number of young people. (The industry goal is to turn consumers into addicts. It used to be that the industry focused on catchy melodies that might become hits. But this approach led to too many misses. It took genuine individual talent of, say, a Carole King, Burt Bacharach, Brian Wilson, or Smokey Robinson to come up with memorable melodies. Now, melodies are secondary to the ‘sound’, the all pervasive rhythm and beat that are almost indistinguishable from song to song. So, even if the melody is limp or tiresome, the songs are sustained with busy beats that provide the high. The ideal of the individual artist was to be as distinct from others as possible. The model of the idol, now favored by the industry, is to be as generic as possible. Such genericism, however, goes unnoticed by many because of the salacious nature of the material that makes it seem ‘daring’ and ‘rebellious’.) And computer engineers keep ‘perfecting’ software and technologies that make it easier for composers to add and mix all kinds of sounds — just about anyone can download programs that can turn any spoken speech into a ‘song’. So based on data of what turns people on — how their senses function and respond to certain electronic-stimuli — a globo-style of music has become the standard around the world. Consider how so many songs now sound alike whether they’re from Japan, France, or India. Indeed, 90% of them might as well have been produced by computer programs. Though every musical genre has its own formula, there were many more dominant genres around the world than there is now in the era of globo-standardization — most musical styles around the world are like non-American imitation of MTV. Furthermore, unique eccentricities matter less than formulaic syntheticism that pervades the idol-centrism of the music industry. Song-smiths matter less than Song-programmers, and spontaneous personalities matter less than well-drilled performers. The diminishment of personality has been compensated by intensification of pornographics, i.e. "I’m special because I’m pornier than you." If unique talent and style no longer draw the line between worthy and unworthy, there is only ‘me so horny’ versus ‘me so hornier’. (Likewise, in the Art World, the total collapse of meaningful artistic criteria has led to Worth — of contemporary art — being judged almost solely by financial value via cynical manipulation. Art was always an investment, but it used to be art works were expensive because they had artistic value, like the works of Vincent van Gogh. Nowadays, the finance comes first, i.e. if enough insiders rig up the price of an ‘art work’, it has value regardless of artistic value. It’s like finance once used to serve manufacturing, productive, investment, and saving economy, but now, so much of Wall Street is geared to playing games to increase value through insider tricks, especially among Jews, explaining why so many of the Jewish super-rich made their massive fortunes in finance.)
Stevie Nicks was unmistakably Stevie Nicks, and no one mistook her for Joni Mitchell or Carole King, but does anyone really care about the differences among the latest madonna, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Britney Spears, Taylor Swift, Rhianna, Skankasshokura, and etc? They have different styles to be sure, but they all look so manufactured.
Of course, there are still surprises like Cady Groves whose amazing album THE LIFE OF A PIRATE is comparable to the early songs of Loretta Lynn. Cady is real in ways that pop idols are not.
Cady Groves who staked her musical claim with songs of real experience and emotions. Sadly, the industry is turning her into yet another bubbly plastic idol. Her music went from chewing jerky to chewing gum. This happens all the time in pop music. A genuine talent with something real to say is surrounded by 'friends' and agents who pretend to 'care' and know what's best for the artist. In no time, they turn her into just another a dime-a-dozen industry idol. When she started out, there was no one like her. Now, her agenda seems to be another Katy Perry.
Anyway, as psychologists gain a better understanding of the human mind, their knowledge will be bought to serve the entertainment industry’s agenda of ‘perfecting’ what the masses want to see and hear — just like food industries have ‘perfected’ fast foods, sweets, and drinks that are most appealing and addictive to couch-potatoes. It might not be long before computers come up with tunes more infectious than any written by humans. But, will computers be able to produce something like BLONDE ON BLONDE that is so richly biographical, personal, neurotic, and eccentric? And sublimely ‘flawed’? Probably not. (Sublime flaws can be more interesting than standard ideals. It’s like a Barbie-like pretty woman is obviously attractive but lacks the element of mystery. But when a woman who isn’t conventionally pretty has certain odd qualities of style and personality that make her strangely alluring, she may be far more interesting that the standard beauties. This goes for men too. Charles Bronson wasn’t conventionally good-looking. In some ways, he could even be said to be ugly. But when used right, he embodied depths of strength and manhood lacking in the pretty boy or the muscle-head. Dylan wasn’t conventionally a good singer, and he wasn’t the pop tune-smith of the caliber of Paul McCartney, Paul Simon, Burt Bacharach, Carole King, Smokey Robinson, and many others. He really had to struggle and crawl out of the cave of inadequacies and insecurities to become one of the giants of 20th century music. For his voice and image to be justified, he had to create a music of originality, personality, biography, and eccentricity so that his work would be singular and unique. He had to create his own standards for his own expression. It was a tall order to achieve, and he achieved it.) Of course, a work like BLONDE ON BLONDE isn’t for everyone. After all, despite all the accolades showered upon Dylan over the years, he’s never come close to selling the volume of the acts with the biggest popularity. Dylan relied on the artier and intellectual set in a musical culture geared primarily for hormone-drenched teenagers.
Likewise, despite the high regard for Andrei Tarkovsky, ANDREI RUBLEV will never have mass appeal. Artistic perfectionism of a Tarkovsky is entirely different from the economic perfectionism of Hollywood, the main objective of which is to maximize profits and maintain market dominance. To be sure, it’s not just about profits but about Jewish power. Hollywood could surely make a lot of money by making movies with blonde heroes battling wicked greedy Jews, but why would Hollywood Jews spread a message that might undermine their dominant stake in society? Thus, most ‘conservative’ Hollywood movies are designed to channel white Conservative rage at foreign enemies while enforcing the taboo forbidding the portrayal of domestic Jews as villains. Hollywood and other Jewish centers of culture have been perfecting not only the profit-mechanism but the ideological-mechanism of shaping mass minds into Jewish-friendly sheeple. Thus, a show like WILL & GRACE is meant not only to rake in lots of dough but to disseminate Jewish and Homo supremacist message in the most effective way so that vast numbers of gentiles will be brain-addled into slavish suckers of Jews and homos.
The human mind is under intense study & scrutiny in top universities in America, but much of these insights and understanding are being employed and exploited by a capitalism that is unmoored from morals & values and only cares about profits — even if it means turning the masses into soulless morons. No better is that the political culture is dominated by a fearful & paranoid hostile elites — mainly Jews and some homos — who use the knowledge of the mind not to enlighten us as thinking adults but to manipulate us as dumb children. Indeed, one gets a strange feeling while reading Steven Pinker’s books like THE BLANK SLATE and BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE. On the one hand, they are packed with all manner of new discoveries and theories about the mind and human nature, but there is a sly nagging insistence that certain taboos — especially those pertaining to race — must remain as such because free discussion may bring about the decline or even fall of Jewish power. Pinker is essentially trying to touch upon the reality of biology — something the Jewish Left has been publicly allergic to — to render it safe for politically correct consumption. To admit the power of biology is politically incorrect, but eventual palatability may be at hand with a gentler and kinder style. Thus, the ideas that had been denounced by Liberal Jews as wrong, even evil, could gradually be appropriated by Jews as something mildly unnerving but detoxicated and tamed. Notice how Pinker says there is a human nature(thus admitting the power of biology), but there are no racial natures(thus refraining from going ‘there’ that might provoke the ‘anti-racists’).
Steven Pinker moonlighting at 50s-themed diner in 2001 to earn extra cash to finish his project of becoming an immortal super-Jewish robot-man
But if biology really matters, and if different races evolved under different conditions for prolonged periods, wouldn’t they have developed varying degrees of human nature? Might not some races have more of certain kinds of human nature than other races do? Even if basic human nature is basically alike, might not certain races have more of certain traits while other races have more of other traits?
Anyone who has spent considerable time with whites, blacks, Mexicans, yellows, and other groups of people would notice that, despite the basic commonality of human nature among all peoples(as well as the factor of culture), there are also certain general innate variances across racial groups that aren’t exactly trivial. Any scientist who insists that racial differences are trivial is either a liar or living in a naive bubble world. It’s possible that since Pinker spent most of his life around well-mannered high IQ people of all backgrounds and races — Jewish, white, Asian, Arab, Negro, etc. — , he is blind to the true repercussions of racial differences(especially among the hoi polloi whites who must integrate with trashy Negro thugs), not least because the arid tone of the academia happens to be passionless(except in the heavily politicized departments where we have the strange spectacle of professors getting all worked up using terminology and jargons that sound ill-fitted for emotions: A sampler: "And surely, if his analysis has any validity at all, it should establish quite persuasively that the commodity is indeed the capillary point of that political economy." Here is another: "Moreover, Foucault's focus on the local and capillary nature of modern power clearly resonates with feminist efforts to redefine the scope and bounds of the political, efforts that are summed up by the slogan “the personal is political"). But in the more natural and emotionally expressive world of the underclass(where people say stuff like, "Fuc* you, a**hole", "Suck my dic*", or "I’m gonna kick your ass."), it’s easy to take notice of different natural characteristics of the various races, not least because lower-class people have fewer inhibitions in behavior and speech. They are less mindful of manners and what may constitute ‘proper behavior’. Between the two possibilities(disconnect or deception), I think Pinker is a liar because he seems too smart and knowledgeable about the world to be unaware of the problems of racial differences in America. Surely, he must know that the main reason for the high rates of interracial crime involving black-on-non-black violence has mostly to do with racial differences in physicality and emotions, i.e. blacks are generally physically stronger and emotionally more aggressive and less inhibited or self-controlled. If Pinker, after surveying all the relevant data and surveys, cannot admit to this, he is either a coward in the face of politically correctness or willfully perpetuating politically correct taboos to serve Jewish supremacist goals because, after all, any honest discussion of racial differences will favor whites morally and politically, and that may lead to the revival of white power politics calling for white survival and security from the threat posed by Negroes. And if whites were to see themselves as righteous biological victims of Negroes, then the cult of ‘white guilt’ will fade, and then it will be difficult for Jews to control whites by baiting their guilt conscience.
Anyway, there is something more to creativity than pleasing the audience and providing pleasure. While it may well be true that certain kinds of musical-manipulations produce the greatest immediate pleasure in the listener, pleasure isn’t the only response sought in the arts and entertainment. After all, while it may be possible for scientists to create the ‘perfect’ sex machine that, strapped to an individual, could produce the biggest orgasms, people look for something more than sex & pleasure when the look for love. It’s like that song "Looking for Love" in URBAN COWBOY. The bond between the John Travolta character and the Debra Winger character owes to something more than humping. It’s love forged by shared pain as well as pleasure, humility as well as pride. Similarly, there are foods that offer simple pleasures, and then there are foods that offer something richer, more tantalizing, more memorable... even if not as immediately yummy like a candy bar or donut.
Also, there’s a difference between creating and catering. Something is created because the creator feels a need to create regardless of how others may respond to it. It may or may not have value, but it was created because of the urge to create on the part of the creator. Thus, every created object is the outcome of force of vision and will. In contrast, catering is about understanding what others want and assembling objects that most ‘perfectly’ serve those demands. A creative chef will come up his own dish out of personal conviction. But a ‘caterive’ cook will make dishes that will most likely appeal to less adventurous, discerning, or sophisticated appetites; he has no desire to challenge the taste buds of others. This is the difference between someone like Philip Roth and Neil Simon. Some of Roth’s books may not go down well with readers, but Roth felt a need to honestly reflect his experiences and thoughts — even if one cannot be honest with the rules of life, one can be honest with the demands of art, thereby opening a backdoor to the hidden truths of life, as suggested in BEING JOIHN MALKOVICH. In contrast, Neil Simon has always catered to middlebrow expectations and tastes. (There’s nothing wrong with that as long as there’s no pretensions otherwise. Aaron Sorkin is offensive because he works on the level of Neil Simon but pretends to be something closer to David Mamet.) Even though computers can be programmed to write intelligent-sounding sentences, can it express the deep truths of great literary figures? It’s doubtful, unless of course, computers become sentient, possessed of emotions & unique ‘personalities’, and develop their own biographies(or cybographies). Today’s popular culture is exceedingly ‘caterive’ than creative(or at least morally serious). The great success of Apple is very much the sign of the times. Everyone holding the same kind of iPhone and owning the same kinds of iPods, where news and music are no longer something to absorb but something to tweedle endlessly with the restless thumb. But what do you expect from a company that turned "Think Different" into a trademark, commercializing famous figures of the 20th century into ‘thinkbots’ whose presumed collective-prophecy was the apotheosis of Steve Jobs who died with the immortal words, "Wow". Considering Steve Jobs’ mania for the Beatles, a band that, despite its creativity and originality, was essentially about formulating the best method of cranking out #1 hits — a song like "Hello Goodbye" could probably be composed by a computer — , one wonders what it was about Dylan that appealed to Jobs so much. For one thing, if Jobs really appreciated Dylan, why was he also into Joan Baez? Even though Baez and Dylan made a popular pair in the heyday of the Folk Movement, Dylan couldn’t really stand her and had only used her to gain wider access. She was a ladder, nothing more.
Steve Jobs and Bob Dylan, two iconoclasts who became icons. Ain't gonna work on Steve Jobs' farm no more.
Also, if one truly digs Dylan, how could he look forward to a day when computers make music? The whole idea seems anathema to what Dylan was all about. What kind of a computer program would come up with something as unique and strange like "Visions of Johanna". (Perhaps, the use of psychedelic drugs made Steve Jobs experience his own mind and music like a mental computer program?) The difference between Pop and Art is that Pop can be mass-produced whereas Art cannot. A factory can churn out thousands of candy bars a day, each identical with all others, but real cooking in a restaurant has to be done by the chefs with their own hands. Though some people have more knack at Pop than others — Paul McCartney certainly had a finer touch than Billy Joel — , Pop is sufficiently formulaic that it can be mastered by non-artists(though star quality is something that few have, most don’t. There could be only one Elvis Presley). Creating good pop is no easy feat, but rarely does Pop Culture amount to anything more than catering to the audience’s demand for gratification. Sometimes Pop is so fresh and original in its ingenuity and effect that it achieves a kind of greatness — songs like "She Loves You", "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", "I’ll Get You", "Ticket To Ride", and etc. — , but it’s all about the pleasure, the sugar content. Art tends towards complexity, duality, ambiguity, entanglement, mystery, contradiction, and depth. Even when direct and powerful, there’s a sense of more to be understood, pondered, unlocked. Complicating matters is that there could be a kind of ‘universal activation’ at work in the minds of most people. Noam Chomsky came up with the theory of Universal Grammar that posited that grammar is hardwired into the human mind, thereby accounting for the ease with which children pick up language. Though children of different nations learn different languages, they more-or-less pick them up in the same way according to innately encrypted grammatical logic. So, children don’t have to be told everything about language in order to learn it as they seem to intuitively grasp its ‘feel’ of expressions and meanings. They ‘know it’ before they’re taught it.
Similarly, the thing about art/entertainment is so much can be conveyed with so little. A kind of universal or innate process is activated just by showing a little to the audience. The audience sense and feel much more than they are actually provided with. Thus, two hour film can feel ‘epic’, a few paragraphs in a novel can make the reader feel as though he’d been through a massive battle, and a series of narrated still image panels can bring the Trojan War to life. Indeed, especially before the coming of cinema, magic lanterns shows and illustrated books carefully featured certain key images to unlock and stimulate narrative movements in the minds of the audience. Thus, a child might be shown only 20 images of a certain tale, but his mind would naturally form a flow of images that fill in the ‘gaps’, and this process would happen effortlessly and automatically. It’d be like he had a built-in or innate understanding of story-telling that could make sense of and fill in a story even if provided only with fragments. But not any series of images, sounds, or words have the same impact on the senses. Certain combinations of stimuli carry more iconic or archetypal weight and trigger far more extra-imagery, and some artists and entertainers have a keen sense of which buttons to push or which triggers to pull than others do. This is something Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg have in common. Just about every image in a Kubrick film not only looks great but suggests meaning far beyond the literal presentation. And just about every image in a Spielberg movie elicits strong responses, arousing sensations and emotions that go beyond what the trite narrative would merit. It’s not just a matter of what stimuli will cause what reactions but which stimuli will stir the imagination, i.e. make the person see and feel far more than what has actually been presented.
Spielberg's magic does it again. Pop Master's intuitive assembly of images turns trite material into one grand entertainment.
Anyway, for a few decades following WWII and with the rapid expansion of the American middle class, there was a kind of Anxiety of Respectability, whereby the nouveau middle-class was unsure of the proper way of being ‘middle class’, especially if imbued with higher aspirations be they social, cultural, or intellectual. In this period, elitism still had firm hold over the culture. Even though the likes of Dwight MacDonald scoffed at the Middlebrow Culture or Mid-Cult, it nevertheless implicitly confirmed the respect for higher/intellectual culture as the ultimate authority. Mid-Cult served as a bridge to high culture even if few made it across. (The likes of MacDonald argued it was less a bridge than a phony substitute.) Most middlebrow folks, due to lack of taste, knowledge, and/or intellect, had no means to truly appreciate high culture, but they nevertheless respected the hierarchy of culture and thought it would do their kids some good to know something other than TV and pop music. But as years passed, especially during the crucial period of the 60s, the middle class became more settled and confident in its middle-class-ness. More at ease. No longer were they anxiously looking over their shoulders at supposed ‘social betters’ for lessons on how to be properly ‘middle class’. (If tremendous amount of creative energy in 20th century modernism was devoted to violating artistic/expressive conventions of what works and appeals to people, the main theme of culture since the Age of Warhol has been the ‘radical perfecting’ of what really appeals to the people. Modernism originally waged war on works that were pleasing; they were deemed too safe, bourgeois, and/or philistine. It was as if modernism willfully preferred the difficult, the disorienting, the displeasing, the disgusting, the discordant & dissonant. It considered qualities that were pleasing as quasi-sins against the true radical potentiality of art. In this sense, there was a puritanical streak in modernism despite its subversive agenda. For a time, it was sufficient to break the rules to carve out one’s place in the Modern Art scene, but once all the rules were broken many times over, breaking them was no longer exciting or interesting. Even as modern art had willfully chosen to be displeasing, there was mischievous joy in the enfant terrible revelry. But once the initial scandalousness and then the avant-garde hype wore off, there was the inescapable realization that much of modernism is tiresome, boring, and ugly. And from there, the culture shifted toward emphasizing things that offer pleasure, indeed the maximum in pleasure. Thus, the culture, elite and popular, world became increasingly orgasmic, even ‘pornographic’. To fully understand this dynamics, we need to draw a distinction between the pleasing and the pleasurable. Traditional art, moral art, classic art, and bourgeois art were often pleasing but not wholly pleasurable. They maintained the ideals of dignity, nobility, respectability, moral/spiritual considerations, and primacy of meaning that served as brakes on the senses. So, nude paintings had to be tasteful, focusing more on beauty and grace than lust in the Beavis-like ‘boing’ sense. Traditional and Classical Music could be fast, furious, and loud, but the main emotions had to be beauty, bliss, tragedy, or transcendence than something like "Hot For Teacher" by Van Halen. Thus, bourgeois culture was at odds with both the logic of modernism and popular culture. Modernism was ultra-elitist and radically contrarian in violating all the rules that made art pleasing, tasteful, and respectable. Modernism tried to make art less pleasing, less accessible, less comforting. It tried to break as many rules as possible without becoming utterly unintelligible, in which case it would be indigestible. It could even be painful, difficult, and off-putting. In contrast, the logic of popular culture found traditional-classical-bourgeois culture to be too stuffy and repressed, therefore the enemy of unrestrained fun and joy. Pleasing wasn’t enough for Pop Culture. It had to be pleasurable like sex. The fact that so many creative people are now in the food business says something about the shift in culture from the ideal of contrarian displeasure to the ideal of compounded pleasure. After all, modernism isn’t possible with food. Creative chefs can try out new dishes with experiments in fusion and combinations, but the end result has to be pleasurable. No one is going to tolerate pieces of glass and nails in food just because it’s ‘different’ and ‘challenging’.) Also, the elite cultural realm itself was changing from the inside, its very guardians setting off explosives from within the hierarchy, sometimes wittingly, sometimes unwittingly. Susan Sontag momentarily played her part in this sabotage, even though she backtracked from an anarchic fascination with pop culture in later yrs and immersed herself almost exclusively in serious, dense, or esoteric matters. As it turned out, a bigger threat to the cultural hierarchy was Pauline Kael, who would become the most significant and influential critic of cinema, the most important art-form and entertainment in the 20th century. If Kael relished playing the bad girl, Andrew Sarris harbored no ‘bad boy’ intentions when he echoed the French critics who deemed directors like Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, and Howard Hawks as bonafide artists and the primary ‘authors’ of their works. Sarris’s point was more academic than attitudinal, but the overall effect was the same. He was erecting than sacking monuments. He wasn’t waging a War on Seriousness, only arguing that certain Hollywood directors were worthy of Serious appreciation. Though Kael was well-read & literary and could appreciate serious works of art(especially in literature which she privately esteemed more highly than movies), she felt the notion of ‘seriousness’ to be stuffy, repressive, bourgeois, and artificial. It felt inhibiting, like the upright Wasp characters in Marx Brothers movies. While Kael was no egalitarian — she disdained most popular movies as trash, and she never believed that fun junk was just as important or valuable as genuine works of art — , she was something of a libertarian-anarchist who liked to shake things up. With the cumulative impact of people like her(and their many acolytes in the media and academia), the dichotomy between Art and Entertainment was weakened. (Perhaps in some ways, Rock Music had as big or even bigger impact on dissolving the barrier between high and low. There was a time when popular music was simply meant to be fun and pleasurable in a lowbrow way, but 60s Rock aimed for something higher and produced Rock-poets and Rock artists. Young people began to take Rock Music very seriously, and an entire intellectual class of people grew up idolizing Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Neil Young, and others as great artists. Rock critics, along with Movie critics, surely had more impact on culture than literary critics since the 1960s.) However, there was still the urge, in those early years of the cultural shift, to argue that what was often mistaken merely for entertainment was indeed art. Thus, Kael, Sarris, and Sontag weren’t so much waging a war on the notion of Art per se as broadening it to include what had been previously dismissed as merely entertainment. To be sure, Kael took it a bit further, suggesting that a work utterly lacking in artistic merit can be so wildly pleasurable that its value could be equal to that of art.
It was only a matter of time before the argument of ‘entertainment CAN BE art’ turned into ‘entertainment IS art’, and so, we now even have people who take stuff like STAR TREK, DARK KNIGHT, THE SIMPSONS, and BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER seriously. And ‘serious’ directors and actors now invest a good deal of their time and energy in blockbuster movies about monsters that crawl out of the sea or ‘superheroes’ in funny costumes fighting silly-looking villains. Though the change in sensibility wrought by figures like Sarris, Kael, and Sontag had positive impact in allowing new possibilities, the Law of Simplification inevitably took hold of those ideas and vulgarized them. This appears to happen to just about every idea, vision, or value system. If the danger of overt hierarchy and/or dogmatism is the fostering of rigidity, stasis, and exclusiveness, the danger of loosening of standards is vulgarization, loss of direction & focus, corrosive triviality, and the rise of fashionable flippancy. If a Club, Society, or Organization adheres to the most strict standards of merit along established ‘truths’, it will be snobbish, arrogant, and blind to merit that doesn’t conform to narrow standards. But if it keeps broadening and lowering standards, then everyone becomes an artist and everyone becomes a critic. (Surely, even egalitarians must sense deep down inside that art is inherently hierarchical since it requires skill, talent, and originality. Art is valuable because most people cannot be worthy artists. Same goes for criticism. Even among Liberals who pontificate endlessly about equality, there are favorite critics who are respected for the superiority of their erudition, insights, and skills. Even among the vulgarian slobs who know & care nothing about art and only care about popular culture, there is a hierarchy of what is and isn’t ‘cool’. In some ways, pop culture can be even more discriminating and exclusive than the realm of Art. Since Artistic appreciation isn’t necessarily about immediate pleasure, thrill, or excitement, there is wide leeway of what constitutes artistic value. So, even a work that might be controversial, displeasing, difficult, or utterly worthless may receive some attention and be defended & promoted according to some intellectual logic. There can be no such consideration or ‘mercifulness’ in pop culture where something has to deliver the goods[what the audience wants] or it is out. It’s like sports or sex. In sports, the winner wins, loser loses. You cannot intellectually argue that the last-place finisher is as good as the first place finisher. One cannot argue that Danny Devito or Woody Allen is as sexually appealing as Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan. In a way, intellectualism, a highbrow form of thinking, may allow for more egalitarianism; sensualism, considered a lowbrow form of cultural experience, lacks such patience. Cultural patience can help us see higher value in serious art missed by those without the patience who can only tolerate immediate pleasure. But cultural patience can also be manipulated us into seeing value that simply isn’t there — the prime example of wasted cultural patience is the pseudo-intellectual reverence for Akerman’s JEANNE DIELMANN, surely the worst film ever made. Intellectualism can degenerate into warped philosophizing that goes for all sorts of twisted logic and infinite jests. One can intellectualize that the ‘last’ is the ‘first’ or that 2 + 2 = 5. But according to sensualism, the first is always first and last is always last. This is true of humor. What is funny is funny, what isn’t funny isn’t funny. Humor can be sophisticated, but its end-goal must be to elicit laughter, a strong sensual response. So, in a way, it’s easier to practice affections of egalitarianism via highbrow intellectualism than via lowbrow sensualism. An intellectual may cleverly argue that Gerry Cooney beat Larry Holmes through some warped meta-logic, but the sensual eye clearly saw Holmes beat Cooney. In some ways, the triumph of sensualism — especially black athleticism & musicality and Jewish wit & comedy — over intellectualism isn’t so much a triumph of egalitarianism over elitism but of honest elitism over false elitism. Sports is about honest elitism of the strongest and faster athletes dominating. Popular Music, as an expression of the raw instincts of ‘fighting and fuc*ing’, favors tough rappers over other kinds of musicians. And Jews with their ruthless wit and verbal skills know how to make people laugh and run circles around them in business and finance. This is one reason why European intellectualism lost out. Even though Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Roland Barthes have their defenders, it takes a good deal of intellectualizing to find value in their works and ideas that may or may not be of genuine merit. In contrast, no argument is necessary for who has the biggest muscles, biggest ass, biggest penis, biggest vocal chords, and biggest wit for funny bones. Globalists know the power of sensualism. Sensualism can be used associatively, which is why so many have been won over to ‘gay marriage’. An honest intellectual argument about ‘gay marriage’ would have included discussion of biology, fecal penetration, morality, consequences & responsibility, and etc. And all those facts would have been on the side of decent folks who believe in true marriage. But by associating homosexuality with the sensualism of humor, celebrity glitz, entertainment, rainbow colors, and bread-n-circus hype, so many idiots have been won over to the idea of homosexuality as something fun and ‘cool’. Make things seem festive, and people are carried away.) The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame may have begun with the mission to honor the most talented and important figures in Rock history but has, over the years, degenerated into honoring just about everyone, including Billy Joel. Every time Sight & Sound magazine expands the number of voters in its poll of the ‘greatest films ever made’, the list becomes more questionable. On the other hand, there may not be anything worth saving even at the elite level because the humanities departments of most colleges are corrupt and rotten beyond belief, dominated by insipid ideologues who are into the Theory or some postmodern this-ism or that-ism that happens to be vogue at the moment. (Notice how even certified film critics with the ‘best’ credentials were enthusiastic about the new STAR WARS movie by J.J. Abrams simply because it was more ‘diverse’. That’s all it took for the critical rapture to go bananas.) Even those who command elite institutions of culture, while marketing their anti-elitist and anti-privilege credentials, use every trick in the book to maximize their own positions and privileges to fill up various departments with their personal friends or lovers or ideological allies or puppets.
Since the ideal of ‘art’ and ‘objective worth’ have been dismissed, the only criterion left for favoring certain academics in hiring and promotion is ideology and identity, or personal connection(especially if you’re Jewish, homosexual, or Negro). Thus, if you’re on the side of ‘progress’ and ‘anti-racist’, you are favored for admission and promotion. But if you’re politically incorrect and care about the truth, it doesn’t matter how knowledgeable you are; you will be effectively blacklisted for harboring ‘thought crimes’ or ideas that aren’t ‘permissible’ or supposedly have been discredited according to the circular logic of PC consensus that says the debate is unnecessary since it is over and done with(even though no one remembers the details of the debate that really never took place since the homo agenda was pushed through sensual propaganda and legal bullying). No one who opposes ‘gay marriage’(a proxy of Jewish supremacism) has any chance of being admitted to elite institutions of the humanities. Also, it especially helps if you’re Jewish, feminist, homosexual, or mulatto. But if you’re a white conservative female or a straight white male, you might as well give it up. And since the media are owned by Liberal Jews, there’s no outrage about such machinations in high places, and of course, as mainstream conservatives are so slavish toward Jews, they are afraid to spell out that Jews have been the main tyrants in the Age of Political Correctness. (Conservatives would have us believe that Jews are among the main victims of PC because some ‘progressives’ are anti-Israel. These faux-Conservatives never point out that Jews have been the main enablers of anti-white passion among the People of Color who are little more than barking dogs of globalist Jewish Power.) On the other hand, the relative scarcity of intellectual and cultural firepower on the American Right renders nearly moot the aforementioned point. After all, if the American Right really brimmed over with cultural, artistic, and intellectual flowering, the creative-intellectual-visionary pressure would grow into a force to be reckoned. It’s like blacks were so good at sports that white America could no longer resist the challenge. And even when Jews were excluded from or discriminated by elite institutions, Jewish talent was such that it finally broke the dam. But white conservatives are like ‘Cultural Mexicans’ of America. For all their bitching and whining about the Liberal domination of culture, they offer little or nothing to counter the vision and narrative. White conservatives make no movies to show at Sundance festival. Or, if Sundance favors Liberal artists over Conservative ones, conservatives seem incapable of making their own films and having their own festival, and the one instance of such turned out to be awful. (Suppose Conservatives controlled Sundance and banned all Liberal or Leftist films. Liberals and Leftists would then just have a festival of their own, and it would probably eclipse the hypothetically Conservative Sundance festival.) Conservatives mock liberals for having failed with the Talk Radio format, but Talk Radio is possibly the simplest and most vulgar form of communication and media. It requires no real talent but for someone like Rush Limbaugh to sit on his fat ass and talk shit for 3 hrs a day 5 days a week. If there were real conservative talent out there, they would have taken over entire blocks of cities — like homos have done — and set up their own theaters, book shops, and video shops. But since when are conservatives into culture other than sicko horror movies and Hollywood blockbuster movies? Everything happens in the city, or the key parts of the city. Most of any city is filled with morons of all colors and stripes. Precious little of interest comes out of Mexicans living in L.A, New York, or Chicago because Mexicans, like white conservatives, don’t give a crap about culture except watching food shows and sports on TV. There are far fewer homos than Mexicans in LA or Chicago, but they have a much bigger impact on culture because homos are into the arts, fashions, literature, and etc. Also, homos, like the Jews, are among the most politically active people in America. So, even though homo-towns may make up a small part of the city, they exert tremendous influence due to talent, fanaticism, feistiness, and commitment.
Perhaps, the term ‘conservative’ is itself problematic since it suggests a kind of hunkering down. Modern culture is about making statements, being bold & different, being original, being expressive, seeking new grounds, and etc. Even if much of liberalism today is politically correct, dogmatic, repressive, and etc. it still has the cachet or cult of being ‘different’ and ‘rebellious’, and that SENSE keeps the torch of excitement burning.
To be sure, one advantage of Liberalism over Conservatism is the difference between proximatism and ultimatism. Steven Pinker in THE BLANK SLATE explains that the ultimatist goal of human behavior is to survive, reproduce, and multiply whereas the proximatist goal is to feel pleasure, feel good, and/or to have a good time. For example, people eat and seek sex for pleasure and don’t much think about the ultimate purpose or goal of such behavior, especially since modern society has made food so plentiful — we rarely eat out of desperate hunger — and personal freedoms into guarantees, i.e. individuals enjoy the liberty of having promiscuous sex for no other reason than having a series of orgasms. Conservatism is essentially ultimatist whereas liberalism is essentially proximitist(more in line with the sensual pleasures of life that excite people). To be sure, it’s more complicated in the United States since American Conservatism is closely intertwined with libertarianism and individualism. Thus, a Liberal like Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York argued for the ultimatist position in controlling food-and-drink sizes, whereas many conservatives attacked him for interfering with free individuals enjoying their own freedom in their choice of fast foods and Big Gulp drinks. But in terms of overall behavior, especially involving sexuality, the Liberal side has been much more proximatist than the conservative side, notwithstanding the vocal power of the Libertarian wing of the American conservative movement. Indeed, the ‘gay marriage’ debate is, to an extent, an argument between proximatism and ultimatism. Since homos find pleasure in fecal-penetrating one another in the hynie, that is a good thing from the vantage point of Liberalism. If men and women seek pleasure through sex and if homos seek pleasure through ‘butt-sex’, what is the difference between real sex and ‘gay sex’? Both produce pleasure to people who are sexually attracted to one another. If the pleasure principle is everything and if homos find pleasure in sticking their male sex organs into the fecal holes of other men, then one could argue that they are deserving of the same ‘rights’ to marriage. But from an ultimatist perspective, ‘gay sex’ has no biological value and ‘gay marriage’ has no moral value. Nature designed the penis as a sex organ to be complementary with the vagina. Testicles produce sperm that ejaculate out of the penis, and the biological purpose of sperm is to race up the vaginal tubes to get to the egg. There is no biological sense in a penis entering the anus — designed by evolution to serve as poop shoot — and ejaculating sperm to come in contact with fecal matter. There is nothing good about a penis being smeared with fecal matter inside the anus and large intestine. There is nothing good for the rectum to be pummeled by the penis. It increases the chance of rectal cancer by seven times and loosens anal muscles to such an extent that many homo men find themselves having to wear adult diapers. Perhaps, part of the reason why homo men are so fussy about cleanliness is because they indulge in a kind of ‘love’ that is so filthy. When your idea of ‘love-making’ involves sticking your penis into a fecal hole or having some guy plug you in the ass with his ding-dong, maybe you need to compensate with a fetish for order and cleanliness in everything else. Homos are guys who mistake the fecal hole as the poo-sy.
Of course, it makes no sense for anyone to be purely ultimatist or purely proximatist. Even though we need to be mindful of the ultimate purposes of our behavior as a group — survival, well-being, power, strengthening, continuity, deeper truth, etc. — , life wouldn’t be much fun if we had the big goal or true purpose on our minds all the time. Besides, biological ultimatism, tribal ultimatism, and cultural ultimatism are often divergent and conflicted. If the purpose of a species is to grow more dominant, then every race, nation, or group should surrender its sovereignty and accept being conquered by other races or groups with higher talent, intelligence, or strength. In intellectual terms, a group of people is likely to become more intelligent if they were conquered and raped en masse by Ashkenazi Jews. In physical terms, a group of people is likely to become physically stronger if they were conquered and raped en masse by muscular Bantu blacks, especially those of West Africa. In aesthetic terms, a group of people are likely to be become aesthetically more attractive if they were conquered and raped en masse by Europeans, as indeed scientific studies have shown that people all around the world prefer facial features that conform, more or less, to Caucasoid standards. So, from the ultimatist view of the species as a whole, one could make such arguments, but peoples around the world may prefer racial ultimatism over species-ial ultimatism. So, even though Vietnamese are a bunch of scrawny buggers, they may still prefer to preserve their Vietnamese than be conquered and raped by stronger blacks, more intelligent Jews, and/or handsomer whites. (Though Tom Vu might disagree.) And then, there’s the matter of cultural ultimatism that is often tied with religion and spirituality. From a species-ial or racial perspective, cultural ultimatism may be counterproductive as it favors tradition over nature, but some may believe that the preservation of Sacred Truths(and taboos associated with them) is the highest value. For example, Christians believe in God and the notion that Jesus died for the redemption of mankind, and therefore, what matters most is the spreading of the Gospel and the spiritual brotherhood-of-man. To a rational race-ist, this may seem crazy & stupid because, even if all men did have ‘souls’, the content of the souls differ from race to race, and therefore, the Truth of Jesus will manifest differently among blacks than among whites. If whites understand Christianity as a culture of humility before God & Jesus and the singing of solemn gospels, Negroes take the Faith in a very different way. Negroes, due to their racial nature and personality, have turned Christianity into an opportunity to holler like baboons, jump and dance like disco bunnies, act self-aggrandizing — as if they know better than God or Jesus — , and demand that other peoples do favors for blacks while blacks, in their psychopathic egocentrism, never think to apologize, atone, or self-reflect in the manner that Jesus urged all men to do so. Most black churches indulge in nothing but sermons about ‘white folks gotta gimme stuff’, and even when black ministers are critical of moral rot among blacks, he’s screaming and shouting like he hisself is so high-and-mighty, indeed as if all the problems are with OTHER blacks than with hisself or his family. When the leading reverend of the black community, Jesse Jackson, raises a son like Jesse Jackson Jr. who blows away $800,000 of his campaign funds on stuff like Michael Jackson’s autograph and Bruce Lee memorabilia, something really stinks in the black community. But, the white Liberal community — utterly brainwashed by hideous Jews — is obsessed with the notion that George Zimmerman is some towering ‘redneck white supremacist’ who killed an innocent ‘black child’, when in fact, Trayvon Martin was much taller and bigger than Zimmerman and was pummeling Zimmerman like a pinata before Zimmerman finally saved himself by shooting the worthless black scumbag.
Anyway, there is no single ultimatism, and indeed, even hedonistic-sensualist libertarians might defend their ideology in terms of ultimatism, i.e. free markets, in the long run, do most for the wealth-and-health of societies, and the ultimate meaning of what it means to be human is to be a free individual moving and working all around the world without artificial borders of politics and nations. Paradoxical as it may be, libertarianism seems to say that the total freedom of proximatism will lead to the best kind of ultimatism, at least as long as people are free to indulge in their pleasures and suffer the consequences of their excesses. So, people should be free to indulge in gambling and narcotics as long as they are not ‘bailed out’ by the state. Thus, most individuals will, through trial and error, find the proper balance between business and pleasure, between freedom and responsibility. (There is a strange puritanism at the core of Libertarianism. Some of its biggest adherents are actually uptight and sober men & women who aren’t given to self-indulgence and wild hedonism. Indeed, they seem more enthralled with the Stick aspect than the Carrot aspect of Libertarianism. They figure that vice and self-indulgence will be balanced out by the hard lessons of experience. So, Libertarianism is paradoxical in championing total freedom and total pleasure in the conviction that those who indulge in such excesses will get a good spanking from reality and be sobered into responsibility. Young people have shown support for Ron Paul as a champion of fun and pleasure, but Paul’s defense of Libertarianism has always been more about the stick that controls the penchant for fun and pleasure. Personally, he hasn’t been a self-indulgent reveler in drugs and sex. So, why does he champion the freedom to indulge in such things? Because he feels that total freedom will correct and balance itself out AS LONG AS the government doesn’t step in to bail out the crazy loons. In this sense, the Rightist Libertarians or Stick-Libertarians are more responsible and consistent than Leftist Libertarians or Carrot-Libertarians. The former values the Stick aspect of Libertarianism. It champions individual freedom to indulge in all sorts of behavior on the premise that individuals will be sobered into sanity when excess leads to loss and pain. In contrast, Leftist Libertarians want to have the cake and eat it too. They demand the freedom of excessive indulgence — the carrots of life — , but they don’t think individuals should ever be held accountable or shoulder the burden for the problems they cause. This Woodstock Libertarianism or Carrot-Libertarianism[of Bernie Sanders supporters who demand that Society pay for everything they indulge in and fix the problems that they cause] says individuals have the right to wallow in pleasure and excess, but if things go wrong as the result of such trashy behavior, it is up to Society and Government to repair things, clean up the mess, and fix problems. So, let people use all kinds of drugs and then have the government offer treatment. Let hippies mess up Woodstock and then have OTHER people clean up the mess. Let young women have wild sex, get pregnant, and then demand government to pay for their welfare and well-being. Let black kids sing rap, run around crazy, and act like louts... but have government fix the mess of urban degeneracy. Needless to say, Stick-Libertarianism, with roots in hard Cowboy ethos, makes more sense than Carrot-Libertarianism. It’s like the ants vs grasshoppers. But even Stick-Libertarianism fails to understand that certain addictions rob people of their freedom and power of reason. Once people become addicted to something like meth or gambling, they cannot control themselves even when they know it is destroying them. Humans are rational beings but also sensual beings, and certain vices are so pleasurable and addictive than once people revel in them, many individuals cannot wrest themselves from the addiction.) This may be true of lots of individuals, but what if certain races have more of the type who aren’t capable of self-regulation even when met with negative consequences for their actions? What if they are more like savages than rational civilized folks? If you give cocaine to a monkey, it will use it til it dies. While humans, unlike monkeys, can notice what the drug is doing to them and can drop the habit, the fact remains that many people, once addicted to certain pleasures, cannot stop even when they KNOW they need to stop. And if there are too many of such people in society, the society will crumble before correcting itself. Imagine a libertarian society where everyone’s happy and self-controlled, more or less. But suppose someone creates a new drug in a lab that is super-duper-addictive. Suppose he has the freedom to sell this stuff since libertarianism says one should be able to make and sell any drug, like Ron Paul says. Suppose many people use this drug, and they become addicted and don’t show up at work regularly or skip school. Suppose this drug is beginning to ruin lives. Suppose 50% of those who use this drug are able to wean themselves off its terribly addictive powers, but let’s say the other 50%, even though knowing of the drug’s horrible effects, are hopelessly addicted to the drug and totally ruin their lives, and in the process, mess up society as well. This is where libertarianism fails. Libertarianism would work fine in a world where everyone has the character, fortitude, and power of self-control that Ron Paul has in his personal life. Otherwise, it’s pipedream, especially in a world with so many Negroes who be flipping all the time. Even though the Democratic party machine bears much responsibility for the demise of Detroit, the disaster was also owed to defacto libertarianism. ‘Defacto’ because there’s no such thing as an ideological libertarianism among blacks. But in black communities, there are few social controls because every black man, woman, and child be thinking he or she must do as he or she be feeling like doing. There is no philosophy or ideas behind this kind of ‘savage libertarianism’ or ‘vulgar libertarianism’. Indeed, Detroit might have done better under the governance of the Cuban communist regime that uses political force to make sure that most Cuban blacks don’t get out of line. If Cuban black students act up, they get beaten by the teachers, and the blacks parents and students can’t go running to the media, lawyers, or ACLU. If Cuban blacks act like gangster rappers and talk shit to cops, they get hauled into prison. If Cuban black decide to play racial rabble rousers as ‘leaders of the black community’, they are sent to work camps and made to behave. Cuban doesn’t allow blacks to play on ‘white guilt’; blacks are made to accept as fact that Castro has done wonders for them. And the homicide rate among Cuban blacks is far lower than among Detroit blacks. Thus, more government control of blacks is better for blacks.
Blacks in America mired in culture of the Gangsta and protected by the law to act like louts and thugs
Blacks in Cuba. Poor but they better behave. Otherwise, they get a club on their head with no recourse to lawyers and lawsuits and favorable media coverage.
Of course, anti-libertarians don’t couch the argument in those terms. Though Liberals really want to gain more control over blacks, saying so would imply that blacks aren’t capable of self-rule and must be guided like children or animals. So, Liberals speak in terms of the black community needing more ‘aid’, ‘help’, and ‘support’. The great irony of white Liberals is that they say blacks are just as intelligent, mature, adult, and responsible as all other groups, but then they act as if blacks can’t be trusted to do anything on their own since black rule invariably seems to lead to the Detroit scenario. It is ‘racist’ to say that blacks need special help on the basis of their racial deficiencies, but it’s also ‘racist’ to say blacks, as free individuals, should be left alone(or ‘neglected’) to make their own decisions and either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences accordingly. Liberals try to have it both ways: they say blacks do need special help but not due to innate racial deficiencies but because the history of racial oppression and the lingering effects of subconscious ‘racism’ — of the ‘micro-aggressive’ kind — continue to hamper black progress. What is this ‘subconscious racism’? It’s noticing patterns like the fact that blacks commit much of the violent crimes in this country. But then, affluent Liberals seem to notice the reality of black violence sufficiently enough for their residential and educational decisions to be based on.
This insistence on the ‘racial oppression’ narrative is, of course, utterly irrational and illogical. If indeed people are mental prisoners of their past history, why should 300 years of ‘racial oppression’ count more than the 200,000 yrs of savagery in black Africa? Before blacks were brought to the Americas in any substantial number in the 18th century, black Africans had existed for hundreds of thousands of years in savage Africa where evolution shaped the Negro into what he be. If indeed the past casts a long shadow on the present, wouldn’t black behavior be more the product of 200,000 yrs of savagery in Africa than 200 yrs of slavery in America? If Liberals argue that 200 yrs can drastically reverse the effects of those 100,000 or 200,000 yrs in Africa, why can’t 50 yrs of social reform reverse the effects of 300 yrs of oppression? Think about it. Liberals would like to believe that Africans lived in Edenic wonder in Africa for 100,000s of years, but the effect of all this was reversed by 200 yrs of slavery. Of course, in truth, blacks in Africa lived like wild murderous savages(and practiced slavery for 10,000 yrs), but for the sake of argument, let’s say blacks had lived in a kind of jungle eden. How could 300 yrs of history reverse 200,000 yrs of edenic soul-development among blacks? And if such a short duration could undo the effects of 200,000 yrs, why can’t decades of reform and progress improve the lot of so many underclass blacks? Furthermore, Liberals and ‘leftists’ claim to believe(contrary to the conservative position that society should ideally change gradually and ‘organically’) that fundamental changes can happen very rapidly, indeed almost overnight, i.e. people who, for eons had worked as dirt-poor peasants under crushing conditions, can become perfectly well-adjusted modern folks. Consider the rapid social revolutions that took place in Europe in the 19th century, Japan in the early 20th century, and China and India in the last two decades. Consider the sudden collapse of communism in Eastern Europe when so many experts had predicted that such a powerful system could erode away only gradually. And consider the rapid change among Germans from aristocratic rule before WWI to democratic rule before WWII to totalitarian rule under the Nazis to democratic rule after WWII to globo-PC rule since the end of the Cold War. And consider the pace of social change as dirt poor and backward Okies became modern sunny Californians. Consider the pace at which the black community, in which the out-of-wedlock rate was 12% in the 1950s, went from conservative-minded family values to libertine jiveass craziness since the mid-1960s. And consider how the wild 1960s that seemed to be getting wilder(and even possibly leading to violent revolution) vanished overnight once Nixon ended the Draft. And consider how homosexuality, which had been seen as a perversion, came to be something to celebrate and even to associate with the rainbow by both the educated elites and TV-addled moronic masses hooked to Ellen Degeneris and WILL & GRACE. Prior to the rise of the revolutionary power of capitalism — that toppled old social hierarchies and accelerated the process of replacing one set of elites with newer ones with mastery of innovative technologies and control of mass media that shapes reality and fantasy for billions around the globe — , historical and cultural change had been gradual, indeed glacial. (Wars, invasions, and famines could be very disruptive and transforming, but they didn’t alter the way things were done in production and distribution. It was the same economy and technology but under a different set of rulers.) The old elites remained in power as the landed gentry, and trade consisted of middlemen activity by those patronized or tolerated by the ruling classes. And since most people weren’t literate and spent nearly all their lives within the 20 mile radius of where they were born — and since there was no mass media or mass education —, things changed very slowly if at all. And some conservatives, upon examining such histories, came to the fallacious conclusion that history must move very slowly. But with new means of communication, organization, and mass culture, history can and does move very fast. Russians, who had worshiped God and revered the Tsar for hundreds of years, almost overnight became fervent communists. Chinese, who had revered Confucius and filial piety for thousands of years, were, under Mao, beating up parents and teachers, burning books and denouncing intellectuals. But just when Red China seemed to have hardened into staunch communism, the reforms implemented by Deng Xiaoping transformed the nation into something more like a giant Hong Kong or Singapore than Mao’s vision of red utopia. So, history in modern times can change very quickly, and conservatives who scratch their heads and wonder why — and still refer to Edmund Burke — don’t know what the hell is happening(like Mr. Jones of Bob Dylan’s "Ballad of a Thin Man"). This isn’t to suggest that rapid change is necessarily a good thing but merely to observe that rapid changes are ongoing and unceasing realities in a globalized world. Indeed, the cult of change on the ‘left’ is such that Liberals(who should really be called ‘Illiberals’ in the age of PC) feel a need to create the impression of ‘progress’ even when there isn’t any. To any sane person, the idea that we should celebrate the lifestyles of homo men whose idea of ‘sex’ is using their sex organs to carry out acts of fecal penetration is obviously demented. Sure, we can see the need to tolerate homos(because they were born that way), but why ‘celebrate’ a gross deviancy like homosexuality with rainbow flags? (The pageantry hoodwinks people into thinking homosexuality is something fun and wondrous. If ‘gay pride’ parades featured people carrying posters showing a penis up a bunghole, public opinion will change very fast.) If we must, why not do the same for incestuous people? How is homosexuality better than incest? Of course, homomania makes no sense, but Liberals are so addicted to the self-image of being on the ‘right side of history’ or ‘more evolved’ that they’ve concocted ridiculous notions of ‘same sex marriage’ and ‘marriage equality’. Your average Liberal being about as smart as your average Creation-believing Conservative, would fall for such idiocy. Such dummies don’t realize that this ‘gay’ agenda is being pushed by Jews and homos, the most unequal, powerful, and privileged groups in society. The ‘gay’ agenda or Gaypac does for homos what AIPAC or the Jewish agenda does for Jews. They privilege and favor Jews and homos over all other groups. Thus, any form of white or European nationalism or race-ism is reviled as ‘odious’ and ‘noxious’, BUT it’s wonderful for Jews to support the race-ist and democratic-fascist nationalist state of Israel with its tough immigration policies. So, even though polygamists and incest-sexuals aren’t allowed to marry — and used as butt of jokes and derision — , it’s PHOBIC and ‘hateful’ to deny homos whatever they demand — even the trans-gender ‘right’ for men in wig & dress to use women’s restrooms and showers. But using logic and reason with Liberals(or illiberals) is pointless. For elite Liberals, especially Jews and homos, so-called ‘progressivism’ is really a form of crypto-tribalism. If one inspects their agendas carefully, and they simply favor their own narrow interests over those of other groups. And there is no consistency in their arguments, e.g. Jews were for unfettered freedom of speech when Jewish radicals were against the ropes, but now that Jews control the commanding heights of American Power, they are now for restricting freedom of speech by defaming speech they don’t like as ‘hate speech’. Homos talk of ‘tolerance’ but show no tolerance toward anyone who thinks ‘gay marriage’ is a preposterous idea. Even though homos take pride in being outrageous and rebellious, they shriek at any joke about homos and bitch and whine that it’s ‘homophobic’ and must be shut down. They think they have the right to piss on any parade but act like precious snowflakes when their tender feelings are hurt: Gaudy excess for themselves but sheepish obedience for everyone else... that is unless they wanna wave the ‘gay flag’ and scream rapturous love for the homos like Red Guards did for Mao during the Cultural Revolution. If Winston Smith learned to love Big Brother, your average Liberal has learned to love Big Bugger.

Anyway, because of the Burkean strain on the American Right, many conservatives tend to be complacent, patient, and bemused than impassioned and motivated. They just shrug their shoulders, remain on the sidelines, and wonder, "gee, why is all this happening?" and "maybe, it will burn out of its own accord." (The boomer radicals did burn out, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief when America seemed to be returning to normal. Therefore, American public figured that radicalism has no real shelf-life and will fade away like all fads and fashions. But it only appeared that way in the late 70s and 80s because boomers had yet to decisively take over the institutions and industries of power. Things are different today because the very halls of power are now controlled by PC-lords. If radical lunacy in the 60s and early 70s was happening from the outside, today the radical nuttery rules the halls of power from the inside and encourages lunacy among the millennials.) In terms of energy levels, the difference between Liberals and Conservatives is like that between Rex Kwon Do guy and Napoleon Dynamite’s friend. Liberals may be full of shit and making up a lot of dumb crap, but they always doing something and acting like they are making a DIFFERENCE, and that makes all the difference.

Of course, another difference is that while Liberalism is led by dominators, Conservatism is led by servers. Jews and Homos are the leading forces in American Liberalism, and they are committed to pushing policies that boost and secure their own Jewish and Homo power. Incidentally, even though Jews are far more powerful than homos, Jews have highlighted homo power to distract us from the Jewish power that is really the power behind the throne. Thus, homos serve as not only as a sword but a shield for Jewish power. Anyway, in contrast to the power dynamics of American Liberalism, American Conservatism is led by an elite that is mostly concerned with serving another group. Jews in American Liberalism feel historically, morally, and socially proud and do everything to further Jewish interests, even if these concerns are shrouded in the language of ‘equality’ and ‘progress’. But most Wasps and white ethnics in American Conservatism don’t serve Wasp interests or even Southern White interests but the interests of Wall Street Jews & globalists and, increasingly, even homos as, one after another, Republican politicians are coming out of the closet to declare themselves shameless whores of the homo agenda. 99% of Republican politicians are, first and foremost, shameless whores of Jewish power and Zionism. They haven’t said a peep about the plight of whites in South Africa, the memory of the millions destroyed by Jewish communists, the problem of black-on-white crime & violence in America, the danger of massive immigration on the interests & well-being of white Americans, and etc. Instead, they get all passionate about stuff like "we must do everything to defend Israel, even if we have to declare war on Iran", "we must send billions more in aid to Israel lest the all-powerful neo-Nazi Palestinian children armed with stones drive the poor helpless Israelis into the Dead Sea in another holocaust", or "MLK was a conservative, and he would have been on our side, and we need to worship him and wanna kiss his black ass to the end of time because he was bigger than God, Jesus, and all the Founding Fathers put together". Therefore, even though the GOP is understood to be an implicitly ‘white party’, its imperative is to slavishly serve, toady up to, and seek the approval of the group, the Jews, who have done more to harm the interests of white Americans than any other group has done. Whites serve Jews who serve themselves. THAT is the main weakness of American Conservatism. It is most servile to the group that aims to it the most harm, and it carries on with the delusion that Jews will come over to the GOP if American Conservatives go out on a limb for the Tribe.

In the 2008 and 2012 elections, there was the hilarious spectacle of the servile Republican candidates before the Jewish community that wasn’t merely overwhelmingly pro-Obama — indeed Jews made, groomed, protected, and promoted him — but actively mocking, insulting, and spitting on American Conservatism. It was a sickening sight, and it just gets worse and worse. Jews kicked John McCain in the ass, so what does Mr. Magoo wanna do? He wants to declare war on Russia to show Putin that it’s not nice to mess with Jewish oligarchs who, in McCain’s eyes, have some God-given right to gain control of all of Russia. You’d think a white ‘conservative’ like McCain would take some cues from Putin who wrested some of the power back from heinous globalist Jews, but instead, even as American Jews continued to mock and insult him, McCain pleaded for approval from the Jewish community — maybe another glowing editorial in the pages of the New York Times — by barking like a running dog of global Zionism at the Big Russian Bear that, unlike America, still won’t bend over backward to the Jewish agenda that uses homomania as its globalist-imperialist proxy. Homos want the world to be homocentric: Every nation should legalize ‘gay marriage’ and have massive ‘gay pride’ parades as the main annual celebration. According to Jews and homos, Western nations that have legalized ‘gay marriage’ are ‘more evolved’ than the non-Western world. It’s amusing how white Liberals who’d long maintained that it’s ‘racist’ to say that Western culture is superior to non-Western cultures are now saying that the Western folks — at least those who cheer for ‘gay marriage’ — are ‘more evolved’ and advanced than non-Western folks who still preserve the ultimatist meaning of sex and marriage.
Of course, the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are many areas in which Western culture and values are indeed superior and more advanced than the cultures of the non-West, which is why non-Western peoples have been more attracted to Western ideas, principles, and means than vice versa for the last several centuries. After all, even the most politically correct Liberals don’t want to adopt African tribal ‘philosophy’ or ‘politics’ as the basis of social philosophy or organization. Furthermore, Western Liberals are hard at work trying to spread modern medicine, democracy, and the idea of ‘human rights’ in the Dark Continent. However, all civilizations, however advanced they may be, eventually tend to fall into the vice of decadence. Surrounded by prosperity, security, and plentitude, the elites of the decadent order began to take things for granted; they begin to lose sight of fundamentals, and indeed may see fundamentals as obstacles to further ‘progress’ that becomes measured by the fetishistic cult of change and libertine excesses of hedonism. And then, the elites seek to buy off the masses that have also grown corrupt and decadent with bread & circuses than with tough lessons about core values, responsibility, and honesty.
In 2008, the economy went south largely due to the Jewish control of our financial sector, but Jews wanted to keep the power; therefore, Wall Street Jews were ‘bailed out’. But since this was bound to upset the masses, the people were bought off with massive ‘bread and circuses’ in the form of greatly increased food stamps, unemployment checks, and other handouts. And even though there are so many economic, cultural, moral, and demographic challenges facing America, the main moral concern of the American elites has been... ‘gay marriage’! And even though more Americans have college degrees than in the past, their idea of Culture is slobbering over GIRLS starring Miss Piggy Lena Dunham, and their idea of moral participation in society is waving the ‘gay flag’ at some event where narcissistic fecal penetrators on parade floats act like conquering Roman emperors. It’s as if current America is ruled by Jewlius Caesar and his Homo guards. The ‘gay parade’ is the victory procession of the new elites over an America where most white people are either brainwashed Liberal dupes or browbeaten Conservative running dogs whose main concern is killing Muslims to win the approval of Zionists.
'Gay Pride' parade as victory march of Jewish-Globalist Power. The celebration of the Homo Anus fecal-penetrated by the penis smeared in human feces. The celebration of men cutting off penises and obtaining fake vaginas or women mutilating their vaginas to be fitted with fake penises. Thanks, Jews.
Homo Agenda as Globalist-Zionist-Imperialism. A homo freak rides on a float staging an anal-bombing of the Iranian President.
While not every nation has Jews, every nation has its share of homos, and therefore, Jews seek to gain control over every nation by aiding and abetting the homo agents and activists of every nation. Since homos everywhere feel somewhat alienated from their own societies, they make ideal collaborators of the Jewish globalists. So, if Indian homosexuals feel underprivileged in India, they might make common cause with the globalist homosexual communities centered in NY, Washington D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Paris, and London, and of, course, all those cities are dominated by Jewish-Zionist power. And since homos everywhere are more fancy-pants and fussy-wussy, they tend to be bigger social strivers than most straight people; and since they remain in the closet in many parts of the world, they become masters at gaining power through subterfuge, deviousness, deception, and conspiracy. Indeed, this is something that Jews and homos long have had in common. Throughout European history, Jews, with their special skills in finance, served as bankers and tax collectors of the kings and noblemen, while the homos, with their special skills in arts and fashion, served as makers of fancy attire and jewelry for the privileged classes. Though they served the gentile elites, they were mastering the art of deception and manipulation, and when the social system was inverted by the rise of capitalism and mass media, Jews and homos eventually became the new masters with their craftiness. And today, it’s the European and American gentiles and straights who slavishly serve the interests and agendas of the Jewish and homosexual elites.
For most American sheeple, nothing is good enough for the Jews who must be showered with endless accolades, praises, sympathy, and adulation. And thanks to Jewish machination of the mass media, many gentiles and straights are now falling all over themselves to praise homos as the greatest thing since cream-filled buns.
Though Jews and homos have an image of wildness and abandon, the great source of their power is self-control and devious cleverness — Marx Brothers revel in controlled craziness — , and homos especially re-learned this lesson after the debacle of the HIV epidemic that killed off so many homos who went around buggering every fecal hole they could sniff out. Power means gaining and having control over others. How can anyone gain control over others if he hasn’t control over himself? Before one gains control over others, one must first gain control over oneself. It’s like if you’re a boxer and wanna win the fight, you must first conquer and control yourself and make sure that you wake up every morning to exercise and train for the fight. If one loses self-control, like Mike Tyson prior to his fateful match with Buster Douglas, one cannot conquer/control others. To be a big-time lawyer with control over other lawyers and the legal system, one must have self-control and get good grades in school, study for and pass the tests, and gain all the right credentials. The Jew lawyer played by Sean Penn in CARLITO’S WAY self-destructs in the end because he loses control of himself. To win the marathon, one must have control over what one eats and how one regulates the body throughout the training. One cannot be a fat lazy slob who eats a lot of junk and then shows up for the main event. Thus, we must be careful not to associate Jewish and homo power with overt images of wildness. Even when Jews seem to be acting wild, there’s cunning and control behind it. The Marx Brothers weren’t just winging it but using strategy and coordination. While there’s a certain spontaneity about Jewish wit and brilliance, Jews also work very hard at what they do, and that means self-control and self-awareness. Imagine a Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, Sergei Eisenstein, Cecil B. DeMille, William Wyler, or Billy Wilder without self-control.
While some Jews lose themselves to excess or debauchery — like Lenny Bruce and Amy Winehouse — , most famous Jews don’t confuse the act with the fact, the fact being seeing the forest as well as the trees. No self-control means no map, no sense of direction, therefore no control of others. Indeed, if you want to weaken your enemies, you should them lose self-control. You make them use drugs, become sexually loose and confused, eat too much and become fat and infantile, lazy and shiftless. If Army A faces Army B, Army A will have a better chance of winning if Army B is made up of people who are doped out on drugs, lacking in discipline, fuc*ing everything in sight, weak on unity, and etc. Of course, if Army A is to encourage such behavior on Army B, it wouldn’t do to be honest and admit its true intentions. Instead, Army A should tell the members of Army B that they are being ‘empowered’ with the freedom to indulge in their animal drives, and maybe just maybe, enough members of Army B will fall for this bullshit and really think they are gaining greater power by indulging in their wilder instincts for debauchery. People without self-control fail to understand that control of the world is impossible without control over the self, and instead, they’ll conflate self-gratification with self-power. Of course, thus debauched and demoralized, they can easily be invaded, conquered, and controlled by the Army A that maintains its unity and self-control among its members. (Of course, commanders of Army A would be stupid to encourage such behavior among their own men. The elites need disciplined hardworking men on their side, the sort of men with self-control and discipline. You can’t win with an army full of bums and louts. But if the men below you are self-controlled, hardworking, and disciplined, what if they gain credentials, master special skills, organize, and rise up to challenge your elite power? To prevent this, you must make sure to control the Narrative and ideology so that the men, despite their self-control and work-ethic, will remain mental putties in your hand. Like the beasts of ANIMAL FARM, they work hard but for YOUR agenda, not for agenda of their own conception. Also, you can increase diversity so that the men below you will never unite as a racial or national collective. Furthermore, you can maintain control by instilling them with guilt-emotions, such as ‘white guilt’. That way, if you feel any threat level from those below, you just mutter loaded terms like ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ to make them back down and hang their heads low in shame.) In today’s world, Jews and homos spread and encourage the loss of self-control among the masses so that the Jewish and homo elites of media, entertainment, and academia can easily gain and maintain control over everyone. Thus, if girls are raised to be skankass sluts like the Lena Dunham’s Miss Piggy character in GIRLS — and if they’re dumb enough to think that such behavior is ‘empowering’ — , their minds and emotions can easily be molded by the elite controllers of popular culture. Mindless idiots tend to be addicts of hedonistic machine factory controlled and operated by the globalist elites. Jews encourage the spread of rap music and other such junk in Europe, Middle East, and Asia because new generations of Europeans, Arabs/Muslims, and Asians will be reduced to mindless consumers of orgasmo-opium-peddling machine factory controlled by the Globalists or the GLOB. It’s like pushers selling dope to unwitting fools who feel ‘empowered’ with the rush of narco-exuberance when, in effect, they are turning into mental-sensual slaves of the pushers who monopolize the dope supply. Why enslave people physically when you can enslave them mentally, emotionally, and sensually? And no need to worry about the masses waking up since the dummies conflate their own mental-emotional-sensual enslavement with delusions of ‘empowerment’. Just look at the sorry spectacle of the ‘slut pride parade’. Just look at all the dumb girls who think they are ‘empowered’ because they try to live the SEX AND THE CITY life? GIRLS is supposed to be more ‘realistic’, but it is a fantasy of Miss Piggy as a sexpot.
And the cultural elites, instead of dissecting and critiquing such garbage, approve and endorse it because they(along with the purveyors of trash), consciously or subconsciously, use popular culture as a means to gain control over the minds-emotions-senses of all the dummies out there. So, they care less about artistic quality, levels of truth, or possible insights — or lack thereof — of the work in question; they decide its worth in terms of whether it will further the ‘progressive’ cause by turning the masses onto piggishness so the masses will be more pliable to the Jewish and homo elite controllers of the world. (Just consider the ecstatic critical response to the new STAR WARS movie by J.J. Abrams. It is utterly worthless, as bad or even worse than the equally cynical JURASSIC WORLD, but has been praised for its multi-culti content of having more ‘diversity’ in the Galaxy.) Of course, self-control, in and of itself, doesn’t necessarily lead to power. It is also a matter of degrees. For self-control to be effective and useful, there must be something to control. It’s like a furnace without wood to set on fire is cold and dead. It may be a fine piece of machinery for controlling the fire, but there is no fire. For the furnace to have meaning and serve its purpose, it needs to wood to burn, and then and only then, the fire can be tended effectively to warm the whole house. Without the furnace, burning wood will just scatter in the winds and burn out fast. It’s like how men of talent burned out before their time due to lack of self-control. Sam Peckinpah had exceptionally bright inner fire, but his lack of self-control sent his career up his flames; he died at the age of 59 in sickly body of an 80 year old. The problem of American Conservatism is that even those with self-control have little that is creative and/or compelling burning inside. Jews and homos have lots of inner fire and control over that fire. Is it then any surprise that they control America. The only reason that conservatism still has a place in American society and politics is because conservatives still have numeric power of quantity, especially in the South. But in terms of quality — passion, creativity, brilliance, expression, inspiration, originality, imagination, and etc. — there is at best the slow burn of smoldering ashes. Indeed, even dumb passion is absent is absent on the Right. When Supreme Court struck down DOMA, there was hardly any show of outrage or protest from Conservatives who just griped quietly as if they were too ashamed to make any fuss lest they upset Jewish neocons who have been spreading the homo agenda inside American Conservatism Inc.
American Conservatism is like a cold furnace without wood to burn. Without fire to control, a cold furnace is like a dead body that causes no harm but does no good either.
Anyway, we were saying something about ‘vertical’ ultimatism and ‘horizontal’ proximatism and about how we need a balance of both in life. Even if what we do may directly or indirectly have an ultimatist purpose, we can’t be thinking of the Big Picture all the time. Sometimes, it’s good to find pleasure in life and not think too much about the Great Meaning of it all. But, to lose sight of the Big Picture entirely and approach life as nothing but a means of seeking momentary pleasures leads to problems like gluttony, debauchery, drug abuse, ‘gay marriage’, and decadence. While eating is surely pleasurable, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the purpose of eating is to remain alive and provide energy and nutrients to our bones and muscles. If eating becomes simply a matter of stuffing whatever that tastes good into our mouths, then we will all become diabetic fatbodies and grow sick, and of course, US(along with the ‘advanced world’) has a huge health problem with obesity. Obese people are not bad people, and given the abundance of food in America, it’s understandable why the majority of Americans have a problem with weight. But we must never lose sight of the HIERARCHY of the food groups, i.e. that certain foods are better than others. ‘Food Equality’ would have us believe that someone who eats only junk food is nutritionally on the same plane as someone who eats fruits, nuts, whole grain breads, green vegetables, and the like, but we need to know that certain foods are far more essential for our well-being.
Similarly, the idea of ‘gay marriage’ has risen from the notion that the ONLY purpose of sex is pleasure. Thus, whatever gives sexual pleasure to whomever is supposedly of equal value(biologically and morally) to any other kind of sex. But can anyone, with a straight face, really say that they believe that two guys ramming their penises into fecal holes or two females poon-rubbing each other has any biological worth or makes moral sense? It’s one thing to say that some people are born sexually deviant/weird and should be allowed to pursue their own paths to ‘sexual’ pleasure, but should such behavior be regarded as the essence of sex and marriage? Marriage is essentially a vertical or ultimatist institution premised on the notion that since male and female can biologically produce life — the next generation — , they should make a moral commitment to each other to raise the children whom they may produce together. Thus, marriage is biologically and morally meaningful. It’s not just about our self-interests in the horizontal social present but about how we are part of a vertical continuum that goes back eons and shall continue on through the coming eons through the mating of male and female and the moral responsibility of raising the offsprings of such matings. But homos cannot have kids. No amount of fecal penetration between homo men and no amount of poon-grinding among lesbians has ever produced a SINGLE life form. And for homos to ‘have a kid’, one of the biological parents must walk out on his or her own child. If two homo men wanna play husband and ‘wife’, the real mother will have to surrender her kid to the homo couple. If two lesbians wanna play wife and ‘husband’, the real father will have to surrender his kid to the lesbian couple. So much for biological or moral sense. But since homos have been elevated to neo-aristocratic sainthood, we peasants must do everything to make them happy because the new morality is measured by the question, "Is it good for the Jews?" and "Is it pleasing to the homos?" At the feet of Jews and homos, we are like the Mel Brooks character before his former master in TWELVE CHAIRS, but we remain blind to our slavishness because Jews and homos have been portrayed — by the Jewish-controlled media and academia — as the ‘eternal victims’ in need of our love and protection. So, even as we slavishly serve them, we pretend that we are protecting them. Jews and homos are hideously clever, and we are damn dumb.

Anyway, because of the Jewish-and-homo manipulation of our horizontal proximatist impulses and desires, we tend to lose sight of the Big Picture and favor whatever jolts individuals with pleasure. So, if straight people associate sex primarily with pleasure and not much else, they would feel guilty if the ‘right of pleasure’ was denied to homosexuals. (Also, even marriage came to be seen essentially as a matter-of-pleasure, something that should serve our sense of individual self-aggrandizement than a noble tradition that should be served, preserved, and honored.) Therefore, there followed the decriminalization of homosexuality and the opportunity for homos to ‘come out of the closet’.
But once homos came out and rose to neo-aristocratic ranks and rubbed shoulders with elite Jews, it wasn’t enough for them to be tolerated. Instead, all of society had to be brainwashed, indoctrinated, duped, pressured, threatened, and intimidated into making themselves believe that homosexuality has the same biological and moral worth as real sexuality. Since this was a hard sell to anyone who ponders the true nature of homosexuality and its related deviancies — ranging from two guys practicing fecal penetration to a male or female having their entire bodily organs cut off and replaced with fake organs of the opposite sex — , it was imperative that Jews and homos make the masses not think about the issue at all. Thus, the whole issue became slathered with slogans about ‘equality’, images of rainbows, pageantry of Gay Day as the new May Day — with the working class and lower classes taking a backseat to the ‘creative’ neo-aristocratic homos perched up high in the globalist hierarchy — , TV sitcoms with homos who are too-good-to-be-true(indeed even more so than the idealized families in the 1950s TV shows), weepy Hollywood movies about the tragic nobility of homos in mushy Stanley-Kramer-ish drivel like PHILADELPHIA and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, homos in top slots in the news and entertainment industry — Ellen Degeneris, Rachel Maddow, Anderson Pooper Cooper, etc. — , and educational propaganda associating any critical or skeptical feelings about homosexuals as HOMOPHOBIA, considered a clinical mental disorder comparable to ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’. Thus, homos went from real people seeking tolerance and justice to a kind of god-saint-victim folks who must be revered and celebrated mindlessly. The ‘fag flag’ — the one with the rainbow — has been slathered so excessively by the Jewish-and-homo-controlled media that most people now Pavlovianly associate homosexuality and tranny business with the miraculous beauty of the rainbow. (I wonder why Jesse Jackson didn’t complain about this since he was the one who first claimed the rainbow with the Rainbow Coalition; maybe, he was bought off as he’s always been a pimp-whore who would stoop to any level for a payoff). If the media flashed the image of the American flag with every story about the US government or military, they would be accused of jingoism. And if the media flashed the image of Holy Bible or the Cross every time it did a story about Christians, they would be accused of promoting religion. But when it comes to homo-related stories, the ‘fag flag’ is always featured in the photos, as if to say homosexuality is the miracle of the rainbow itself. Of course, no one even bothers to ask why the rainbow got associated with a bunch of fecal penetrating homos, poon-grinding lesbians, and penis-lopping or vagina-mutilating transvestites. Imagine watching a sex-change-operation where a guy’s penis and testicles are removed with a scalpel or a woman’s vagina is altered with a knife and sewed up with a fake penis. What kind of a sicko would associate such a thing with something as wondrous as the rainbow? We are told that people should have control over their bodies and do with it anything they like, but that would mean people should have the right to ask doctors to remove their eyes, hands, and legs for whatever reason. The proximatist argument also favors abortion ‘rights’ because a society that sees sex as little more than a means of pleasure and self-gratification would naturally see an unborn fetus/baby as an obstacle to one’s prioritization of fun and pleasure. What if a woman got pregnant but sees the kid as an hindrance to her desire for more hopping around in bed? Then, it’s obvious that the kid must be aborted. From an ultimatist perspective, such attitudes are childish and callous, even immoral. Also, even though abortion is touted as a case of woman’s empowerment and control over her body, one must ask why, if she has such control over her body in the first place, she got herself pregnant in the first place through casual sex(in an age that scoffs at the notion of causal sex of consequences)? It’s hardly surprising that abortion is most often used by underclass women who have little self-control over themselves and therefore no control and power over their social sphere. (For this reason, abortion should be kept legal because it’s better for dumb whores to have the freedom to choose to kill their own babies than have then be born and grow up into louts.) They are little more than animalistic slaves to desire. But then, one could also make an ultimatist argument in favor of abortion in that it’s probably better for society in the long run if dumb, poor, and low IQ women — especially the Negresses — are allowed and even encouraged to abort their kids. Fewer Negroes is always better for society, and it would be better for the white community if blacks aborted and killed 90%(or even 99%) of their kids. For that reason, conservatives should come around to supporting state-funded abortions, at least for the Negroes, illegal aliens, and some ‘white trash’ types who really aren’t good for anything.(Worse than abortion is ‘Afrortion’ whereby a white woman uses her womb to have a black baby. She is essentially killing and murdering the white-child-that-could-have-been by banning white men from her white womb, which is to be reserved as a nursery-hatchery for black babies who will grow up to be biological enemies of the white race. There is no worse enemy than a white bitch who chooses Afrortion. Her betrayal isn’t merely ideological or cultural but biological and of the blood. Is it any wonder why Jews promote interracism? A white woman who ideologically betrays her own people can return to the fold with a change of heart & mind. But when her very body rejects white men and serves as a life-giver to mulatto-black children, her betrayal has taken place at the bio-molecular level. It is why THE SEARCHERS is such an important movie. The Politics of the Womb is most important, indeed even more than Politics of the Soil. A people can lose the land but still maintain identity, culture, and heritage by having the men and women form families to have more of their own kind. Thus, Jews survived without a nation for thousands of years. But when the men lose connection to the wombs of their women, they are finished as a race and culture. Every time a white woman has a mulatto-black baby, a white-child-that-could-have-been has been Afrorted from her womb.)
While abortion is pretty gross and unpleasant, it is better for trashy women to kill their own kids than have them be born and grow up to be louts and leeches.
Anyway, a healthy society needs a combination of vertical ultimatism and horizontal proximatism, and maybe the appeal of the Crucifix to Christians has been its subliminal suggestion of the right kind of balance society needs between ultimatism and proximatism. The crucifix is an intersection of vertical line and a horizontal line. The vertical line is longer than — and therefore prioritized over — the horizontal line. So, even as society needs both ultimatism and proximatism, the former takes precedence over the latter. However, the horizontal line, instead of crossing the middle of the vertical line, is perched up higher as if to suggest that, despite vertical ultimatism being more important, our hearts and minds are naturally often more occupied with proximatist desires and needs. In other words, it’s natural that, most of the time, we would be more concerned with our daily needs and momentary pangs of desire, but we must remind ourselves, either at Church or at home, that our reality is not the ultimate reality but merely an intersection in the long line of biological and historical processes of survival, continuation, and change.
Anyway, despite the momentous cultural changes in the 60s, there wasn’t an immediate change of mind-sets. For one thing, the conflict was never clear-cut as in team-sports. In some respects, Kael and Sarris seemed diametric enemies, but they actually had much in common and, by default, found themselves in common cause against figures like Dwight MacDonald. But at other times, MacDonald and Kael found themselves in the same camp against Sarris. And even though Bosley Crowther of the New York Times was the favored target — the epitome of philistine middlebrow-ism — of the new sensibility, he was far from the simple strawman that many made him out to be. Though his reviews did kill the commercial chances of some worthy foreign films, they also helped, even saved, many of them, and in his own way, Crowther did his best to balance his appreciation of Hollywood and International Cinema. Kerry Seagrave’s FOREIGN FILMS IN AMERICA: A HISTORY gives credit where it’s due in detailing the impact, both positive and negative, that Bosley Crowther’s long reign at the New York Times had for film culture in America. Also, it must be remembered that the ‘fresh voices’ of the 1960s were not so young, especially as there was no such thing as the blogosphere as we have today. There were a limited number of influential journals, and it wasn’t easy to break into any of them(therefore, when anyone did land a job as critic or writer, he or she clung to that precious position as long as possible, thus fated to become the new ‘dinosaur’ growing ever more ‘irrelevant’ as the years rolled by — this may explain why Kael, as well as her protege Camille Paglia, tried so hard to be remain zesty and fresh, as if in fear of being usurped by younger voices; after all, they themselves had pulled off the ALL-ABOUT-EVE game of fans-overtaking-the-stars), and therefore, those who really made a difference in the discourse were really just a handful of critics and intellectuals: Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, Stanley Kauffmann, Dwight MacDonald, Manny Farber, Susan Sontag, and to a lesser extent, John Simon. There were many other critics to be sure, but they either tended to be lackluster or wrote for journals or newspapers with insufficient space and/or freedom for full expression of views.
Bosley Crowther, the philistine film critic of the New York Times
As for the academics in film studies that were coming into vogue at the time, most didn’t have long-term impact outside the university, and those who made the crossover from academia to cinema, like Todd Haynes(the ‘concocter’ of the insufferably precious I’M NOT THERE) didn’t amount to much, that is unless your idea of artistic summit and spiritual peak is watching some white women kiss a Negro in post-neo-post-modernist tripe like FAR FROM HEAVEN that plays on the audience’s ‘intellect’ and emotions on so many levels of conceits and affectations. It’s the sort of film designed to flatter the audience-in-the-know to pick up all the right signals and pat themselves on the back for getting the references, cross-references, meta-references, emotions, emotions-about-emotions, thoughts-about-emotions, emotions-about-thoughts, and so on. I’M NOT THERE was no less conceited, but it didn’t have a white woman kissing a Negro, so it didn’t have the same impact(in a nation where Negro-worship is one of the three great religions, along with Jew-worship and Homo-worship or Homomania) of FAR FROM HEAVEN, which is like HELP for people who see themselves as too ‘sophisticated’ and ‘intellectual’ for soggy emotions. Thus, it offers sappy emotions but also postmodern signaling that urges the audience to ‘think’ about these emotions. Tarantino is Haynes for couchpotato hipsters, and Haynes is Tarantino for CafĂ© Latte hipsters.
Todd Haynes the fruitkin director. Haynes is pretty good  when just telling a story, as with his TV adaptation of MILDRED PIERCE. But his attempts at intellectual-filmmaking has been a pain-in-the-ass. Who with any sense can stomach something so bogus as I'M NOT THERE or FAR FROM HEAVEN, an unveiling of the supposedly closeted hangups of Douglas Sirk melodramas.
At any rate, as the years passed, the cultural elite divided and went separate ways. One became dysfunctional and the other became irrelevant. One group felt excessive ease with popular culture and felt no compunction to uphold the ‘high’ over the ‘low’. As the nouveau middle class was no longer so nouveau and racked with class/status anxiety(especially after the vulgarizing effects of the 1960s), its members felt less need to prove their cultural worth and their children grew up in a climate of cultural relaxation where, even in college, there was no shame if the entirety of their cultural experience consisted of Rock music and watching TV. They might still read serious books and take courses in English literature, but they lacked the reverence and love for serious culture of the kind Allen Bloom described upon first arriving at the University of Chicago. Though they weren’t without cultural standards — as everyone still maintained his personal idea of good, okay, and bad — , they were less insistent than the older generations who’d been more mindful of separating the wheat from the chaff.

The rise of Rock music as an ‘art form’ probably played an important role in the change of cultural climate, in some ways more so than the rise of cinema as the ‘art form of the 20th century’. After all, many of the highly esteemed ‘art films’ were serious and ‘difficult’, indeed connected with traditional art forms such as Theater, Painting, Classical Music, Architecture, Novels, and etc. Patience and erudition(about art, history, and culture) were prerequisites for appreciating such works. Films like HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR, JULES AND JIM, THE LEOPARD, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, 8 ½, WOMAN IN THE DUNES, MY NIGHT AT MAUD’S, L’AVVENTURA, MOUCHETTE, and many others were paeans to Youth Culture. Even a film like ZABRISKIE POINT raised more questions than provided answers as to ‘what is to be done?’
Many young college students and Counterculture folks adopted cinema as their art form, but even highly exciting films like BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE WILD BUNCH were far more multi-faceted than Rock music that, for the most part, was all about the groove(though there were exceptions like Bob Dylan, Fairport Convention, Pink Floyd, etc). Thus, it was a matter of time before cinema-as-art would lose its appeal as the culture became more nakedly popularized and youth-oriented. Too much of ‘art cinema’ was simply not fun in the way of immediate gratification as favored by young people and Negroes. So, even though the boomer generation in the 80s and 90s bemoaned the fading of cinephilia of the 60s and early 70s(supposedly replaced by the blockbuster craze that began with JAWS and STAR WARS), they weren’t being very honest because the love of ‘art cinema’ among the boomer youths — mostly college students and folks in a handful of big cities — had been more of an affectation than a real passion. Art Cinema could really be art in the traditional meaning of the term, but the fact was that most boomers, even Counterculture people and college students, didn’t really wanna see the films of Robert Bresson or even those of Jean-Luc Godard. Not when it was so much fun to listen to Beatles & Rolling Stones and smoke pot.
The great passion among the boomers, educated and uneducated, was Rock music because no other cultural product had so brilliantly, deviously, and cleverly combined elements of Pop, Art, and Personality. Had Dylan remained true to the Folk Movement and forsaking going ‘electric’, perhaps Rock music might not have gambled on becoming a bonafide ‘art form’. Recall that John Lennon had initially been happy and content with Rock n Roll, Pop, and rhythm-and-blues. The Beach Boys and Rolling Stones initially just wanted to make a lot of hits, make a lot of money, and get the girls. The British Invasion was initially a hit-making competition among various rock bands. Everyone was happy having a good time.
But Dylan threw a monkey wrench into the whole dichotomy among pop and folk and art and poetry and philosophy and spirituality. He infused a heavy dose of poetics into folk music that had originally been admired for its simplicity and willful naivete. Dylan made folk music literary in the ‘intellectual’ sense, and he had a huge impact on Phil Ochs and Donovan who strove likewise. Dylan’s shift in tone inspired the Byrds to record a rock version of "Mr. Tambourine Man". Some surmised that Dylan heard the ‘folk rock’ sound of the Byrds and made his own transition to a musical fusion, but even Dylan’s original version of the song was kinda ‘trippy’ and ‘far out’, no simple folkie tune. Indeed, prior to Dylan’s breakthrough, the only Rock tune that might be considered in terms of ‘art’ was the Animals’ version of "House of the Rising Sun". To all who heard the song, it was undoubtedly something more than a rock n roll, blues, pop, or whatever. Though a reworking of an old folk tune, it was powerful and electrifying — and emotionally ‘deep’ — in the way that almost no other pop tune was, with the exception of maybe "You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feeling". As it turned out, even though the Animals would have a few more solid hits, their triumph with "House of the Rising Sun" was something of an anomaly, their one truly great song.

It really took Dylan to fully transform the culture(with the help of the media that were less interested in his music than in his image and ‘message’), and others soon took notice and inspiration. Lennon, who’d wanted to be British Elvis, heard Dylan and began to feel an inferiority complex. (Lennon was too uneducated for his considerable intelligence and natural intellect. His impatience prevented him from taking books and studies seriously, and his wild nature gravitated towards things of immediate gratification. When his sensual needs were finally satiated and grew tiresome, his undernourished intellect craved for seriousness and meaning. Indeed, even in the early days as dreamy-eyed rock-n-roller, Lennon’s personal hero was none other than his friend Stu Sutcliffe, a fellow art student with genuine talent as a painter working in a respectable art form. Later, Lennon’s intellectual hunger fed on Dylan and then Yoko Ono who, like Sutcliffe, was an artist, though a worthless one if you ask me.)
Stu Sutcliffe, a promising artist who died too young.
Yoko Ono, a mental case who lived too long.
Success in pop music didn’t bother Paul McCartney who just wanted to write hit songs and be adored, but Lennon, having caught the ‘artistic’ bug, increasingly felt a need to metamorphose from a popular entertainer to a personal artist. Though his initial efforts at ‘poetic’ song-writing — "I’m a Loser" and "You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away" were lackluster compared to Dylan’s heavy duty stuff — , there was no going back once the artistic genie was out of the bottle(that is until he made peace with himself and accepted his place as essentially a pop star than serious artist. The craving for originality, seriousness, and meaning tends to be a youthful tendency borne of great ambition and insecurity, of boundless energy and anxiety to prove oneself. We see this trait in Dylan as well. Having staked his claim as the Symbolist poet of Rock with HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED and BLONDE ON BLONDE, Dylan’s later lyrics were never so arcane, cryptic, and allusive. It was as if Dylan got the ‘serious artist’ out of his system and settled down to more bread-and-butters song-writing. Perhaps, Dylan also sensed that it was more difficult to write a honest good song than a heavy ‘serious’ song, especially as the Psychedelia craze had every Rock act groping for heavy far-out meanings beyond their intellect, knowledge, and experience. In contrast, Smokey Robinson never wrote ‘art songs’ but possessed true genius for beauty and brevity. Maybe there was more to ‘My Girl’, Robinson’s song for the Temptations, than ‘Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands’. Woody Allen went through a similar phase. Still relatively young in the 1970s, he attempted to be something like America’s Ingmar Bergman and Eric Rohmer with a touch of Jean-Luc Godard. But eventually, Allen dropped all his pretensions and found his footing as a maker of intelligent comedy-dramas or spins-on-genres. The difference between Dylan and Allen was that Dylan was the real deal, a true master in the creation of Rock as an art form. Allen’s forte was really comedy where his brilliance was undeniable. But he simply wasn’t a master of cinema, and his attempts to join the ranks of pantheons was unconvincing with films like MANHATTAN and INTERIORS. His movies worked best in comic mode or storyteller mode. Allen was no visionary. BROADWAY DANNY ROSE, MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY, and BLUE JASMINE are wonderful because they draw on Allen’s real strengths: funny dialogue, characters & plot, and pathos.) Even though Lennon never abandoned his Pop mode — at least as long as he was a Beatle — , his songs became increasingly affected with elements of irony, satire, dream logic, and surrealism. His first breakthrough into mature song-writing was probably "Norwegian Wood", and later he would write songs such as "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "A Day in the Life".
Dylan’s influence convinced Lennon that it wasn’t enough for him to a pop entertainer in the manner of the Dave Clark Five or the Hollies. A pop musician pans for gold, the universal value of which is easily accessible to all, whereas a modern artist digs for something stranger that unlocks the secrets to something hitherto hidden. One pans for gold for money. One digs for fossils or searches for new species for meaning and knowledge.
The way of the Artist was doable for Lennon who was gifted with talent, brilliance, and intelligence but not so much for George Harrison, for whom ‘art’ became a crutch for his relative lack of talent. Though Harrison wrote several good songs and at least two great ones — "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Something" — , he was nowhere near the equal of McCartney or Lennon and, deep down inside, he knew it. Thus, ‘seriousness’ became a rationale for Harrison to concoct ridiculous tunes like "Within Me, Without You" and "Blue Jay Way" and pretend that many people didn’t really get them because they were ‘too deep’ and ‘far out’.

Indeed, ‘seriousness’, more than triviality, is the real disease among the less talented or the wrong-talented. Neil Simon, for example, was very good at what he did, but imagine if he tried to write like Eugene O’Neill. It would have been much worse than mediocre. Woody Allen was supremely talented as a comedian but had no talent for Art Cinema, and just look at most of his forays into ‘serious film-making’. They are insufferable(with the exception of CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, but then it is at least one-third, if not one-half, comedy. It is a film where Allen is considerably more self-aware that things are not as what they seem. Allen, as intelligent as he was, was often blind to truth because of his ego and cleverness that spun rationales to justify his own neurosis. Intelligence is a double-edged sword. It is the best tool for unveiling the truth, but the problem is intelligence is usually the slave to than master over the ego and emotions. So, an egotistical person with high intelligence may only become more blinded by his/her own intelligence that is used by the ego for self-justification. Consider Bill Clinton’s propensity to lie to himself. It’s no wonder that so many smart Jews are so blind. Their personal egos and ethno-egos warp their considerable intelligence to cleverly distort reality to serve their own narratives, interests, and agendas. Likewise, Allen’s high intelligence was no guarantee that he would see the truth. Rather, he would use his wits and smarts to spin tales and excuses to protect himself. All of Allen’s films are filled with liars and cheats prior to CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, and Allen seemed to think that he has a bird’s eye view of the lies of the world, including that of his own, not least because he often played flawed characters. But such self-delusion was a lie in and of itself. It’s like an alcoholic who is aware of his alcoholism is only fooling himself that he has things under control because he knows of his problem. Likewise, some liars seem to think their problem is under control because they readily admit that they do have a problem with the truth. But such admission could actually be disingenuous, a means to disarm others and one’s own conscience that something is being done about it because the problem has been identified and addressed. [It’s like Obama’s admission of ‘mistake’ in Libya is merely just another layer of lies. By feigning contrition, he hopes to evade further investigation and return to his reckless foreign policy that has caused so much harm in North Africa and Middle East.] And it is with CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS that one surmises how the world-according-to-each-of-us is filled with so many layers of lies, some big, some small, some serious, some trivial, but they are all lies just the same. It is about lies beyond lies, lies around lies, lies buried within truth itself. For instance, the biggest fool in the film is the Alan Alda character, and Allen makes us feel glibly superior to that fraud and faker. But is Allen’s character any better? Is he really into meaning and truth, ostensibly because he expresses such respect for an old Jewish philosopher who says such wise things? But if the old man is so wise, why does it turn out at the end that he killed himself, or murdered himself? He sure didn’t need a gangster to do it for him. And if Alda’s character is such an idiot, why does Mia Farrow’s character go with him than with Allen, whose integrity we are led to believe she respects? Is the search for truth and meaning also just a big lie, a crutch for those who lose in life? What is life about? It is about men seeking women, women seeking men. Fame and fortune have value in attracting mates. Alda, jerk that he is, knows how to make it and win in a world that favors fakers over truth-seekers. But then, if life is about getting the girl, then maybe Alda’s character is closer to the truth since he knows what it takes to win-the-girl, which is what life is all about. So, maybe his jerkdom is the real deal whereas Allen’s truth-seeking is a pathetic exercise, a self-delusional escape from the true purpose of life where women prefer winners-by-any-means-necessary to whiners-who-claim-to-seek-the-truth. Maybe the joke is really on Allen’s character. If Martin Landau’s character, a successful doctor, had a problem with a woman who loved him too much, Allen’s character has a problem with a woman of seeming integrity who didn’t love him at all. So, what is the worth of integrity when the game wins out over the truth? Isn’t the game itself the ultimate truth, as David Mamet implies? Life is about feelings & advantages, not about academic ideas & integrity. And maybe even the old wise Jewish man was going on and on about the meaning of life because he didn’t know how to live life. Maybe even the Holocaust comes in two flavors: For the suckers for truth who seek meaning and find only the horror and the peddlers of the narrative who seek to shape it as a weapon of Jewish power. Some would say Claude Lanzmann of SHOAH is like the wise old man philosopher whereas Steven Spielberg of SCHINDLER’S LIST is like Alan Alda’s character, but I would say both Lanzmann and Spielberg are shameless peddlers of the Narrative to further Jewish Power. If Lanzmann is such a champion of the victims of history, why did he hang around Stalinists in the 50s and 60s? And why has been a one-sided supported of the IDF against the Palestinians who paid the price for the Holocaust that they had no hand in? Anyway, if it’s true that the world favors jerks like Alan Alda’s character over supposed truth-seekers like Allen’s character, we are led to question the success of Allen himself. Allen became one of the most successful and celebrated American film-makers since the 1970s. If the world favors fakers over the real thing, does Allen’s success owe to his fakery or, at least, comprised spin on the truth? So, could it be that Alda’s character is at least half-Allen? The difference between HANNAH AND HER SISTERS and CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS is that the lies are contained within the characters and stories of the former, whereas one doesn’t know where the lies begin and end in the latter where everyone and everything, including the film and film-maker themselves, are implicated in the lie of life. In HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, we are well-aware of the lies before us. In CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, we hear the faint echoes of the lies that extend far beyond what is shown. And it is this sense that makes MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY and BLUE JASMINE among Allen’s best films as well. They pique on awareness to the lies beyond lies.) Anyway, Dylan influenced/inspired the Beatles and the Byrds, they influenced one another, and the Rolling Stones also wanted to be more than a Rock n Roll band and began to get serious, and then, so did The Who. Rock music began to go from Pop to Art, and SGT. PEPPER’S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND was hailed as the ‘bridge between Pop and Art’, and this formulation(as opposed to sincere interest in serious art) became the dominant cultural signpost of the boomer generation as it began to take over the elite institutions. Consider the frequency with which journals like Newsweek, Time, Atlantic, Vanity Fair, and many others mentioned, revisited, recounted, and celebrated the achievements of Bob Dylan and other Rock figures from the 1960s. Compare that to the number of times have figures like Truffaut, Godard, Peckinpah, Altman, Resnais, Penn, Bergman, Fellini, and others been revisited? Most mainstream journals focused on current cinema while conveniently forgetting the giants of 60s cinema, with the possible exception of Stanley Kubrick. Though many old films have been revived in theaters, the boomer controllers of the culture in the 80s and 90s rarely held up the great directors of the 60s and 70s as the icons of the Zeitgeist. Rather, the main emphasis has been on Rock music, and indeed Rolling Stone magazine probably has more subscribers than the all the film magazines combined.
Perhaps, this has something to do with the fact that many of the great directors of the 60s and 70s were considerably older than the boomers, with the exception of Francis Ford Coppola. Whereas the boomers could claim Dylan and other rockers as part of their generation, in cultural terms they didn’t have much in common with Sam Peckinpah, Sam Fuller, Sidney Lumet, and etc. Boomers might love THE WILD BUNCH or BONNIE AND CLYDE, but Peckinpah and Penn’s cultural references were pre-Rock music. Also, if Rock music was almost entirely a Anglo-American affair — non-English Rock music was almost entirely ignored — , much of Art Cinema in the 60s and even in the early 70s were from abroad, and therefore, boomers in America and the UK had less cultural claim over it.
Because Rock Music, the foremost and most resilient passion of the Boomer generation, was rarely a ‘pure work of art’, the cultural mind-set and sensibilities of the Boomers got muddled and clouded. Except for Dylan’s HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED and BLONDE ON BLONDE, Velvet Underground’s VELVET UNDERGROUND AND NICO, Pink Floyd’s UMMAGUMMA, and few others, it’s difficult to recall anything in Rock that attained the status of ‘pure art’ as the works of classical music, serious literature, theatre, painting, sculpture, and cinema. This isn’t necessarily to denigrate Rock because, after all, a hybrid work of ‘art’ and ‘entertainment’ can be just as amazing as a ‘pure’ or ‘serious’ work of art. I’d say Beach Boys’ PET SOUNDS, Jimi Hendrix’s ARE YOU EXPERIENCED?, and Beatles’s album HELP!, and Led Zeppelin’s LED ZEPPELIN IV are worthier than the works of Alban Berg, John Adams, or many ‘serious’ composers of the 20th century. Nothing wrong with adding some fun & wonder to art OR some depth & meaning to entertainment. Even so, most of Rock was really just for fun, though there’s nothing wrong with that either. But because Rock music got tagged with seriousness, personal expression, and elements of ‘art’, it had a greater lasting impact than earlier forms of popular music. (And because Rock became associated with seriousness and importance, boomers and their children thought it sufficient to get all their cultural nutrients from Rock music since it provided both fun and meaning. Prior to Rock Culture, no one who listened to Pop Music would have thought he or she could get the full cultural experience from pop tunes alone. This is the danger of pop culture merging with seriousness. Many people, including the educated, get to feeling that whatever they like — Hollywood movies or Rock music — is enough since it comes packaged with both fun and meaning. So, watchers of ‘serious’ TV shows may feel no need to read books. Fans of Rock music may feel no need to listen to classical music. Fans of ‘serious’ Hollywood movies — even superhero movies and 007 flicks are now sometimes given ‘art-house’ treatment, as with Christopher Nolan’s dreadful BATMAN movies — may feel no need to watch Art Films since the junk they like are now said to be sufficiently ‘artful’. We have grownups like Walter Russell Mead, Francis Fukuyama, Jonah Goldhagen, and Richard Spencer pontificating about GAMES OF THRONES, THE WIRE, BREAKING BAD, and BATMAN as if they are awesome works of art.) As important, even great, as Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Rodgers and Hammerstein, and Frank Sinatra were, they were clearly entertainers first and foremost — though Gershwin did go for some arty fusion of the serious and fun. So, even as people who grew up with them loved them, they tended to fade in popularity and relevance once their fans grew older and new generations arrived. (In a way, the legendary status of 60s Rockers owes to a certain paradox. They represented the unlikely fusion of the great reverence and great rebellion as well as the fusion of the biggest collective cultural movement and most intense individualism — hippies gathered at Woodstock to see some of the most singular acts in music history. The Rolling Stones and many British acts loved playing nasty, but they were steeped in a kind of mystical respect for the blues tradition. Dylan was steeped in folk, country, & blues but also the most daring innovator and stylist. Dylan copped the rebel attitude from Rock n Roll and James Dean. But he imbibed a reverence for traditional music and cultural roots from the Folk Movement and long bouts of private readings on history and literature. So, Rock culture, especially as shaped by folkies like Dylan and Neil Young, gained a sense of heritage rooted in history, thereby able to withstand the winds of fashion. Folk music has lasting value but is regarded as past music locked in its museum-like traditionalism. Pop music has wide appeal but fades with fashion. 60s Rock Music merged roots, popularity, and personal vision. This sense of personal vision went far beyond the personality of, say, Frank Sinatra or Bing Crosby. It wasn’t merely a matter of celebrity or style but having something-to-say, something-to-reveal-of-oneself. And Dylan embodied this ideal better than anyone else. His music had roots, daring, popular appeal[especially when covered by other performers], and personal vision.) Generally, most entertainment speaks to the people of the time, and fitfully, its value passes away with the time. There are exceptions to be sure, as certain works of entertainment have such a vast and universal appeal that they pass from generation from generation. Though most people today don’t know or give a hoot about Gilbert & Sullivan, everyone still knows about THE WIZARD OF OZ. All the children loved it in 1939, so much so that they showed it to their kids who grew up and showed it to their kids and so on. Though GONE WITH THE WIND was never a movie I cared for, it’s another one of those movies that seem to pass from generation from generation.

But most works of entertainment pass from the limelight once fashions change. And since they were made for the masses and since the masses mostly have cultural amnesia, most of older entertainment become forgotten except in the archives rummaged by buffs and ultra-fans with fetish for that stuff — like the Steve Buscemi character in GHOST WORLD by Terry Zwigoff. Far more people indulge in entertainment than in art, but paradoxically, art wins the long-distance marathon of longevity and memory.
Some might argue that art wins in the long run because the Test of Time ultimately favors works of more beautiful, more sublime, more mysterious, and/or more meaningful value. This is true enough. But the other reason is that elite cultural institutions cannot function without a canon, and therefore, they maintain an official memory of the most essential works. Thus, even though works of art may survive for a long time whereas most of entertainment is forgotten, most of art survive only in the minds of a relatively few people who have ties to elite institutions or show an interest in such things. Thus, classical music will never be forgotten, but the torch will be passed from elites to elites while being ignored by the masses, even the college-educated ones.

There has been some discussion as to Classical Music could be revived, and maybe the only useful way is to re-associate the music with stories, themes, events, and phenomenon outside music: representational music. Why do people still love classical-style music in movies? Because the music is associated with other things in life and reality. For the same reason, representational painting will always be more popular than abstract ones or those hung up on the inherent features of the form itself, which is like a mind that Platonically thinks of nothing but the mind itself, as if all the truths are contained within. But, in reality, the mind has no purpose and meaning without its relations to the other senses and the body. Why did Helen Keller arrive at a higher kind of reality? Because she finally learned to associate her senses of the world around her with her mind. The rise of modernist music was like the willful dumb-and-deafen-ization of music, a disassociation of music from the world around it. While music is intrinsically the most abstract and elusive art form, meanings could be conveyed and textures could be highly suggestive of certain moods and experiences. Though any piece of music could conjure up thousand different images or sensations in thousand different listeners, certain sounds clearly suggested grandeur or heat while others intimated darkness or coldness. Thus, music had traditionally been a part, an ebb-and-flow, of the larger reality and experience. Think of the First Movement of Antonin Dvorak’s NEW WORLD SYMPHONY that suggests ships sailing in the open seas and the excitement of discovery of virgin land. Or consider the darkness and solemnity of the Second Movement. Though there was justified excitement in the rise of modernist music and its experimentations, it tended to be radical and exclusive, thus shutting off the elite music schools to any other kind of music, and of course, this was an effective way of discouraging many talented people with different ideas(from the prevailing dogma) and of preciously walling in the avant-garde acolytes from the larger world.
Instead of arguing that there should be a place for modernism in music, the elite controllers of institutions insisted that modernism must be the only thing that really matters in the academia, and it was attitudes such as this that led to the demise of classical music. When musical elites come to degrade talents like Dmitri Shostakovich and Jean Sibelius because they didn’t conform the modernist notion of what is truly worthy of ‘serious’ consideration, the world of classical music was condemned to grow less and less relevant. And since the newly trained ‘serious’ musical composers in elite music schools equated accessibility and representationalism-reflectionism with sell-out philistine-ism and run-of-the-mill reactionism, they weren’t likely to attract a new generation of music lovers from the general populace.

One can understand why many people in the past were attracted to Richard Wagner, Giuseppe Verdi, or Richard Strauss, but how many people really care for stuff like Elliott Carter or John Adams? Not that there’s anything wrong with liking that stuff, but a kind of neo-puritanism took over the elite fields of art where it was deemed almost ‘neo-sinful’ to make or partake in anything pleasurable, and this has certainly been the case with Jean-Luc Godard ever since the late 1960s; it’s like Godard instituted his own self-injunction against anything that might delight people with beauty, romance, and humor. It’s all deadly humorlessness and morbid seriousness. Worse, it’s seriousness that one cannot even make sense of. But then, presumably a form of seriousness that can be accessed or understood is a kind of pleasure, a bad bad thing.
Jean-Luc Godard's DETECTIVE. At some point, Godard decided he is such a compelling figure that we should pay attention to him paying attention himself. To watch a film like DETECTIVE is to watch the 'art' of navel-gazing. If celebrity culture is about worshiping idiots who worship themselves, cultism is about obsessing over fools who obsess over themselves. Thus, Godard's Maoist period in the late 60s and early 70s was less political than psychological. He felt a need to be like Mao, a god-like figure who is mindlessly obeyed and worshiped by acolytes and devotees. Godard went from genuine experimental film artist to a cultist with mindless hangers-on and followers.
After all, ‘getting something’ brings a degree of pleasure to the audience seeking to figure things out. So, Godard made a series of films where even the serious intent can’t be deciphered except by maybe a handful of insiders who, in ‘getting it’, are the only ones who are allowed to feel any kind of pleasure of intellectual tribalism. I suppose such individuals are to Godard what angels are to God. It’s like God is so great and mysterious that we cannot understand Him, but angels can understand Him, at least half-way, and therefore, they serve as conduits between God and us. Similarly, most people, even cinephiles, have no idea what Godard’s been yammering and ‘cammering’ about since the late 1960s, but there’s a small coterie of ‘insider’ film critics who claim to have some inkling, and so, they write film reviews that, while never giving away the secret, intimate that there is indeed something very ‘profound’, ‘deep’, and ‘twenty years ahead of its time’ there. Well, since it’s been nearly forty years since Godard made DETECTIVE, can we finally be told what the hell it’s about or why anyone should sit through such sterile bore-fest?

Anyway, for along stretch in the 20th century, the new kind of ‘serious music’ being concocted by the modernists simply didn’t offer much for those seeking alternatives to popular music. Much of the new music sounded disassociated from what might be recognized as ‘human’, ‘emotional’, or ‘historical’. Though even music that was specifically composed to ‘denote’ certain events or phenomenon could evoke different things — Prokofiev’s score for ALEXANDER NEVSKY, for example, can rouse up images of any great battle or violent natural phenomenon — , the listener has a general sense of what-kind-of-thing is being conveyed or expressed. While it’s perfectly understandable as to why some people care about abstract painting or avant-garde or modernist/atonal music, the fact remains that even among the serious followers of art and culture, most prefer something that is reasonably(if not entirely) recognizable or representational. (Van Gogh and Monet were reasonably representational, presenting an interesting tension between the familiar/ordinary and strange/extraordinary. It is also the strength of MULHOLLAND DR., as opposed to something as shapeless and pointless as INLAND EMPIRE.) Thus, even if most cinephiles care about the art of cinema more than most moviegoers do, the average cinephile prefers something like BREATHLESS, 400 BLOWS, SEVEN SAMURAI, TOKYO STORY, THE RULES OF THE GAME, CITIZEN KANE, and IVAN THE TERRIBLE to something like the later works of Godard, the films of Alexander Kluge, the works of Stan Brakhage, and the dreadful works of Chantal Akerman. While cinema should be experimental, expansive, and open to all kinds of expression, the ‘art of cinema’ will decline and die if the elite controllers of cinema insist that ‘true artists’ of cinema must only make ultra-avant-garde films — like some of impenetrable works of Jacques Rivette — and dispense with all ‘conventional’ aspects of cinema such as storytelling, characterization, dramatic conflict, and etc. (Indeed, such dogmatism seems to have succumbed to natural death due to benign neglect though, to be sure, it is kept alive by artificial life-support at certain film festivals and corners of the academia. Due to the cultish respect for figures like Godard, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, and even the loathsome Akerman, most in the film community dared not voice their opposition to the Cinema-of-Boredom, though some have. But even without overt opposition, things fade and die though polite neglect, and in both Rock Culture and Film Culture, there was a quiet but decisive move away from Difficult Dogmatism that came to test people’s patience. Rock critics’ insistence on unpleasant acts, especially punk and the likes of Patti Smith, as ‘authentic’ Rock music gradually turned people away from the Critical perspective toward the fun celebration of Pop Idol culture. And the slow demise of Film Culture at the hands of radical critics who favored dull neo-puritanical film-makers turned the newer generation of film fans to Pop Cinema. Ironically, the fans of Pop Cinema will pay salutary tribute to the Difficult Dogmatists — just like white/Jewish/homo Liberals[who should really be called illiberals] who gentrify the Negroes out of cities will pay lip-service to the nobility of the wonderful Negro — , but they would rather gab about the latest superhero movie or some such than discuss the meaning of JEANNE DIELMANN. Of course, the Goldilocks Rule, usually the Golden Rule of Art, offers a third way between Pop Culture and Difficult Dogmatism, but culture tends toward extremes becomes it comes to be dominated by money-men in the industry and by the radicals in the institutions.) Whenever Peter Greenaway bitches about how cinema is still a "19th century art form", he overlooks the crucial truth that cinema has remained a living art form because it still produces works that has meaning to a lot of people. Also, storytelling is timeless and eternal, not limited to any time period.

In the world of culture, there are the masses, the elites, and ultra-elites. For an art form to be viable, organic, and alive — as serious art — , it must hold the interest of both the elites and ultra-elites. Serious film-making is still alive as an art form because the concept of the ‘art film’ still ranges from those with ‘conventional’ narratives to certain more ‘avant garde’ works. But think of the damage done to other forms of art — painting, sculpture, music, and etc. — when the controllers of the elite institutions overseeing such arts insisted that everything had to be ‘radical’ and cleansed of all ‘conventional’ and ‘accessible’ impurities. As those art forms only appealed to the ultra-elites, they lost the interest of the elites who wanted something more than mass entertainment but still wanted something recognizably human and emotional from the arts.
What happens when the ultra-elites shut themselves off from the rest of society[though often with the conceit that they are ‘progressives’ twenty years ahead of their time and working to advance the arts as a tool of revolution] and the elites who still cling to the ‘human element’ lose hope? In time, no one gives a crap about the ultra-elites who are ‘masturbating’ in their own corner, and the elites don’t know what to do since the intolerantly radical ultra-elites hold the keys of institutional power. The eventual result is the rise of Pop Art. Since the elite culture that had existed between pop culture and ultra-elite culture is gone, Pop merges with avant-garde, and we have a culture that hails the likes of Andy Warhol as one of the greatest artists of the 20th century, maybe of all time.

It’s worth speculating how the cultural sensibility of the Boomers might have panned out if not for the intervention of Bob Dylan who did more than any other figure to turn Rock music into an art form. While there had been plenty of playful, ironic, refined, sophisticated, and/or artful expressions in popular music, few had taken the direction of eccentric personal vision of the kind exemplified by Dylan. His force of will and vision made himself the center of gravity. His music was about his being and vision. One could make this claim for Jazz greats like Charlie Parker, but Jazz, by its very nature, was either too restless & hyperbolic or too slippery & elusive to form into a cogent personal vision. It was all more about the vibes or showmanship. Country singers and blues-men also had stories to tell, but they stuck to the limitations of their genre, and this fidelity took precedence over personality even though personality was a big part of the act. Once a blues-man, always a blues-man. Once a country singer, always a country singer. In a way, such fidelity was also the limiting feature of classical, modern, and serious music. Classical artists couldn’t deviate too far from the classical mode. They could draw inspiration from non-classical sources, especially folk melodies, but classical music had a certain sound. From Mozart to Mahler, they all had to have the classical sound. And modern music had its set of formal and/or ‘ideological’ rules. The striking thing about Dylan was that, once having broken free from the orbit of the Folk Movement, he himself was at the center of all the swirling sounds. This wasn’t the product of arrogance or egomania — though he did think highly of himself — but his genius of taking all the influences and melding them into a sound expressing his sense of life.
BLONDE ON BLONDE poses a challenge to categorization. Is "Visions of Johanna" a form of popular music made serious or a form of serious music made popular? Was it equally both or neither? Was Dylan reshaping one thing into another, or was something new emerging from his creative smelting pot? BLONDE ON BLONDE is like musical metallurgy where the bits and pieces from the American musical junkyard weren’t merely fitted together but melted down and melded into new forms that hadn’t been known before.
Usually when a band like Yes or Moody Blues got arty, they basically took popular songs and adorned it with artful touches, especially borrowed from classical music; or they took elements of classical music and turned them into ice cream. So, it was obvious what they were doing, how their songs were processed and generated. But how does one approach a song like "Visions of Johanna"? The harmonica indicates Folk music; there are moments that sound country-like or bluesy; as the guitar licks intensify, it has something like Rock n Roll; the surreal imagery is reminiscent of Symbolist poetry; the weird narrative is like something out of a Bunuel film. But all the various elements are indistinguishable and inseparable from the whole equation. One can sort of identify the origins of the inspiration but, like the digested components in the intestines of an animal, Dylan’s creative juices have transformed them into something entirely his own — like how wine and wafer are supposed to transform into the blood and flesh of Jesus in those who take Holy Communion.
"Visions of Johanna" is not a pop song merely gilded with arty touches — like certain later Beatles songs — but a total work of art where every material has been forged into an inseparable whole. So, even the label ‘folk rock’ is misleading in delineating its essence. A song like "Subterranean Homesick Blues" or "Maggie’s Farm" may indeed be properly be characterized as "folk rock", but songs like "Just Like a Woman", "One of Us Must Know", "Visions of Johanna", and "Memphis Blues Again" render such designation inadequate. The conscious mind can logically and rationally separate, piece together, and conjoin different sets of images and ideas, but the artistic process, at least in its truest sense, requires something more than assemblage of different components. It requires heat of the creative furnace. The components must be melted down and alchemically molded into something new at the ‘molecular’ level, and this process can only happen in the furnace of the subconscious. The rare great artist has more of a direct connection between the subconscious and the conscious, but he relies on his subconscious to melt them all down in order for his conscious mind to reprocess them and mold them into something original, singular, and different. That is the essence of the greatness of BLONDE ON BLONDE. It is also one of the truly momentous cultural events of the 20th century.

If we take Dylan out of the equation — suppose he had never been born or become a lawyer or died in the early 60s in a plane crash — , would Rock music have made the claim to be recognized as a genuine form of art? Would Beatles have been inspired to push the envelope and go into the mode of Personal Artist than remain as mere entertainers like the Dave Clark Five, thus inspiring countless fans to see Rock differently and expect more from it? Would Lou Reed have written the songs for VELVET UNDERGROUND AND NICO? Would the Boomer generation been so passionate about Rock music in the way that the 1950s generation wasn’t about Rock n Roll? While the 50s generation dug Elvis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, and the like, they knew it was about dance music, about having a good time. No one was looking for meaning from the songs of Elvis or Chuck Berry, no more than the 1940s generation sought meaning from the songs of Sinatra and Sammy Cahn. Indeed, once the 1950s had passed, original Rock n Roll was little more than nostalgia music. In that sense, even the 50s generation had much in common with earlier generations who also looked back to the music of their youth with little more than nostalgia. (Meaning and Truth were to be found in life, literature, religion, and serious culture, not in popular music.) But there was something more in the attachment of the 1960s Boomers to Rock Culture, especially beginning in 1965 when Dylan, Beatles, and Stones took the music to a whole new level. This music wasn’t just for fun, and it would survive not only as cultural nostalgia but serve as the template for personal creative expression for generations to come. 1940s generation and 1950s generation past their youth might listen to their favorite musical stars, be they Sinatra or Elvis or some other, and they might think, "those were the days", but the 1960s generation past their youth might listen to the music of their youth and recall not only the fun but the ‘meaning’ and ‘truth’, what Benjamin Braddock craved in THE GRADUATE. (Especially as each child tended to have his or her own bedroom with his or her own record player, pop music went from something for the whole family to something for him-or-her alone. Indeed, many 60s songs originated in the bedroom of young men like Brian Wilson. When Benjamin Braddock sits alone in his room in THE GRADUATE, the songs of Simon & Garfunkel mean something to him and to no one else. There’s also a one-on-one personal meaning to the Cat Stevens songs in HAROLD AND MAUDE. They are no longer mere pop songs but personal pop songs or ‘perpops’.) Sinatra and Elvis, great as they were, were never appreciated as anything other than entertainers, whereas the best of the 60s Rockers were seen as artists, and art is where the meaning-and-truth is at. You listen to "Hound Dog" not for meaning but to shake your hips. But you listened to "Visions of Johanna", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Ruby Tuesday", "Sounds of Silence", "White Shade of Pale", "Box of Rain", "Into the Mystique", "Fotheringay", and "Stairway to Heaven" for meaning. The meaning might be opaque or hazy, or maybe the lyrics were really just bogus clever nonsense that only sounded ‘poetic’, but there was no denying that 60s Rockers were tapping into moods and feeling heretofore unexpressed in music, popular and serious.
It seemed rather odd as 60s Rockers so often went against the grain. For instance, the Rolling Stones mainly achieved their fame as the nasty ‘bad boys’ of Rock with aggressive songs like "Satisfaction" and "Get Off of My Cloud". So, how strange that the same band would also come up with songs like "As Tears Go By", "Lady Jane", and "Ruby Tuesday". The nasty bad boys had a heart, even class and refinement; they could be darkly romantic with melodies bruised with poetry. (But then, there was an aristocratic edge to the Stones bad boy act. After all, it was the aristocracy that enjoyed the freedom, leisure, and privilege to indulge themselves in hedonism, excess, and even debauchery. Though such behavior went against the grain of aristocratic principles, there had been plenty of aristocrats given to wantonness. The peasants and ordinary folks had neither the time nor means to revel in such lifestyles. So, the Stones weren’t just vulgar ‘yobs’ who’d gone Negro — like some of today’s British youths — but like neo-aristocrats for whom playing the Negro was a deliriously decadent act of privilege, rather like aristocratic adventurers of old journeying to other parts of the world and experimenting in going ‘native’. So, even as the Stones were seen as embodying the egalitarian ethos of the Sixties by certain radicals[who demanded the Stones be more committed and political], part of their appeal was a kind of neo-aristocratism. After all, part of the appeal of being rich and famous celebrities is enjoying the wild life that is denied to most people who can only hang posters of their favorite stars on bedroom walls. Though the idea of the movie star or music star as the new royalty was well-established by the time the Stones arrived on the scene, they embodied it with more flair and flamboyance because of their English accents, wit, and savvy. After all, part of the perverse pleasure of being an aristocrat was the nihilism of privilege, as exulted by the Tim Roth character in ROB ROY and Tom Cruise character in AN INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE. Prior to Dylan and Stones, the famous stars — even or especially Elvis Presley — had been stage-managed closely to do and say the right things. They could be wild on stage but had to show that they were good humble boys and loved their mothers in real life. The Stones pushed the edge and put on the impression that they were just as debauched in private life as in public. Indeed, the 60s ideal was not that all young people should be noble workers but happy neo-aristocrats who should just idle away to fun, music, dance, and ‘creativity’.) And of course, the fact that some members of the Stones were actually well-educated intellectual bohemian art school types infused Rock music with an artfulness that might have been lacking had it remained purely an American form of music. Indeed, consider the reaction of America to the Beatles. Even though the Beatles came from either working-class or lower-middle class families — and even though their Liverpudlian English was far from refined or elegant by British standards — , they seemed to have ‘class’ lacking in American Rock n Rollers. It also helped that Lennon and Ringo were real wits and could talk circles around reporters. Because England was a more refined, mannered, and ‘dignified’ society than the more democratic and mass-culture America in the 60s, the British Invasion was bound to add an element of ‘art’ to Rock music. (Yet, at the same time, the fact that the British boys were even racier and sometimes raunchier — and more black-inflected — than the Americans made the inter-cultural dynamics yet weirder. Didn’t Americans rebel against snobby British? And yet, the British boys, despite their wit and manners, seemed to do the rebellion thing better.) Even so, most of the British Rockers initially just wanted fame and fortune. What really changed the course of Lennon’s musical career was coming upon the songs of Dylan. He wanted to be the ‘toppermost of poppermost’, but when he heard "Like a Rolling Stone", he realized there was a whole new ball game in which the stakes were much higher. It was difference between becoming a pop star and a poet-prophet. He had to be an artist, or at least a star-tist. And once Beatles changed course and became more sophisticated with RUBBER SOUL, Brian Wilson felt compelled likewise, sailing off in the direction that led to PET SOUNDS and then the loss of sanity with SMILE.
John Lennon and Beatles working on RUBBER SOUL
Of course, drugs played a role in the change of cultural landscape. Though drugs were nothing new in the creative community — think of Coleridge and opium and a whole bunch of authors and alcohol — , the prominence of marijuana and hallucinogens in the 1960s Zeitgeist was something different. Though all kinds of drugs altered the moods of their users, hallucinogens created visions and ‘opened up doors’ in the consciousness that made the 60s Rockers more introspective and ‘spiritual’, more searching and striving. George Harrison used to be the Kid Beatle whose big hope was squeezing a song or two into a Beatles album, but having been turned onto LSD, he aspired to be the Rock guru of higher truth(though, to be sure, he soon lost faith in the hippie dream of Aquarius). Given that Dylan too was heavily influenced by drugs in the mid-60s, perhaps Rock music would have turned into strange kind of art-form just the same without him, but on the other hand, most of psychedelic Rock has been forgotten and indeed many boomers are embarrassed to even recall the silly utopian excesses of the Summer of Love.
Therefore, the staking of Rock as an art form depends largely on Dylan and a handful of special talents that were either directly or indirectly influenced by him. And apart from Dylan and a few others, there’s precious little in Rock music that could be approached from an academic or ‘intellectual’ angle. As fine as RUBBER SOUL and AFTERMATH are as Rock albums — and even though they would make terrific subjects for books on popular culture — , who would want to take a semester-long college course or write a serious academic study about them? On the other hand, one could easily imagine a year long study of BLONDE ON BLONDE in a university or a dense book on the subject. How many such Rock albums were produced? Not many. This isn’t to suggest that a Rock album’s merit should be determined by academic/intellectual interest — after all, WITH THE BEATLES, Foghorn Leghorn cartoons, and MIDNIGHT RUN are intellectually lightweight but nonetheless fabulous works of popular culture with more creative value that most ‘serious’ works out there — , but cultural elites have always existed, and they’ve always wanted to guard and champion the ‘deep’ & ‘meaningful’ and claim such as their own, and Dylan, more than any other figure, provided this opportunity for the boomer cultural elites. Dylan-ism has become such a feature of Rock Culture that it is applied even to shallow entertainers, as if every personality in pop music is a ‘personal artist’ with ‘something to say’. For example, a clown by the name of Kanye West yaps and yammers about his myriad stupid hangups, but idiot Rock Critics ‘analyze’ the stuff like it’s art and poetry. Even a bogus idol like Christian Aguilera is discussed by some as a singer-songwriter with a personal soul to bare. Dylan was the first to set the template of Rock star as a bonafide all-out personal artist, and this model has been promiscuously applied on too many acts by Rock Critics who feel a need to justify their careers as something other than consumer reporting. Naturally, it helps if they can fool themselves as well as the public that Rock-and-Pop community is filled with ‘personal artists’ with something ‘deep’ and ‘powerful’ to say.
And of course, the entertainers themselves(with full support of the cynical industry) promote such ‘cult of personal expression’, not least because they are filled with massive egos that can easily be stoked by flatterers, which most of today’s critics are. So, when some dumbass rapper hears from critics and commentators that he isn’t just a silly punk or fool but an artist, poet, or prophet, he begins to think accordingly, as if his gibberish really has something to say about the world.
Christian Aguilera aka Agorilla. Yes, some people regard her as an 'artist' too. If Lena Dunham stands for universal narcissism where ugliness is attractive too, Aguilera stands for universal artistry where even trashy industry-idol antics count as meaningful art too.
But it can happen to just about anyone in any art form, even to those who are highly intelligent and skeptical. Consider how Woody Allen, the great comedian of early 70s cinema, bought the horseshit from the likes of Vincent Canby that he isn’t merely a great comedian but an ‘artist’ on the level of Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Michelangelo Antonioni, and others. It wasn’t long before Allen became archly and achingly ‘serious’ and churned out imitative monstrosities like INTERIORS, SEPTEMBER, and ANOTHER WOMAN — and his ‘art film’/comedy hybrids like ANNIE HALL and MANHATTAN weren’t much better.
It became all the more confusing because the New Sensibility’s attitude toward ‘art’ was rather like the Liberal view of ‘race’. Liberals will say there is no such thing as ‘race’, which is only a ‘social construct’ in their minds, but they still insist that Negroes must be seen as a race and favored over those designated as ‘white’. (This goes go show that there are only two kinds of people: honest racists or race-ists AND dishonest racists who pretend to be anti-racist. In truth, races do exist, and racial differences exist and profoundly impact society. All people notice racial differences and think-feel-act accordingly. Even watching black-dominated sports is ‘racist’ since black domination means that blacks are superior at running and jumping. Gentrification is ‘racist’ since it predicated on pushing out dangerous criminal blacks to make a community more amenable to ‘nice white liberals’. So-called Affirmative Action is ‘racist’ since it is premised on the notion that blacks need special consideration. So, everyone is a ‘racist’. The question is, "Are you an honest racist or race-ist OR are you a dishonest racist pretending to be anti-racist?" It’s like Hate. Everyone hates to some extent. It would be inhuman to be without hate because it’s such a universal human emotion and response. So, the world is really divided between honest haters who admit they feel hate and dishonest haters who claim that ‘hate’ exists only on the other side. Dishonest haters don’t regard their own hate as hate but as ‘righteousness’. They are so deluded.) Similarly, while the New Sensibility subverted the notion of ‘art’ as ‘reactionary’ and ‘outdated’, it nevertheless argued that a whole bunch of Rock stars and Hollywood directors are genuine ‘artists’ too. So, ‘art’ is just a reactionary social construct that sustains unjust hierarchies — especially favoring ‘dead white males’ — and therefore must be rejected, BUT we must recognize Hollywood film-makers and Rock stars as ‘artists’ too. Liberals(who should now be called Illiberals, especially with their love of PC and ‘free speech that bans hate speech’) were never much for logic. Of course, they will rationalize their blatant contradiction accordingly: Even though ‘race’ and ‘art’ are indeed non-existent social constructs, because such notions have shaped our view of the world — and thus determined the nature of the power dynamics — , we have no choice but to use them towards ‘progressive’ ends to affirmatively privilege those very groups whose rights had been denied by such categories in the past. So, since the concept of ‘race’ favored whites over blacks in the past, we must now reverse-engineer the concept to favor blacks over whites. And we must use the concept of ‘art’ to favor mass culture over elite culture that had been privileged by powerful institutions. Only when total equality has been achieved among the races and in culture can we finally do away totally with the notion of ‘race’ and ‘art’.
It’s kinda like the Marxist argument that the idea of ‘class’ is still necessary even in a socialist society since the consequences of class oppression from the past cannot be eradicated overnight, not even in a communist nation. So, even though a communist society hates the notion of class and is predicated on creating a classless society, class must be the focus of discussion because remnants of old class consciousness still lingers in the minds of the former bourgeoisie and because the traumas of old class oppression still scars the souls of the proletariat that had once toiled under the iron heel of the capitalists. Only gradually will the communist state achieve total and absolute classlessness, and then and only then, both the concept of class and the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ can be erased and forgotten because, alas, everyone will be equal as a comrade. A comrade will not be a member of the proletariat or any other class but merely a comrade like any other. After all, ‘proletariat’ implies the existence of a class system in which it is exploited by the bourgeoisie. It’s like for there to be ‘slaves’, there needs to be ‘masters’. If masters and even the very idea of mastership are eradicated and erased from the face of the Earth, the world won’t be one of slaves or even free slaves but only as humans equal in justice and dignity. In a world without masters, there can be no slaves. Similarly, in a world that has totally eradicated the virus of capitalism, there can be no proletariat since there would be no more bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat. Thus, the workers of the future communist utopia are no longer toiling proles but fellow workers in a society where everyone is a worker, a comrade.
Of course, we know the history of communism and the consequences of such utopian pipe-dreams. Try as they might, communist nations couldn’t not get rid of inequality, and if anything, merely a new class of elites and masters(who were more tyrannical than the capitalist bourgeoisie) arose to take total control. The natural way of the world is to have hierarchies and unequal divisions of power and wealth. Such may be alleviated if everyone were naturally equal in ability and ambition, but even then, differences would remain. After all, even if everyone was an Einstein, not every Einstein could work as a scientist or in some elite position. Some will have to work as janitor, some will have to clean the streets, some will have to work in factories, some will have to work as bus drivers. So, class didn’t fade away even in communist nations as Karl Marx predicted it would. If anything, former communist nations like Russia and China — today ‘communist’ only in name — have huge inequalities. And anyone who thinks Cuba and North Korea — the last communist holdouts — are societies of any kind of equality is crazy or ignorant.

Anyway, an artist of Bob Dylan’s caliber is rare, and even Bob Dylan couldn’t sustain peak-genius for long. Also, if Rock music threatens to become overly ‘arty’, ‘sophisticated’, ‘deep’, and/or ‘complex’, it loses its vitality and essence, which was why there was a kind of neo-puritanical punk backlash against the so-called Glam Rock and what might be called Grand Rock — of operatic proportions — that became prominent in the early 70s. Though it may sound odd to associate something as nasty, dirty, rotten, and degenerate as Punk with puritanism, Punk was an act of cultural purgation, and that could have been why it never really caught on in America. For all its conceit about returning to the rebellious and primitive roots of Rock n Roll, it was driven by dogma and ideology than with real sense of fun and pleasure, the whole point of original Rock n Roll. Early Rock n Rollers were rebels by default than design, guys who were having too much fun and getting in trouble over it; they weren’t necessarily trying to be unpleasant and vicious to piss off authorities.
While the Sex Pistols had novelty act appeal, their shtick was sheer unpleasantness. This could be said of 99% of Punk Rock. It may well be that the Clash was the only truly great Punk Rock band. The Pistols sounded like an electric saw that needed to be put out of its misery. The cultural impact of Punk on British working class culture was dire to the max. Pure poison.
Punk, on the other hand, was about being as unpleasant as possible, and its rebel pose was rather besides the point since most social restraints had pretty much vanished in the UK by the 1970s. If Elvis once had to reckon with white Southerners accusing him of playing ‘nigger music’ and if Dylan had to face the fury of Folkie purists who taunted him as ‘Judas’, Punk rockers lived and performed in a libertine world of places like London and New York. No one was gonna arrest them, charge them with obscenity, or whatever. Indeed, most people never bothered to show up Punk rock concerts, and it took critics and intellectuals writing for publications like the Village Voice to get the word out that there was some supposedly ‘exciting’ Punk band playing in a hole in the wall. Thus, Punk Rock, for all its rebel conceits and anti-art/intellectual posturing, relied on the intellectual class writing for alternative journals — which, in big cities like New York and Chicago, were hardly alternative or underground but very much part of the cultural establishment backed and funded by big money and advertisers.
If Punk Rock gained, at least for a time, greater cachet in the UK, it was due to the lingering legacy of class consciousness and rebellion, but, on the other hand, the kind of fools who were into Punk Rock were more part of the Shirking Class than the Working Class as they generally preferred welfare to work when offered a choice. Though Punk Rock produced its share of great songs — especially by the Clash, the only truly great Punk Rock band — , its days were numbered because its heart-and-soul was sheer unpleasantness. It was like atonal modernist music for vulgarian slobs, which is why the form primarily attracted intellectuals like Greil Marcus on the one hand and unwashed mental cases on the other. Intellectuals could yammer away about the ‘radicalism’ of Punk, and unwashed mental retards could freak out like the morons in the film SID AND NANCY. Also, Punk offered instant identification-with-the-people for the intellectuals and instant identification-with-intellectuals for the dummies. Thus, a leftist intellectual, who had no real connection to the masses, could take up the ‘cause’ of Punk Rock and suddenly feel he’s spreading the gospel of the angry young masses; and half-educated idiots who’d never read Karl Marx or Noam Chomsky could jump around angrily at a Punk concert, stare at the covers of Clash albums, and feel like a ‘revolutionary’.
But such hokum rarely has long shelf life, and Punk faded from the scene, replaced by New Wave that restored the harmonics of Glam Rock. To be sure, Disco was much bigger than Punk, and it was filled with color, harmony, melody, rhythm, and the beat, all the elements essential to Pop music, but it soon embarrassed itself when it got too ‘gay’ and when even foreign tourists came to Disco bars and turned it into sheer camp. When everyone from France, Turkey, and Japan comes to America, dresses up like John Travolta, and wiggles his body, you know it’s all over, especially in a pre-globalist era. In the current global age, something that’s hot in America instantly travels all over the globe, so Americans no longer feel like they are the cutting-edge in culture. But popular culture traveled a bit more slowly back in the 1970s. So, even though Disco was hot in America, Europe caught on somewhat later. And by the time Europe did catch on and was doing the Disco stuff, Americans thought of it as old and passe since OTHER people had finally caught up to the act.

Anyway, even Dylan began to sense that the essence of Rock is simplicity and directness, and this may explain why nearly all of his post-BLONDE ON BLONDE songs have straightforward lyrics than surreal ones. While much of the song-writing in BLOOD ON THE TRACKS is impressive and brilliant — especially "A Simple Twist of Fate" and "You’re a Big Girl, Now" — , the lyrics speak for themselves and don’t require literary interpretation to unlock their meanings. Dylan probably ditched surrealism because he never wanted to do the same thing twice and because he knew it couldn’t be faked once the surreal muse had run dry. When he was under the influence of certain drugs and filled with literary(as well as musical) ambitions while working on HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED and BLONDE ON BLONDE, the strange flow of words probably came together in his mind, and even he probably didn’t know the full implications of their meanings. The narratives seem to be taking place in a kind of lucid-dream-space where reality was simultaneously unveiled of lies and mocked into nonsense. It was like satire of satire, the vision of a satirist with the conceit of seeing the world clearly only to realize that his clarity is itself a delusion and hypocrisy. A song like "Memphis Blues Again" mocks everyone in town but then also the narrator who feels the desperation of someone who not only sees too much bullshit all around but finds himself mired in the quicksand of absurdity. It’s like a world of clowns where every clown laughs at other clowns only to realize that he too cannot escape from his own clown-hood.
To be sure, as a young pioneer of music who desired respect and admiration(as an artist) as well as fortune and fame, there were times when Dylan probably strained to make his lyrics overly poetic and loaded with symbolism and allusions to high culture. I never much cared for "A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall". And "Gates of Eden" and "It’s Alright Ma, I’m Only Bleeding", though great songs, are overwritten and overarching. But things began to finally come together and coalesce into a unique vision with songs like "It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue" and "Love Minus Zero/No Limit", laying the ground for the volcanic eruption of HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED and lava flow of BLONDE ON BLONDE. But to get there, Dylan nearly lost his mind, which is why he retreated from the Rock scene, thus perhaps saving himself from the fate of Brian Wilson and John Lennon. Wilson went off the deep end as he pushed beyond his limits, and Lennon took so much acid that the fool decided to marry Yoko Ono and bring down the Beatles. Though Lennon didn’t lose his mind like Brian Wilson in the clinical sense, he might as well have been brain-dead when he came up with stuff like TWO VIRGINS and SOMETIME IN NEW YORK CITY and making a fool out of himself hanging around with Maoists and other tards.
John Lennon on Yoko was worse than any Rock Star on any drug. The crazy Japanese bitch was pure poison.
Perhaps, it’s worth asking why the French haven’t been as prominent in musical influence in the 20th century as the Americans and the British have been. To be sure, one can dismiss such assertion by naming all the great French composers and performers of the 20th century, and there were indeed many. Think of Claude Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen, Boulez, and many others. Think of famous singers like Edith Piaf and Jacques Brel. Think of famous film composers such as Georges Delerue, Maurice Jarre, and Michel Legrand. So, France was indeed one of the giants of 20th century music. But when it comes to international popularity, how much of French music has been all that influential outside France or even within Europe? Of course, international popularity is hardly a reliable yardstick of artistic worth, as if such were the case, STAR WARS movies would be the greatest films ever made, Sodapop would be the greatest beverage of all time, and the hamburger or a bucket of KFC would be the finest cuisine.
Nevertheless, there must be something about a work that makes it spread and dominate like a virus or ‘meme’, whereas other works, even if of higher artistic value or deeper truth, has difficulty catching on. Apart from the issue of artistic worth, has any form of French music taken the world by storm like Jazz, Rock n Roll, Rock, and Hollywood show tunes? Also, we can name lots of French tunes that were borrowed from American music, but how much of American music was borrowed from 20th century French music? There’s "Beyond the Sea" popularized by Bobby Darrin and some others, but the fact is even many French came to prefer English pop. There are many English-language acts with cross-over appeal in France — consider the huge popularity of Cranberries in France — few, if any, French acts that gained popularity across the English Channel. American music aficionados may love the music of Delerue, Piaf, or Legrand, but how much of American music takes cues from French music?
Michel Legrand
Maybe this neglect is their gain and our loss. Maybe the French got the good things from UK and US while maintaining their own traditions and styles whereas Americans have been pretty much blind and deaf to most musical cultures outside America(and Caribbean with reggae).
But it still begs the question, why did American culture have such a huge impact on French culture and not vice versa, especially when America as a nation was created through much greater diversity — immigrants from all over the world — and when American pop culture through much of the 20th century was controlled by International Jews than by established Wasps? Perhaps, Americans didn’t feel a need to look beyond their borders since America was perceived as having been created by the coming together of the entire world — just about every nation in Europe and from non-white nations too, especially blacks from Africa. Why look outside America when America is itself the culmination of the world?
Or maybe the great diversity of America made Americans favor the generic and universally appealing over the specific, special, traditional, and/or tribal. Since all kinds of Americans had to get along and since a shared culture was important for the unity of Americans, maybe masses of Americans felt greater affinity for the kind of culture that seemed easily appealing and accessible to just about anyone. Thus, even though Jazz had specific Negro origins, it was appealing because it made everyone — black, white, brown, yellow, red, etc. — wanna wiggle their bodies like monkeys. And even though the Western was essentially about the white man conquering the West — often violently in conflict with the red man — , it had universal appeal with its themes of adventure, right & wrong, manhood, and honor. As for immigrants in America who arrived with dreams and hopes, they could identify with Western pioneers who were moving into new territories. Also, there was the balance of the old and the new in the Western that any immigrant would have understood since every immigrant group wanted to preserve their culture of origin but also embarked on new freedoms and possibilities in this land called ‘America’. And even though there weren’t too many Negroes in Westerns, Negroes in the South might see Westerns and feel a sense of freedom they lacked living under the rednecks who might even call them ‘nigger’ on occasion. A Negro sharecropper who had to pick cotton all day might feel a sense of thrill at the sight of a cowboy on horseback roaming freely through vast expanses in a Western movie. Better to imagine riding a horse than working like a horse which is what most folks, white or black, did in the South, like in the song "Old Black Joe".
Perhaps, the great advantage of American popular culture — and even high or at least higher culture, as in the case of Ernest Hemingway — was a combination of genericism and aggression. The genericism made it appealing to everyone because it wasn’t loaded with the specificity of culture or tradition, and the aggressiveness made it ‘sexy’ and exciting. The Western is both generic and aggressive. Cowboys and gunmen wear simple clothes, carry simple weapons, and act simply without pretensions, but they are also tough, aggressive, and proud, which makes them kinda admirable, even ‘cool’ and ‘sexy’.
Even though there is much in French culture, high or low, that may have considerable appeal to people around the world, one is always aware that it is French culture than a culture-for-everyone. Indeed, ‘American’ has become almost synonymous with what anyone around the world could be with the blessings of freedom and opportunity. Some might argue that it has something to do with language, i.e. that French language is stylistically far more distinct than English, and there is no way to speak French in a generic or plain manner. French is stylistic and showy by inherent design. Even if you try not to speak it in a fancy or stylized manner, you find yourself doing so because the sounds call for musicality and fragrance.
In contrast, even though British English is stylized and mannered(though in a curt than cursive manner — British English is spoken like Times New Roman whereas French is spoken like Dancing Script), English can be made and spoken in a plainer and more generic manner, as indeed Americans, Canadians, and Australians came to do. Without the lordly control of society and culture by the British elites with their clipped manners and insistent social standards, the masses of English speakers ‘reverted’ to speaking English in a rather common manner. Thus, English needs a degree of effort, insistence, and upkeep to maintain its refinement whereas French is refined by nature — though, to be sure, one can see plenty of working class ruffians, nasty intellectuals, and Negroes speak French in a rather crude way in some movies.
And it must be remembered that it wasn’t so much British English culture that gained prominence around the world but American English culture. Even though the British Empire had once dominated the world, British English culture generally appealed to the elites of other nations than to the masses. Thus, Asian Indian elites would learn to speak refined upper-crust English and try to associate with the best of British English elite society. Since British English imperialism was very hierarchical, the elites maintained authority and power over the lower-rung Britons who did the grunt work. (If American colonialists[especially among the elites] rebelled and overthrew the rule of the British elites — not least because native-born American colonialists were the overwhelming majority in the lands that they occupied — , even most lower-rung British colonialists in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East remained loyal to the British Empire since they were vastly outnumbered by the natives who might think to chuck spears at the colonists.) Thus, British Imperialism was about elite rule, and therefore, the cultural influence of British elites generally fell on the native elites favored and handpicked by the British. British Imperialists were not interested in spreading British culture to the native masses of their empire. Also, British capitalism tended to be industrialist than consumerist — it valued workers for their labor than purchasing power — , and it was American capitalists like Henry Ford who began to spread the notion that just about anyone should be able to afford a car.
With the rise of America as the premier power in the world, a new kind of world culture materialized. Americans didn’t want to set up colonies like the old imperialists of Europe. They mainly wanted to sell things and not just to the elites and the privileged of other nations. They wanted to sell just about anything to anyone. American products ranged from everything from luxury items affordable to just a few to chewing gums, soda pop, cigarettes, plastic containers, and a thousand other products within the purchasing power of even poor folks. Also, as America was not an elite-centric nation, the culture tended to be about The People, at least thematically. Of course, when it came to the rhetoric People Power, Soviet Russians competed with Americans in the postwar era. For a time, Russian language was the ‘lingua franca’ of International Communism. Various ethnic groups in the USSR, Cubans, Vietnamese, Poles, East Germans, Romanians, North Koreans, Chinese(prior to break with USSR), and etc. all taught Russian as the favored second language as Moscow was seen as the capital of Workers’ Revolution. But Russian is a far more difficult language to learn than English and probably not as pleasant to the ears. It sounds like munching on raw potatoes, the sort of language developed by people who expend too much time and energy on guzzling vodka, dancing on tables, wrestling bears, and catching fish with penises. Grammatically, it may be the most ridiculous language ever created, but the advantage of such labyrinthine glut could have been a fostering of a certain ‘profound’ outlook on life. If you’re sleek and efficient as a cat OR speedy & alert as a dog, there’s less need to be immersed in the stuff of thought. You only need to do it. It’s like an efficient well-oiled machine can just focus on the job. But if you’re lumbering or clumsy like a bear — relatively speaking in comparison with other predators — , you are forced to ponder and wonder why your movements are not coming together gracefully or efficiently to catch the prey. Since Russian is a lumbering, clumsy, and awkward language overburdened with inefficiencies, a Russian writer could easily confuse even the simplest ideas with ‘profound’ thought since usage of Russian language requires more heavy-lifting. It’s like the works of Tolstoy or Dostoevsky just feel more ‘profound’ in Russian(than in English translation) because the reader feels like his brains have been replaced with those of a bear. If an American held a clump of earth and claimed it as his(like in Woody Allen’s LOVE AND DEATH), he would be thought stupid, but a Russian doing the same might come across as semi-profound. But the other reason why the Russian language never caught on was because Soviet Union was only about the People but not about the Individual. Most people around the world are attracted to a combination of Populism and Individualism, and that was the ‘genius’ of American Consumerist Capitalism. On the one hand, the element of mass appeal made consumers of American culture and products feel ‘empowered’ as The People of an International Community. But instead of the increasingly collectivism of Soviet Communism that emphasized the We or the humble Me(at best), the products of American capitalism made every consumer feel special as Me as Royalty. As the saying goes, "The Customer is king" and "The Customer is always right." So, even though millions were eating the same burgers and fries, each consumer felt like, "This is about me!" For companies to sell their products to as many people as possible, there had be the cult of ‘customer is king’, the vulgarization of royalty. It is no wonder so many people look up to Oprah, the fat ugly black nobody who became the Queen of Consumerism in the Age of Walmart.
Millions of dolts could be watching the same TRANSFORMERS movie around the world, but each viewer feels ‘empowered’ by the fantasy that HE is the hero who defeats the bad guys, gets the girl, and saves the world. The Soviet idea of the Hero was to lose oneself in the humanist-ideological embrace of the People, whereas the American idea of the Hero was to stand above the crowd, and of course, every moviegoer would rather identify with Clint Eastwood or Tom Cruise than the little ordinary people who need to be saved.
Then, it is perhaps not surprising that much of Hollywood blockbuster movie-making today could be called ‘pop fascism’ or ‘universal fascism’. They make the viewer feel not so much as a good person like any other but as the grand hero superior and indispensable to all. It is premised on the notion of will-to-power and supremacism, BUT the catch is that just about ANYONE could be this hero with the price of admission to fantasy. Thus, superhero comic book movies sell both supremacist exceptionalism and universal egalitarianism in a single package, especially since many of the superheroes start out as ordinary nobodies but then gain extraordinary powers. Even Superman came from a planet where his kind were but ordinary mortals with human strengths. He only gained super strength upon reaching Earth.
Such notions were denounced as narcissistic and egocentric in the communist world — even body building was officially frowned upon as self-serving and self-promoting during Soviet rule — in the spirit of socialist altruism and humanist virtue(at least to the morally puritanical), but communism lacked ‘sex’ appeal or the cult of coolness. It was more fun and fetching for people around the world to imagine driving a sports car, owning fancy property, having the latest TV sets and stereo systems, and watching the latest 007 movie than to ride on the Red Train of Revolution singing the Internationale for the umpteenth time. (It’s not surprising that communism had the greatest appeal when the power of religion was still strong even while its grip was slipping. Many communists had been raised with the fear of God and vision of Heaven & Hell. They were turned on by the Moral Authority and Messianic prophecy of communism as the New Faith. So, even as communism was virulently atheistic and waged violent war on religion, it often appealed most to those steeped in religious mind-set or those seeking a secular substitute for religion. But once society and culture became less religious/spiritual in favor of materialism, modernism, and individualism, the appeal of communism was greatly diminished. With new generations addicted to fun, leisure, and narcissism[without all the religious hangups of the past], communism seemed puritanical and drab like Old Time religion. Thus, it makes sense that the new forms of ‘progressivism’ would latch onto Pop Culture, funky Negro music, and homo displays of excess. Sensualism became the new ‘spiritualism’, going so far as to proselytize that God exists to serve the vanity of homos.) It is no wonder that even as Catholics loathed Godless communism, on certain matters and issues Catholics found themselves agreeing with communists who spoke the language of sacrifice and virtue than with capitalists who promoted and encouraged the culture of narcissism and materialism. On some level, even an arch-conservative like Pat Buchanan culturally feels closer to Soviet Communists than with globalist capitalists who are spreading decadent-narcissistic stuff like the homo agenda all over the world. For all its rhetoric about creating a worldwide utopia without borders where all workers would be brethren and sistren, communists tended to be culturally more conservative, nationalistic, and moralistic than the capitalist-consumerists for whom morality became serving the vanity of Jewish and homo elites who use their control of the capitalist media and crony-capitalist state to transform the Narrative into a morality tale that would have us believe "serving rich Jews is noble" and "serving rich homos is virtuous" — and "worshiping the apelike thug Martin L. King with the boom-box voice is the highest religion of the land." That’s basically what now passes for Western morality: Serving powerful Jews & privileged homos and saying prayers to Magic Negroes. Liberals insist that they are ‘more evolved’ because they do just about anything to please Jews and homos, and Establishment Conservatives insist they’ve been cured of ‘racism’ because they will do just about anything to appease Jewish Zionists, even if it means abandoning opposition to the homo agenda so dearly loved by Neocon or Ziocon masters of the GOP.
At any rate, the success of American culture — namely popular culture — can’t solely be measured by the triumph of American capitalism. After all, German and Japanese products have also been widely popular around the world, but most of the world ignores German and Japanese popular culture. Many people around the world may drive German cars and admire German engineering, but they don’t much care for German movies and music even though, to be sure, this wasn’t always the case. Until the first half to the 20th century, many people around the world looked to Germany not only for its great musical tradition and but for literature and ideas, especially as philosophers were still much respected in elite and even middle class circles. (And for a time, Germany had one of the great cinemas in the world.) And before the rise of National Socialism and the departure of Jewish emigres, the Germanic world was the center of Jewish learning, culture, and ideas as well. Indeed, the bulk of the most influential Jews who arrived in America during the Nazi era were from the Germanic parts of Europe. Of course, we can debate to what extent Jewish-German culture was Jewish or Germanic. After all, a people could speak a particular language but still be committed to the destruction of its people and culture. Russian Jews certain spoke Russian but as communists were committed to the mass destruction of Russian culture and tradition. And there were many Jews in the Germanic world who delighted in mocking, insulting, subverting, profaning, and destroying things of sacred value to the vast majority of German people. If Jewish communists had taken over Germany, they surely would have killed countless Germans and waged a cultural war on much that was uniquely German.
On the other hand, there were German Jews who appreciated German tradition & culture and wanted a meaningful stake in it, and if National Socialism had offered a place to such Jews — like Mussolini had initially welcomed Jews into the Fascist Movement, which is one reason why Jews aren’t so harsh on Italian Fascism as many Jews had been a part of it — , a considerable number of German Jews would likely have joined the movement even if the majority would have remained on the Left or in subversive mode. And of course, there were many German or Germanic Jews who were both brilliant(and contributed to German culture) and committed to undermining & trashing German culture. It’s like Robert Oppenheimer was a great Jewish-American scientist who made a great contribution to nuclear physics but also a committed closet-communist and Zionist imperialist with a virulent hatred for patriotic white Christian Americans.
Heinrich Heine the great German poet and nasty Jew
The fact of Jewish brilliance & genius has made Jews a very difficult people to reckon with. If your nation kicks out all the Jews, it loses many bright people who might make key contribution to the economy, science, medicine, academia, culture, and etc. On the other hand, if you allow Jews to run free, they will never be satisfied with personal success & freedom and, in time, seek total supremacist power over the goyim whom they’ve come to despise as ‘dim-witted’, gullible, stupid, and clueless. And to an extent, we can’t blame the Jews for what is a natural reaction. Suppose you are a smart & cunning Jews watching the spectacle of dimwit goyim like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle, John McCain, John Bolton, and others so eager to play running dog. Would you want to serve them or make them serve you? Would you not feel contempt for such dummies?

To be sure, there are lots of smart white gentiles, but they’ve lost the righteous fire and aggression of the Jews. Generally speaking in history, those who would be pushed around will be pushed around by those who would push. It’s like Anglo-Americans got used to ruling over Mexicans because Mexicans preferred to be pushed around and take orders than do the pushing and ordering themselvers. Mexicans come to America not so much to take over but to serve. Even though Mexicans speak of "we shall overwhelm" as a collective, most of them seek out gringo bosses to work for. "Gimme job to pick lettuce, senor; gimme job to clean the stable, senor; gimme job to mow the lawn, senor; etc." There are many more Mexicans than Jews in America, but just compare the relative power of the two groups. Jewish immigrants mostly arrived poor, but they had their minds set on money, education, and taking over elite institutions & governments even though they never made up more than 3% of the US population. Even though Mexicans are nearly 10% of the US population and there may be an extra 10 million illegal Mexicans in this country, their idea of a good life is finding some gringo to hire them to pick lettuce. So, Mexicans tend to be rather passive — despite the angry rhetoric of La Raza — and want to follow orders in light of their lack of initiative. So, whites(and Jews) rule over Mexicans in Texas and California even though there are so many Mexicans in both states.
If there were as many Jews in Texas and California as there are Mexicans, they would have taken over the entire galaxy many times over. So, Anglos push Mexicans around and play boss since Mexicans feel at east with such relationship(especially if the Mexicans happen to be of indigenous ‘Asiatic’ blood that makes them more earnest and docile like the old man who brings the ax to Kris Kristofferson in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID or like the stable-hand in BIG COUNTRY.) Mexicans cross the border in search of Big Gringo and ask, "Will you be my boss, por favor?" They are like Tattoo of FANTASY ISLAND who bleats, "Boss, the plane, the plane." If Mexicans serve Gringos, white Americans serve Jews. Relative to Jews, white gentiles are more passive and mentally slow. Even when you have a white gentile and Jew of same IQ, the Jew is doing the pushing and the white guy is doing the getting-pushed. Jews like being the boss of all people, and white gentiles, though no slouches when it comes to Mexicans and Asians, turn into cattle before the Jews, and this is why Jews were pushed out of so many European nations. Once they were a given a chance to rise up and make something of themselves, Jews would get all nasty and pushy and act like they owned the place. (To be sure, Jews aren’t pushy all the time. Being only pushy would be dumb. It’d be like a basketball player acting like a defensive lineman in football. It would be like a fighter swinging like a brawler than moving like a boxer. To be a truly great fighter, one must master the ‘sweet science’. This is why Jews love basketball. True, it is about speed and aggression, but those abilities aren’t enough. A basketball player can’t just push his way through the defense. He has to go around opponents, slip and slide, feint and fool. He has to look for openings. So, Jews don’t just push. They wind, burrow, squeeze, slither, slip & slide. They are keen on timing. They know subterfuge and ambush. They may act passive, nice, and gentle but then make the sudden move through the opening. Jews negotiate like that. Same with Jewish humor. Consider Woody Allen who acts nice and smiley but is always looking for that perfect moment to strike with lethal venom when least expected. Jews are pushy when they can just push their way through. But they are also slippy-slippery and look for vulnerabilities when up against the wall. It’s like how Kubrick was obsessed with the bugs in the system. A system is works like a brick wall — like the Wasp father in THE HEARTBREAK KID — and meant to be impenetrable, but every system has its Achilles’ Heel or fatally weak spot. Every system has a soft underbelly, a soft heart, a soft head. Jews may smile and act nice & kindly and friendly. But they are only biding their time to ‘feel around’ the defensive system to identify the soft spot, and then they strike. Only a dummy would push against a thick brick wall with brute force. Look what happens to Jake LaMotta as he batters his head and fists against a concrete wall. He goes nowhere. If you want to break out of the wall, you have to ‘feel around’ for weakness in the system and slip-and-slide through it.) Just think about it. How did a great nation that was created by great vision, effort, and principles by the white Anglo people fall so easily into the hands of hideous and venal Jews? How could white Anglo-Americans create something so magnificent as America and then, without hardly a struggle, hand over the keys and levers of power to fiendish Jews? Because Anglo-Americans realized that the smartest and pushiest people on Earth are the Jews, and therefore, maybe they should step aside with gentlemanly principle and allow Jews to take over everything. Why didn’t Anglo-Americans push back to keep the power? Because they believed in the principle of honor and the Rule of Law(as opposed to Rules for Radicals) and, as a result, felt it was only right to move aside to make room for a people who beat the Anglo-Americans at their own game.
In THE REVENGE OF THE NERDS, nebbish Jew-like characters use their superior wits against a blonde 'Aryan' fraternity. But they still lack for muscle and manliness, so they ally with a Macho Black Fraternity. It's like how Jews waged their War on Whiteness. They used their brains, but wit wasn't enough to topple white prestige. In order to destroy white manhood, they needed the alliance with a kind of manhood that could beat up whites. Jews allied with Negroes and promoted black brawn to de-legitimize white manliness. that was beaten by black fists in sports. So, white boys came to worship Negro athletes and white girls now have babies with Negroes. Jews rub their hands in glee. Jewish War on Christianity is of secondary importance. White people can still be powerful without Christianity. Indeed, the demise of Christianity may only empower whites by ridding them of the soft heart of universal brotherhood and Christian guilt that is the prototype of 'white guilt'. But when white men lose manly pride and their women to Negroes, the white race is over and done with.  Whiteness has been destroyed at the genetic level. A white 'leftist' can be ideologically made into a white nationalist with a change of mind. But a mudshark uses her white womb to produce black babies for black men. Her womb has turned traitor at the biological level. Jews want to turn all white women onto jungle fever and turn white men into a bunch of pansy cucks via all this multi-gender identification that encourages even straight white males to see themselves as fey if not 'gay'.
Though Anglo-Americans had discriminated against all sorts of people — blacks, Hispanics, Indians, yellows, etc. — , they knew they were the more intelligent, daring, proud, imaginative, and daring people. Even though Asians such as the Chinese and Japanese have demonstrated decent brain power in America, they’ve lacked the confident imaginative daring of Jews to challenge White America. (Asian-Americans and Jewish-Americans may both be overwhelmingly Democratic and ‘progressive’, but the difference is Jews formulate the terms of ‘progressivism’ whereas Asian-Americans merely follow and obey the Jewish lead. It is the difference between master and dog. Indeed, the main reason why the great majority of Asian-Americans are Democratic and ‘progressive’ is because they associate those labels with Power, Privilege, and Prestige in the US.) In other words, Asians mostly resign themselves to ‘fate’ of established power, and in this regard, they are like the Mexicans: a people who prefer to be pushed than to do the pushing. (Even all the rapid social/cultural changes in Asia itself are mere imitations of the West. The rise of homo agenda in East Asia is just slavish imitation to keep up with globalism as defined by the West that is now dominated by Jews and Homos.) Though blacks were wild and aggressive, they mostly lacked for brains. Not surprisingly, there wasn’t enough of a black intellectual class to pose any real challenge to the white order. But Jews were different. They had the brains, ingenuity, vision, deviousness, cunning, and the pushiness(and slippery burrowing-ness when pushiness wasn’t adequate for the job). When the white man told the Negro, "Hey nigger, pick some cotton", the Negro might growl, but he just grumbled and picked the cotton. When the white man told the Chinaman, "Hey chink, make me some chop suey", the Chinaman might have squinted his eyes, but he just grumbled and fixed up some chop suey. When the white man told the Mexican, "Hey beaner, pick some lettuce", the Mexer might get upset, but he figured his lot in life was to pick lettuce for the damn gringo. And even though Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans could be feisty and nasty like the Jews, they weren’t exactly big in the intelligence department. Italian-Americans were usually pushy in organized crime, but this only gave Anglo-American society the justification to suppress Italian-American power. As for the Irish, they could be awful pushy and nasty — especially if you said something about their mother or took whiskey bottle — , but the Irish mostly gained power through government and patronage, which means they became among the more corrupt people in America. Irish gained power through machine politics — they were like mini-stalins — , but they weren’t producing the biggest tycoons, most brilliant lawyers, and most influential thinkers. But Jews were different. Sure, there were corrupt Jews, criminal Jews, and lowly Jews, but Jews produced lots of intellectuals, great businessmen, brilliant writers, interesting artists, towering academics, economists, lawyers, and etc. Even though Jews often played down-and-dirty, they also bested the Anglo-Americans in the area of meritocracy. So, if Anglo-Americans always had a handy excuse or rationale to keep other groups down, they ran out of excuses with the Jews. (Of course, as blacks were better in sports, Anglos and whites ran out of excuses to discriminate against Negroes.) Anglo-Americans could say of the Negro, "sure, there’s racial discrimination, but most Negroes care more about shaking booties than reading the books." Anglo-Americans could say of the Chinaman, "Sure, they seem to be pretty smart, but they lack initiative and leadership qualities." Anglo-Americans could say of the Italian-American, "Sure, they are a lively & colorful people, but their clownish clannishness holds them back", and so on. But with the Jews, Anglo-Americans ran out of "on the other hand" excuses to keep the Jews excluded from the top corridors of power. Jews not only passed with flying colors every test placed before them by white Americans but often outperformed whites by a notable margin. So, if Anglo-Americans still said NO after Jews proved their worth many times over, they would have been outed as unprincipled hypocrites who game the system for dishonorable privilege based on cheating. And of course, Jews weren’t content to ‘study hard’ and rise up socially — like Chinese-Americans were wont to do as well — and loved to bitch, claw, complain, hiss, seethe, and growl when they didn’t get what they wanted. (If anything, Jews weren’t only pushy in getting what they deserved through demonstrable meritocracy but also vicious in demanding what they certainly didn’t deserve. Jews may win clean via meritocracy but also have no qualms about winning dirty by cheating and lowdown trickery. Jews believe in winning, period, and their meritocratic gains doesn’t necessarily mean they are devoted to merit as a principle. They will use merit when it serves them but also use the art-of-demerit when it does the job. Naive Wasps fell into the fallacy of assuming that, since so many Jews make the climb via meritocracy, Jews must be committed to meritocracy as the highest principle. But in fact, meritocracy can often go hand-in-hand with cheating. After all, some of the best athletes have also cheated through doping. Some of the brightest lawyers and investors have played loose with rules. It’s like Jews will invoke ‘freedom of speech’ to defend Jewish radicals of the anti-communist period but then push Political Correctness to shut down speech. Jews are a foul bunch, or at least 90% of them. Jews are not to be trusted. Consider Arthur Miller’s DEATH OF A SALESMAN. The play reads like a call for honesty and humility against the megalomaniacal capitalist ambition of Willy Loman. But in fact, Willy Loman’s egomania is the projection of Arthur Miller’s own. Miller chose art/drama than business, but he too wasn’t content with the honest simple life. He had to play to win, win, win. He had to sell his vision to the world and win accolades, collect prizes, become rich, and hump blonde shikses like Marilyn Monroe. The only difference between Loman and Miller is that Miller got his pie in the sky.) If a white American said to a Jew, "Hey Jewboy, do my math problems or I’ll bloody your nose", the Jew would never forgot it and one day work in the movie industry and vilify the Evil White Guy. Jews are like elephants. They NEVER forget. They sure didn’t forget their God for 1000s of years, and they are still seething over the history of ‘antisemitism’. Jews pulled every dirty trick in the book to murder and rape Mother Russia for her sin of ‘antisemitism’, to ‘take back’ the Holy Land from the Arab Muslims, and to push policies causing the utter destruction of the white race.

Anyway, the success of a national culture on the global scale cannot be measured by the popularity of its consumerist products alone. For a product of one nation to appeal to other nations, it needs a certain transnational hook. Consider that the relative popularity of German culture in the first half of the 20th century had to do with rise of Jewish-German talent. Early German cinema owed substantially to Jewish writers, directors, & producers. Unsurprisingly, many such figures made smooth transition to Hollywood. Since Jews in Germany didn’t feel a soulful or ethnic connection to Germany, their sensibility was bound to be more worldly and transnational. Thus, if a German film-maker might fixate on his German-ness as part of his very being, a Jewish-German director might formulate German-ness as a concept that could be molded to appeal not only to Germans but to people around the world..
Profoundly nationalistic German artists might deride or demean the Jewish-German artist or film-maker as inauthentic in Germanness, but works that are adamant in their national identity and character generally don’t translate into global appeal. Of course, certain national cultures may be admired and appreciated for their uniqueness, but such appreciation usually takes place in the realm of elite culture. For cultural elites who prefer the real or authentic over the ‘watered-down’, ‘cross-over’, ‘exotic’, ‘genericized’, or ‘universalized’, a film like ANDREI RUBLEV or TOKYO STORY may indeed impress. Such works come across as ‘less compromised’ and ‘less eager to please’.
SUNRISE directed by F.W. Murnau
It’s been said that Silent Era was the only real time in movie history when cinema was truly an International Art-Form since the language barrier was virtually non-existent. A French, Italian, or German film could be shown in America with English inter-titles and could be enjoyed like any American-made film. But with the coming of sound, the cinematic Tower of Babel collapsed, and World Cinema became fractured along linguistic lines, and subtitles and dubbing never overcame the splintering effect. Since America was the only advanced nation with a large enough domestic market, it didn’t depend so much on success on foreign markets to sustain and expand the industry. Naturally, American cinema took off.
But surely, there were other reasons too. America, being more democratic and egalitarian in spirit, was less conscious of the hierarchical value of Culture. If a European film-maker might have given some extra effort to make something of ‘worth’, the American counterpart was more willing(even shameless) to make anything to make people laugh and to rake in the bucks, and such freewheeling spirit was bound to have greater mass appeal. Even when European artists and film-makers were being anti-authoritarian, they sought out ‘intellectual’ angles of rationale, whereas Americans just poked fun at stuff for a laugh. It was in the spirit of TOM SAWYER and HUCKLEBERRY FINN. (The art of subversion, though often directed at the powers-that-be, tends to be elitist than populist for it thrives on irony, ambiguity, and deception. Subversion isn’t a direct strike at the system. It is a covert act, and the masses are as likely to be hoodwinked as the powers-that-be even if the subversive act is ostensibly carried out in the name of the People. In a way, subversion is a two-front war by the avant-garde that disdains both the traditional/established elites and the vulgar-dumb-bigoted masses with ingrained prejudices. The radical vanguard finds the elites to be greedily guarding their unfair or undeserved privileges. But, the vanguard also finds the masses to be ignorant, prejudiced, and brainwashed by the elites. If populism assumes that what most people want constitutes the essence of social-political justice, radicalism assumes that the people don’t know what they want since they’ve been kept in the dark from the real truth and raised as sheeple under the influence of corrupt elites. As Thomas Frank wondered in WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS?, true radical politics cannot be about what-the-people-want because the people’s hearts-and-minds have been molded by the elites against the people’s own true interests and advantages. After all, one reason why communists had a difficult time was not only the repressive violence of the capitalist or ‘reactionary’ elites but the knee-jerk hostility of the masses who’d been indoctrinated by overlord class to see socialists and communists as ‘Godless heathens’ and baby-eating monsters. The Alt Right is well-aware of the fact that majority opinion doesn’t necessarily reflect the natural wisdom of the people or what is good for the people. Consider how easily the majority of Americans were won over to the filth of ‘gay marriage’. But did the American people really embrace ‘gay marriage’ on their own or were they fooled into thinking it’s what they want by the elites who control media, academia, law, and the state? If elites can mold mass opinion, then which mass opinion is really of the people and belongs to them? Especially when all real cultures & values are dead and have been replaced by fickle fashions of Pop Culture and insipid soma of Political Correctness, opinions and ‘values’ can be changed overnight by the levers of the Cult of the Cool, celebrity-mania, and hype delirium. So, just like the leftist vanguard of yesteryear had to fight a two-front war, the Alternative Right must fight a two-front subversive war against the Globalist Elites and Progot[progressive-bigot] masses whose ideas & values are nothing but poison seeds planted in their minds by Jews, homos, and cuck-traitors. Alt Right needs its own RULES FOR RADICALS by Saul Alinsky.)
Also, one wonders how American cinema might have panned out if not for the financial wizardry, promotional savvy, and creativeness of the Jews(who also became adept at mastering the popular idiom of the Christmas Carol), and Jews were never freer in movie culture than in America. Whatever discrimination, legal or social, may have existed against Jews in America, they were freer to try out new things in Hollywood than in Europe. Perhaps, Jews enjoyed greater freedom with movie culture in America because Jewish film industry was way out west in vast America. Since America was so huge and filled with so many opportunities, maybe the Wasps felt that they could tolerate Jews taking over the film industry since there were so many other things to make money from, especially when the East Coast was still firmly in the hands of the Wasp elites. In the early yrs of Hollywood, many Wasps looked upon the Jewish-dominated film industry as the new Wild West, and that may be one reason why Jewish moguls had a soft spot for the Western with its romance of the pioneers building something from scratch in new uncharted territories. Jews were like gangsters and cowboys rolled into one.

In contrast, every European nation was relatively small, and everybody that was anybody tended to be squeezed into one dominant city in every nation. Even today, Paris is France, Vienna is Austria, and London is Britain. Now, imagine if America had been the size of France or Germany and suppose NY was the city with monopoly of power and prestige. Imagine if Hollywood tried to get off the ground in NY where the established elites were. There might have been more pressure on the Jewish film industry to be sensitive to the cultural and ethical standards as laid down by the powers-that-be. In France, the film industry was centered in Paris, like everything else that mattered, and the heart of the film industry in Germany was in Berlin. Thus, Jews in the French film industry and German film industry would have been in much closer proximity with other kinds of people involved in arts and culture and would have felt pressure, direct and indirect, to be more mindful of cultural standards, be they moral, intellectual, or ideological.
But Hollywood developed in Los Angeles when it was pretty much a cultural wasteland in terms of High Art and intellectualism. Even in the 1970s, Woody Allen made jokes about the difference between New York and Los Angeles(though he was surely proud that Jews came to dominate both. In a way, Los Angeles seems to have won the Culture War due to the gradual demise of High Culture in America. In media and academia, there is far more attention paid to Pop Culture discourse. NY and other such cities still have obligatory book readings at book stores and film festivals, but the cultural center of attention is about the Blockbuster movies, and much of Contemporary Art is Warholism-to-the-infinite-power. It’s all about hype, marketing, auctioning, and investing. There is Pop Culture and Pop Art. Serious art and ideas still exist but are shunted to the side. Up to the 1970s, the cultural establishment still clung to emphasizing serious intellectual figures of arts and letters as the standard bearers of Real Culture against the philistines and popularizers. When Allen mocked L.A. in ANNIE HALL, many NY sophisticates laughed along in ridicule and agreement. But that scene wouldn’t work today since the sensibility of New York and Harvard is hardly different from Hollywood excess and San Francisco homo flamboyance. While homos had long been prominent in the New York arts & culture scene, their preferred mode had been sublimation. Susan Sontag didn’t always live in NY but she thought like a New York intellectual and kept her lesbianism in the closet even after people found out about it. She thought she had more important things to think about, and making a big fuss about her sexual life seemed irrelevant and pointless. In contrast, there developed a crass and vulgar shameless style in the West Coast cities, and that mind-set, which morphed into Puritanical Shamelessness in demanding that all of us agree that homo shamelessness is the new ‘pride’, seems to now prevail in NY and Ivy League schools as well in that they enforce homomania on everyone; they are neo-puritanically heteronormophobic. Also, NY intellectuals and other such serious folks used to be anti-kitsch. They saw kitsch as the vulgar tool of the powers-that-be in politics and industry that seek to manipulate people with pseudo-ideas[presented as trite slogans], mushiness, collective sentimentality, and etc. They thought the human intellect should be critically sharpened against such mass-manipulation whether by capitalists or communists. But there is no longer any Resistance against Kitsch. If anything, Jews and homo elites now find kitsch very useful, no less than Stalin and Hitler did in their time. Homo ‘pride’ parades are pure kitsch with those Teletubby ‘rainbow’ colors. Obama as new messiah and Oprah as billionaire mammy are pure kitsch. Ellen Degeneris the degenerate as New Normal is kitsch. Indeed, the very idea of New Normal is kitsch that smothers real thinking. People have been won over to ‘gay marriage’ due to mass manipulation of soapy hopey-dopey emotions and razzle-dazzle delirium & hyperbolics. It’s Bread & Circus sold as Buns and Funs. Political Correctness rests on kitsch, just like the Cultural Revolution in China in the 60s. There used to be sharp-edged intellectuals who disdained George Lucas’ descent into kitsch as STAR WARS got dumber and dumber. But the New STAR WARS by J.J. Abrams, which is kitschier than ever, has been hailed by most critics because it conforms to PC kitsch of ‘diversity’, which is also pure kitsch that doesn’t pass the intellectual-factual test. Slogans such as ‘diversity is our strength’ work according to kitsch logic which is no logic at all. It’s all about feely-good emotions. 9/11 didn't kill irony as Roger Rosenblatt wrote. What killed it was Jewish and Homo Power that now rests on hoodwinking and manipulating the mass emotions of the dumbed down population. On the other hand, anti-kitsch-ism can also lead to a trap. The critical mentality may develop a puritanism that ends up cannibalizing on itself. Because the critical mind is distrustful and skeptical about emotional manipulation, it may end up throwing out the baby with the bath-water. It may come to conflate genuine emotions with kitsch or cultural conventionalism that appeals to the mushy heart than to the hardy mind. Since emotions in art tend to be satisfying whereas ideas, formalism, & intellectualism tend to be challenging, the critical mind comes to dismiss emotions as ‘easy’, ‘complacent’, ‘satisfying’, ‘soothing’, & ‘conservative’ and instead comes to value only that which tends to be mentally challenging, abstract, severe, and/or cerebral. Such attitude effectively detects and repels the mushy-gushy inflated hype of kitsch, but it also filters out genuine emotions & rich feelings. Consider the overly intellectual cinema of Jean-Luc Godard or Susan Sontag’s increasingly opaque foray into ‘difficultism’ and ‘esotericism’. Consider the dull-as-hell works of Hans Jurgen Syberberg[who has defenders on the Alt Right only because he said some impolite things about Jewish power] whose stultifying and suffocating HITLER: A FILM FROM GERMANY was lavishly written up by Sontag. Or the anemic, mind-numbing, and sensory-deprived works of Chantal Akerman. [Of course, Akerman’s defenders will argue that the film’s very boredom is a commentary on the gently repressive sterility of bourgeois life that is finally smashed by a ‘revolutionary’ orgasm that raises the heroine’s consciousness into that of psycho-killer like Norman Bates.] This is when the mind turns culturally and aesthetically ‘vegan’. In forsaking all meat as deceptively/deviously satisfying and ‘sinful’, the mind just feeds on hard ideas and spartan concepts. But the human mind devoid of emotional & sensual red meat is famished. Devoid of vital nutrients, it begins to feed on itself for ‘cultural iron and protein’. Such minds turn sallow, soulless, and inhuman even as they claim to speak for justice and social progress. They become like Robespierre in Andrzej Wajda’s DANTON, a film that might have been a commentary not only on failed communism in the East but the humorless radicalism that spread across Western Europe with the May 68 Uprisings. It’s one thing to reject the kitschy junk of fast food like hotdogs and ice cream that offer pleasure but little nutrition, but it’d be fallacious to believe that since fast food is pleasurable, all pleasurable foods must therefore be just as worthless. That would mean rejecting all meat, chicken, fish, pasta, butter, and etc. One reason for the demise of European cinema in the late 60s and 70s had to do with cultural radicalism, especially in France[the main alternative to Hollywood], that rejected pleasure and recognizable emotions. So, European Cinema became cluttered with dull works like the later films of Pier Paolo Pasolini, puritanical Godardian exercises, Jean Eustache’s morose THE MOTHER AND THE WHORE, and worst of all, JEANNE DIELMANN, surely the worst film of all time. And for a time, Ingmar Berman made film after film devoid of approachable human emotions. There was Jean-Marie Straub’s static contraptions. Jacques Rivette’s films became increasingly detached from any human quality. Susan Sontag dabbled in film-making for awhile and made dry-as-hell exercises in intellectualism that offered nothing for the soul. Sometimes, films along this line could be reasonably interesting, like the Japanese EROS + MASSACRE by Yoshishige Yoshida, but they were rarely engaging on any emotional or human level. For many, the appeal of such films was the smugness of being part of a hip ‘radical underground’ or special club, privy to something that most people have no idea about. Even Robert Altman caught this bug with dull films like THREE WOMEN and the dreadful QUINTET. This was bound to be a dead-end. Usually, there are two kinds of dead-ends in culture. Puritanism that denies, rejects, or represses too much OR Animalism[or ‘Pornitanism’] that lets it all hang out like a gorilla in heat. A puritan is forbidden to express his/her true emotions, and a ‘pornitan’ or animalist has nothing more to show after showing it all in the basest manner possible. It’s no wonder Rap has nowhere else to go. Once blacks yap about how they be all about guns, money, and ho’s, what else is there to say? Once a woman bares her body and says "fuc* me in the ass", where do you go from there? Once homos go wild and celebrate fecal penetration, what else do they have to offer? Culture developed all its rich variations in the sublimated regions between puritanism and pornitanism. It’s that strange contradictory blend of repression and release that makes culture interesting. It’s like the boot-camp scene in FULL METAL JACKET where Sergeant Hartman drills the privates with a perverse mix of reverence and irreverence, of purity and profanity, of community and individuality, of repetition and improvisation. What Hartman says of the Virgin Mary is both reverent and irreverent. He needs to turn these soldiers into men who pledged to a sacred cause but able to sink to beastly level to fight and kill. He needs to turn them into hard men of discipline who are nevertheless imbued with humor and irony to laugh and blow off steam in the most fearsome situations. Anyway, cultural veganism in the arts and culture eventually got tiresome, and even its champions grew bored, and new generations failed to catch on even if some paid it obligatory lip-service to the ‘radical’ thinkers & artists. There was a return to emotions and sensuality, indeed even a return to kitsch, the once derided expression of mass manipulation. But then, how could ‘radical’ intellectuals and ‘creatives’ justify their craving for such ‘triteness’? A conceit was devised whereby the ‘emotions’ carried a certain duality. On the one hand, the emotions could be valued as a means to nudge the masses toward ‘progressive’ ends. Since the masses were dumb and gullible, kitschy use of emotions was thought useful and necessary. But on the other hand, the intellectuals could appreciate and analyze the ‘emotions’ ironically within the cultural & socio-political context in which it operated. It’s no wonder that so many film critics and scholars loved FAR FROM HEAVEN. It can be seen on two or more levels. For the sucker masses who don’t know about Douglas Sirk and 50s cinema, it is gushy-mushy melodrama that plays on their heart-strings in Oprah fashion. It is effective as kitsch. But for the intellectuals, the ‘emotions’ are a commentary on the esoteric design of Douglas Sirk’s film-making and the historical context within which they were closeted. Such conceit even applies to the new STAR WARS movie that is aesthetically and dramatically dreadful. Never mind the Negro actor. Even if every actor in it were blonde and blue-eyed, it is total shit. But so many film critics praised it to the galaxies because they, wink wink, see it as weapon in the Culture War to deconstruct and de-legitimize White America and prepare it for a ‘multi-cultural’ future where Diversity is the new ideology. They love it with contempt for the masses who are ideally manipulated by kitsch engineered by ‘pop radicals’. It’s like the wink-wink appreciation of STARSHIP TROOPERS. So, if Sergei Eisenstein made films that declared war on capitalism, J.J. Abrams wage social revolution from inside the system. The Jewish Power Elite with great wealth and privilege are the ‘rebels’ since they employ the Disney version of Rules for Radicals to turn all white Americans into their sheeplike gelded minions. Jews love it, of course, because Diversity means for them the Rule of the Jewish Minority over the Gentile Majority riven with divisions and strife that can be manipulated by the Jewish elites and their homo allies.)

Thus, despite the cultural ambitions and status-striving of some Hollywood moguls and directors, they had more freedom to make of cinema as they pleased. If anything, the main pressure in Hollywood was financial and commercial than artistic, moral, national, or cultural. As long as Hollywood churned out products that made lots of money — while avoiding inconvenient controversies by working with certain pesky moral/religious organizations — , everything was hunky-dory in Hollywood. And even though Jews held the power in Hollywood and were determined to keep it permanently, they opened Hollywood to various talents from all over the world. Too many non-Jews had either the glamour or talent. How could Hollywood not welcome Alfred Hitchcock? Thus, Hollywood was filled with Anglo-American, Anglo-British, Jewish German, Jewish French, Irish-American, Italian-American, Swedish(especially Greta Garbo and Ingrid Bergman), and many other talents of different backgrounds. Thus, even though Jews are exclusive in the inner cores of power, they are willing to attract and employ(and exploit) any talent from all over the world(as long as they pass the philosemitic smell test) to make products with the widest appeal. It’s like Jews in the Silicon Valley keep the elite power for themselves but aren’t averse to hiring high-tech talents from around the world. Jews may be ruthless in their monopolization of top positions, but they can be ‘generous’ and ‘inclusive’ when it comes to hiring gentiles to positions that serve the Jews. (It’s like what Amy Chua said of hyper-powers throughout history. They weren’t into equality but they used ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ as imperialist tools to make talents and peoples from all over to serve their institutions and armies. So, even as the imperialist overlords kept the power to themselves, they were more-than-willing to hire talent from anywhere and to use different ethnic groups in their armies. The US has become such a hyper-power. Jews and Homos dominate the upper-echelons as Globo-neo-imperialists, but they hire people from around the world in middle-management positions. They replace white workers with Mexican workers. They see Asians and ‘Hispanics’ as ideal since both groups have the servile Mongoid gene of ‘model minority’ personality. They are more likely to serve their masters than seek to gain dominance themselves. Jews naturally want to lead and rule. Mongoids from Asia and Mexico ideally want to serve and follow. PC-brainwashed Asians bitch about being labeled as a ‘model minority’, but their MM personality is really the product of Asian history & culture that stressed harmony, obedience, order, politeness, & cooperation while castigating trouble-making, defiance, assertiveness, and dissent. MM-ism began in Asia before Americans took notice of it among the Oriental immigrants. Hyper-powerism is essentially imperialist since Diversity is the product of constant migration, invasion, conquest, and uprooting of peoples and cultures. For US to turn into a Hyper-Power, the Jewish and Homo elites had to override the wishes of the white majority and make them submit to the Jew World Order where GLOB or globalist elites recruit and exploit talents and men from all over the world while keeping the real power to themselves.) And Jews are more willing to follow through on this because they have the will and confidence to play boss. With their quick wit and verbal virtuosity, Jews know they can talk around and through their gentile employees and always remind who is smarter and who is the real boss. In contrast, if a gentile was boss, he might be loathe to hire smart Jews people because his position of authority might be challenged. Even when William Kristol played the servant role to master Dan Quayle, he was the real boss running circles around that potatoe-head. When Jews hire goyim, they sense the goyim as less intelligent or maybe of equal intelligence with the Jew. Less intelligent goyim will take orders from the Jews, and intelligent goyim will generally lose out in the game of personality with the Jews. It’s like Mark Levin usually has Sean Hannity under his thumb even though Hannity is the faster talker. (Though fellow Conservatives, media circus is always a battle of personalities.) It’s the difference between a fighter who throws flurries with minimal impact and a fighter who punches less but lands solid blows. But when gentiles hire Jews, they fear that their Jewish hirelings will run circles around them and eventually rise above them. Imagine how it must have felt for George W. Bush to be surrounded by his Jewish Neocon or Ziocon advisors. Even though Bush was technically the Boss and the ‘most powerful man in the world’, he must have felt like a dumbass in relation to his Jewish advisors who were smarter, quicker, more knowledgeable, and more shrewd. And it can’t be very pleasant for Obama to be in one of those conferences with high-powered Jewish advisors. Obama may know how to roleplay ‘commander in chief’ before the camera, but he must feel like a dumbass and houseboy before the Jews. Sure, Jews flatter him about his ‘staggering intellect’, but he knows he’s just an Affirmative Action baby compared to Jews who can talk like machine guns about things Obama knows nothing about. Just look at Obama’s foreign policy. It only serves Jewish interests, and dumbass Obama has to pretend there is some higher purpose behind it. Richard Nixon and Billy Boy Clinton were two genuinely intelligent gentile presidents who could hold their own against smart Jews, but then, both lost their minds, so maybe that tells us something about the dangers of working too closely with Jews. Because goy presidents have essentially become puppets of the Jews, the kind of people who still want to be president are really in it for celebrity and egomania than for the real power because the real power rests with the Jews and, to a lesser degree, their mini-me homo allies. Goy presidents must feel like the double in KAGEMUSHA by Akira Kurosawa. They get to play the role of ‘leader’, but they must follow the defacto commands of their Jewish and homo advisors. It’s no wonder that Obama appointed a lot of women to be around him. He feels so castrated by Jewish men that his manhood can only be assuaged by women advisors who cling to him like groupies, fans, or doting sisters.
Obama the Mulatto Monkey Pet of the Jewish and Homo Globalists
Anyway, selling products all over the world obviously isn’t sufficient win in the competition for cultural dominance. China is now one of the manufacturing giants of the world, but how many people around the world care about Chinese culture except for maybe some Kung Fu stuff and Chop Suey? Though China is said to have eclipsed Japan as the world’s #2 economy, Japan has more cultural currency around the world thanks to manga(comic books) and anime, which in America is too well-known for underground status and too limited in fandom to be mainstream. Nevertheless, it’s indicative that the Japanese product with the widest appeal is one where most of the characters are depicted as Western-looking characters. Perhaps, the masculine/feminine principle shapes the relative dominance of cultures. For instance, the Oriental Woman archetype has been a familiar image in Western culture. 007 movies YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS ever used real Asian actresses, and the book MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA, though written by a white guy, was a major best seller in America. Asia is seen as feminine in the inter-cultural relationship with the West, as the Suzie Wong or Mamasan. Thus, Asia is seen as the receptor of aggressive or dominant Western energy that is essentially male. (Asians may see this as unfair and imperialist, the legacy of Western Imperialism, and therefore, some Asians make common cause with blacks as fellow People-of-Color against White Domination. But the great irony is that blacks are more likely to see Asians as ‘wussy’ and ‘pussy-ass’. After all, the white-yellow dynamics isn’t all that different from black-white dynamics. White men take yellow women, and black men take white women. And in our post-Civil-Rights order, such sexual dynamics is the result of Nature and bio-racial differences, not some legacy of white imperialism. If white imperialism still rules American society, then white men would be dominating over both yellow and black women. But in fact, black men now push aside ‘white boys’ and grab white girls who are infected with ‘jungle fever’ and feel contempt for ‘slow white boys’ who get beaten up by tougher blacks. So, if yellow boys want to find solace and solidarity in their alliance with blacks, it is totally laughable because blacks will dominate over yellows even more so than whites do. Blacks routinely beat up Asians in public schools, and the sexual dynamics between blacks and yellows is almost entirely black men taking yellow girls while black women feel zero respect for yellow boys. Indeed, blacks despise Asians more than they despise whites. Wild and aggressive blacks judge the worth of things according to their raw ‘badass’ essence. Their entire culture consists of thug rap music, tough sports, wild loose sex, hollering & chimping-out, and penis-booty-centrism. They think white Pop Culture is lame and ignore white pop. So, why would such wild aggressive people have any respect for Asian culture that is even ‘lamer’ and ‘slower’? ‘Lame’ yellows imitate black rappers and worship black athletes because they lack their own Cool. By worshiping and allying with blacks, yellows hope to have some black ‘badass’ cool rub off on them. And they fantasize that cool and badass blacks are on their side against those ‘racist’ whites. In fact, blacks look down on yellows as losers who are even worse at sports, music, and humping than white folks are. It’s like a beagle siding with a Pitbull against a German Shepherd. By the virtue of its alliance with pitbill, the small beagle think it is just as ‘cool’ and ‘badass’ against the ‘racist’ German Shepherd. By worshiping and allying with blacks, yellows hope to have some black ‘badass’ cool rub off on them. They are sidekicks toadies, but this is to be expected from a race with the Mongoid servile gene. But because yellows have been raised on PC, they blame everything on whites. They are anti-white and make alliance with blacks against whites even though blacks do the most harm to all Americans. So, whites must see yellows as the enemy.) For some reason, Asian-Indian women haven’t been the object of similar fantasy even though there are plenty of beautiful women in the subcontinent — though the ugly ones are really ugly. Thus, if China/Japan is seen as embodying the feminine principle in the inter-cultural dynamics between East and West, India is often seen as sex-neutral. Asian-Indian men are not seen as macho/masculine types, and Asian-Indian women aren’t objects of Orientalist fantasies. Maybe, the dark brown color of Asian-Indians turns a lot of whites off, even though they will not admit it. White looks clean, and what is referred to as ‘yellow’ among East Asians is close to white(or even whiter than certain Southern Europeans). As for Latin-Americans, they have a tanned look that can be sexy. And blacks can look ‘clean’ too because they are so black. A truly black person looks consistent in complexion, like a totally black car. Total blackness has its own kind of purity. But many Asian-Indians look brown in a smudgy way. So, even though they are less black than Negroes, they look more ‘soiled’. If you see an Asian-Indian penis or vagina, it looks kinda ‘dirty’ though it is not. Because the Asian-Indian penis or vagina is somewhat darker in complexion that the rest of the body, it might create the effect of looking dirtier than the rest of the body. And if it reeks of curry and onions — as some Hindus over-indulge on that stuff — , it might freak out some white folks who are used to milk shake and french fries.
The Dotkin ladies should maybe go easier on curry and onions.
Anyway, speaking of the male principle, America of course had a huge advantage in having a lot of the Negroes, the toughest, fastest, loudest, most aggressive, and the most ‘badass’ people on Earth. Indeed, Europeans were even more ecstatic about that SOAM — aka son of a mudshark(Obama) — than white Americans were, what with 80% of Germans saying they would vote for him if they were American. For quite some time, especially in sports, it must have been humiliating for Europeans to put forth athletes who routinely got trounced by black American ones. The Dream Team ran all over European teams. And blacks outran the Europeans in the sprints. And guys like Muhammad Ali and others destroyed so many white European fighters. (But with massive Negro immigration into Europe, Europeans too can put forth blacks to represent them. Blacks is the new white in nations like France.) Of course, this victory for America was also a defeat of White America, whose men were reduced to cheering for black Americans beating white Europeans and whose women were reduced to sexually putting out to Negro males, e.g. so many white groupies lining up to have sex with Negro athletes and musicians. Even so, the victory of black American athletes was spun as the victory of America, and that made America seem bigger and badder than any other nation in the world.
But, even this is inadequate as explanation of American Culture’s global dominance. After all, Brazil also has lots of blacks and produced who was one of the most famous international athletes of the 1970s: Pele the king of soccer, the most popular sport in the world. And Brazil also produced lots of musical genres that gained international currency.
Also, Europe too has been bringing in lots of Negroes from Africa and the Caribbean. So, France, Holland, UK, and some other European nations have their own great Negro athletes who are as good as any in America. So, how come America is still the dominant force in Global Culture? How come most French whites and blacks would rather listen to Rap(that originated in America) than create their own styles of ‘black music’? And even though cultural elites who listen to NPR have a knack for‘Afro-Pop’, how come it never caught on globally like the kind of music peddled by Rhianna the sizzling skank-ass ho?Assuming that American culture is globally popular because of its displays of macho power fails to explain the other side of the equation.
Rihanna, the nasty sizzling & smoking bitchass ho who should be spanked by Aunt Esther. She a heathen.
Charlie Chaplin, once the most famous person in the world.
After all, the most famous pop cultural figure in the first half of the 20th century was none other than Charlie Chaplin who played the ‘Little Tramp’. And Hollywood was just as popular for its glamorous female stars like Rita Hayworth, Joan Crawford, Lauren Bacall, and Marilyn Monroe as for its male actors like John Wayne. Also, the appeal of actors like Humphrey Bogart and James Stewart had little to do with machismo since they weren’t hulking dominant types. And in the past 20 yrs, much of American dominance in culture owed to super-geekery-and-nerdery. John Lasseter of Pixar made children’s cartoons. Pixar surely inspired DESPICABLE ME, a tremendous hit. And consider the worldwide success of TWILIGHT SAGA in both book and movie. Despite its powerful vampires and werewolves, the narrative & thematic core isn’t about machismo. The two male leads don’t conform to alpha male stereotypes: Edward Cullen isn’t proud of his vampire identity and keeps a low profile, and Jacob Black forwent his chance to be leader of the pack because he’s overly sensitive and confused. If anything, Bella the female is the truly aggressive figure who thrusts herself onto Edward and insists on being ‘turned’ into a vamp herself. When she wakes up transformed, she is exultant in her identity and power. In contrast, when Jacob finally joins the wolf pack, he is beset with internal troubles and doubts.
Jacob Black troubled by his changes in NEW MOON
Bella in full mastery of her powers in BREAKING DAWN Part 2
And there’s been the giant worldwide success of the HARRY POTTER series, which, to be sure, is of British origin, but J.K. Rowling has imbibed the essence of globalist culture as someone who is on the same wavelengths of people like Oprah Winfrey. HARRY POTTER is hardly macho material, as its central character is a nerdy four-eyed dork. Whatever appeal the books might have had, the appeal of the movies is probably hardly different from Peter Jackson’s LORD OF THE RINGS series: Loads of cutting-edge special effects. Perhaps owing to the legacy of Charles Dickens, the art of storytelling is still very much alive in the British Isles. LOTR, CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, and HARRY POTTER are based on British sources; Hollywood supplied the technology and production values, but the storytelling came from Britain.

Anyway, given the vast popularity of all the super-hero blockbuster movies, there is no question that the popularity of American culture owes a great deal to its ability to project POWER with movies like 300, TRANSFORMERS, IRON MAN, DARK KNIGHT RISES, and the like. But given that American culture has been so dominant in the field of children’s entertainment with movies like UP and in women’s entertainment with the international popularity of TV shows like SEX AND THE CITY, there’s obviously something else that is happening. It seems Americans are better even at projecting weakness, helplessness, and victim-hood. Consider the world-wide success of SCHINDLER’S LIST where, for over two hours, we see pretty much nothing but helpless Jews getting killed left and right. Power or no power, American-made products are best at making people feel powerful emotions without much in the way of ambiguity. Even American use of irony and wit should be obvious to those who are ‘in’ on what-is-going-on. In our globalized world saturated with American everything, even non-Americans often ‘get’ a laughing reference to some celebrity and his/her latest troubles or scandals. The easy emotional or sensual accessibility of American movies may be seen as stupid, simple-minded, childish, and (shamelessly)manipulative, but they quickly raise the blood sugar — just like American fast food — , and most people want the sugar high. They go to movies and listen to music to ‘feel’ something, and faster and fuller the impact the better. Such responses are less likely with European ‘art films’.
To be sure, most of the films around the world are hardly meant to be ‘art’, and the bulk of them, especially in Indian and Hong Kong, play to mass audience. But Hollywood wins all-around because of production values, expertise, and money to promote products all over the world. It also helps that as America is the leader in high-tech and computers, the entire world communicates through networks based in America, and of course, they are skewered to promote American concerns over those of others. Perhaps, the other reason for the success of American products is the world’s fascination with the most powerful and richest nation with the biggest stars, celebrities, politicians, tycoons, athletes, and etc. So, even if most American movies aren’t much good or interesting, the world keeps watching because America is the center of power. Watching American Cinema serves as a window to the Main Feature of Global Wealth, Talent, and Power. It’s like even if things inside a rich man’s mansion may not always be interesting, you want to peek inside for the simple reason that it’s where the money, power, and privilege is. It’s like Kubrick’s fascination with power and privilege. It’s like K’s wandering around the Castle in Kafka’s novel. Thus, Hollywood movies offer a window — a very distorted one at that — for the rest of the world(and even to most Americans who are not privy to the real power in America). Notice how people around the world are more likely to see a particular movie if it has been remade into the American version EVEN IF the American version isn’t substantially different — and often much worse — than the original. A whole bunch of French films have been remade into American ones, and most people around the world preferred to see the American remake.

However one feels about American culture, it’d be hard to overlook the American mind-set’s advantage in athleticism, a kind of sports-centrism. It’s like what George C. Scott said in PATTON about how Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. (Even or especially urban ‘progressives’, despite their yammering about ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’, live to favor winning above all else. Look at Manhattan and San Francisco that grow ever richer even as they promote ‘social liberalism’. Actually, the main appeal of ‘Progressivism’ for many ambitious individuals is its association with rich people like Bill Gates and ‘cool’ celebrities. With the West having grown so rich and powerful under Christianity, the creed of self-chosen poverty, such paradox or hypocrisy shouldn’t be too surprising. There is also the problem of Jews, the most money-and-power-obsessed people, having been associated with socialist agitation and the Holocaust. So, the richest oppressors above us all carry the mantle of ‘equality’ and victim-hood. We have capitalist-Zionist Jews owning much of America but also Bernie Sanders the ‘socialist’ Jew running for President. And then you have blacks and homos on the so-called ‘left’. While it’s true that blacks did face discrimination in the past, their true nature turns out to be more crass, greedy, self-centered, and materialistic than most other races. And homos, the new darlings of the ‘left’ are so vain and narcissistic. It’s no wonder then that the ‘left’ talks one way, walks in another way.) Sports are one of the few things where the best of the best are celebrated and admired by the masses, by the greatest number of people. When it comes to most things, what is generally declared the best of the best generally attracts the elites. Best ideas in science and math are only understood by top scientists and mathematicians. We might browse the science articles of popular journals, but elite science/math is not something that excites most people. And most people would rather read Stephen King than authors deemed to be the best in the world. This has always been the case. There are exceptions to be sure: Charles Dickens and Jane Austen have been much much admired by literary scholars but also popular with the masses. But even today, there’s a divide between the world of serious literature and pulp fiction, with most readers preferring stuff like HARRY POTTER, HUNGER GAMES and TWILIGHT over the works of more serious or academic writers. Even in food, finest cuisines in the world don’t grab most people. For most people, Greek food means gyros, Italian food means pizza and pasta, French food means croissants, and Chinese food means sweet-and-sour-chicken-or-pork.
It’s not just a matter of expense. Items served in most high-end restaurants are not filling and satisfying like a big hamburger or ‘bigass’ serving of tacos and chili.
But when it comes to athletics/sports, the actual best and popularity are in sync. People want to see the best boxers, best runners, best soccer players, best figure skaters, best football players, best baseball players, and etc. There is the best and nothing else. Though Britain is credited with the invention and popularity of many modern sports, it was in America that sports really became a cultural event on the scale of Roman bread-and-circuses. In traditional Britain tightly controlled by upper classes, there arose the ideal of the purity of amateur sports that could only be afforded by the affluent or those patronized by the affluent. It was pay-to-play than play-to-get-paid. Professional sports were seen as tarnished because players were motivated by money, whereas amateur athletes did it for the love of the sports, spirit of competition, God & country, and respect for tradition of sports that could be traced all the way back to the Ancient Greeks whose spoils in the Olympics was nothing more than a jar of olive oil and a wreath for the head. Amateur athletes were deemed akin to soldiers who fought nation/cause or to lawmen who served justice. In contrast, professional athletes were seen as mercenaries or bounty-hunters whose real incentive was money. Since amateur sports were supposedly played in the spirit of higher idealism, sportsmanship and fairness were thought to be absolutely indispensable. Since respect for the game trumped any thought of material reward, amateur sports were thought to possess dignity that was lacking in professional sports. (Though this began as an aristocratic ideal, it was soon adopted by Communist regimes that claimed that their athletes competed for collective ideals than personal gain.) Of course, cynics couldn’t help but notice that it was usually the privileged who could AFFORD to play amateur sports. It’s like what Howard Hughes(as played by Leonard DiCaprio in AVIATOR by Martin Scoresese) says to the Hepburn Clan: "You don’t care about money because you’ve always had it." (It’s like Chelsea Clinton saying she doesn’t care about money. Of course, her parents are rich-as-hell through crony-government-capitalism, and she married the son of super-rich Jews.) The aristocratic and higher-born elements of Britain pontificated about the dignity of the game and shun the purse of professional sports because they were already loaded with money. Also, restricting certain competitions to amateurs narrowed the field, thereby favoring the affluent participants who were spared competition from social inferiors who might actually be hardier athletes. (There were echoes of this in BREAKING AWAY where working class ‘Cutters’ compete against privileged college students.) Thus, the talk of dignity and sportsmanship served the interests of the upper classes. But then, the notion of the purity of amateur sports was soon adopted by the Political Left, and communist nations were, at least for a time, able to field so many top-notch athletes in the Olympics. Since all athletes in a communist nation technically played for the State and the People, they could qualify as amateurs, even though, for all purposes, they were professionals whose livelihood entirely depended on athletic performance. If a great American athlete, upon turning professional, couldn’t play in the Olympics, a whole bunch of Russian, East German, and Cuban athletes kept on returning over and over and over to grab the medals. Also, as ‘amateur’ sports in communist nations became a matter of national and ideological prestige, all notions of sportsmanship and fair play went out with window. Soon, communist athletes were pumped with steroids and other substances. And in most cases, children from a young age were screened and effectively taken away from their parents to be raised as athletic properties of the state, but such abuses were overlooked by the ‘progressive’ community in the West for ideological reasons. (Even now, some ‘progressives’ in the West admire Cuban athletes who play for the People than for self-aggrandizement like in the West. They feel little sympathy for Cuban athletic defectors who claim to seek asylum in the name of ‘human rights’ but may be doing it just for material gain.) If the earlier forms of amateurism in sports were marked by elitism, the form of amateurism promoted by communist nations was associated with totalitarian unscrupulousness where winning overrode all other considerations.
From CHARIOTS OF FIRE. The aristo-athlete.
Soviet weight-lifting great: Vasily Alekseyev
Though the ritualism of the Modern Olympics harks back to Ancient Greece, the way the games have been promoted and played, especially of late beginning with the Los Angeles showbiz Olympics of 1984, have more in common with Roman Bread and Circus spectacles. Though Ancient Greek Olympics were hardly pure — they were often brutal and ugly — , moderation was a Greek ideal, whereas Romans were shamelessly grandiose and bombastic, especially with the gladiatorial fights. Especially with the Olympics committee talking of removing Wrestling from the roster, the games have become little more than showbiz, hype, and the cult of celebrity. Though the End of the Cold War and the discontinuation of the artificial amateur/professional distinction were seen to open up new horizons for the Olympics, things have gotten even worse over the years with the rise of overt commercialism and ridiculous trivialism. There is also globalism that has made patriotism meaningless as more and more nations adopt the neo-American model of citizenship whereby just about ANYONE FROM ANYWHERE can represent ANY NATION. So, as in professional sports, Olympic athletes are little more than global mercenaries playing for the highest bidder. Commercialism is favored by the athletes for obvious profits, especially through endorsements. The unfortunate consequence is the incentive to cheat because the rewards have become so lavish. The West once used to associate most doping in the Olympics with the statist policy of communist nations, but doping has become more tempting because of the culture of shamelessness(where doped athletes are often forgiven), advance of technology(which makes doping difficult to detect), vast wealth & lure of celebrity, and willing collusion between athletes and sports committees(that will go to any length to protect the image of the sports as mega-cash-cows). Everyone from baseball players to cyclists like Lance Armstrong to sprinters(like Marion Jones who sold herself as the ‘clean’ athlete) to Chinese swimmers and so on and on have been suspected of or caught cheating. (And even those who don’t want to cheat are pressured to do so because so much of the competition is.) There’s also been talk that Roy Jones also used doping. Even if the best feel a need to cheat, why wouldn’t the rest?
Just as financial journalists missed out or ignored the troubles in Wall Street that led to the 2008 meltdown, most sports journalists have been willfully blind to doping in sports. If journalists are supposed to be the eyes and ears of modern democratic societies, how could they have missed the boat on Lance Armstrong for so long? (But then, consider how Jews get away with everything. Arnon Milchan — Todd bless him for ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, though — stole US secrets for Israel, but the US government won’t touch him. Israel can have 300 illegal nukes, occupy Palestinian territory, and kill bushels of women and children in Gaza. No problem. Jews on Wall Street can rob us of trillions, but no one goes to jail. Consider all the lies about Russia and Ukraine, the coup in which was illegally financed and executed by Jews and Homos who run the Globalist Order.And the minions of the Jews such as George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Obama are well-protected. Even though their illegal wars destroyed an entire region, they remain free, become president, or run for president with full protection from the corrupt ‘pressitute’ media. In this climate, what is ethics? Indeed, cheating athletes are just sign-of-the-times. And they are small potatoes. They don’t loot entire economies or destroy entire nations like Bush II, Obama, and Hillary.)
Lance Armonstrong: Cheat to Beat. Total scumbag.
How come there hasn’t been an outcry about Roy Jones? Why were so many baseball players cheered as heroes even when it became apparent that something was going on? When sports culture has become so compromised all around(with the collusion of the fawning media), how can we blame the conscientious and decent athlete who also succumbs to cheating in a world where it is the New Normal like ‘gay marriage’ or trannies-in-the-ladies-room?
In a world where Jews flagrantly game the system and evade punishment for malfeasance, in a world where homo elites flaunt their power to redefine marriage to serve their neo-aristocratic vanity, in a world where black thugs rampage and maul but are only referred to as ‘teens’ or ‘youths’ — while a guy like George Zimmerman is railroaded as a ‘white racist’ who ‘murdered’ a ‘black child armed with only skittles’ — , in a world where the media were see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil when the Bush II regime lied through its teeth for an invasion of Iraq, and in a world over ten million illegals can break into America but be rewarded & favored as ‘undocumented immigrants’ than ‘illegal aliens’, it should hardly be surprising that cheating has become the New Norm, even the New Virtue.
From the Zimmerman-Martin case, every honest American should have realized that the Jew-and-homo-controlled media are more about distorting than reporting the truth. More about spinning than spilling the truth. And given that Jews control the government, Wall Street, Hollywood, media, academia, law firms, and other elite institutions, there isn’t even the ethnic balance of power of the past. Think back to a time when Jews had power in the media, Wasps had dominance over finance and the law, Irish had ‘machine’ power in city politics, Catholics had moral & spiritual clout, blacks had vocal power in matters of racial justice, and etc. Today, ethnic power is gone from big cities that are now playgrounds for Jewish and Homo globo-lawyers-in-love. And Jews now control most of the top banks and law firms. The GOP has been purged of ‘Arabists’, and every Republican politician shamelessly makes an ass out of himself by rolling over before Zionist power. (Even Donald Trump is ultimately a kisser of the Jewish Ass.) Even though Jewish Might rules America that rules the world, no one dares speak truth to Jewish power since he or she will be destroyed and blacklisted like Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas, and Jason Richwine whose mention of higher Ashkenazi IQ ticked off many Jews who seek to ‘hide’ Jewish power. And Jews(who are intoxicated with the Cult of Holocaustianity, virulent paranoia, rabid hatred, and preening moral narcissism) are NOT going to tolerate any criticism of their own power.
At this point, Jews probably know that their power is so vast, corrupt, and conniving that if goyim were to get an honest glimpse of it, the whole edifice crumble like a house of cards. While Jewish Power is real in terms of social networks, they keystone that holds it all together is ‘white guilt’ and ‘white sanctity’ bound with Holocaustianity. This prevents an honest assessment and criticism of Jewish power. As we know from Anglo-American history and the fall of the Soviet Union, even the greatest of powers can be weakened, diminished, and brought low if its moral legitimacy is lost, leading to lack of confidence among its elites, lack of support from the masses, and confidence in its enemies. Jews know that honest criticism of Jewish Power is the opening, no matter how small in the beginning, that will grow bigger and bigger until Jews will be on the defensive 24/7. That is why Jews invoke ‘antisemitism’, especially via ADL and $PLC, to smother ANY criticism of Jewish Power. It is Truth Abortion. Kill the Truthful Child or Enfant Veridique before it is fully born and begins to grow into an adult. Just like King Herod ordered the killing of baby boys to prevent the One who would grow up to challenge his power, Jews such as Abe Foxman play the role of modern-day Herod to seek out and destroy any Enfant Veridique before it has the chance to grow into the Manhood of Truth. Abort the truth before it grows and gains independence consciousness. (The cult of ‘antisemitism’ comes in two forms, and paradoxically, they are two sides of the same coin. There is ‘white guilt’ and ‘white sanctity’. Holocaustianity, for example, doesn’t blame ALL whites. It blames the ‘antisemitic’ whites. Such whites are to feel crushing weight of collective guilt because their attitudes and ideas supposedly led to the Holocaust. But there is the other kind of whites. The GOOD whites, the noble whites. They are not burdened with ‘white guilt’ BUT for a price. They must love, adore, admire, and worship the Jew. In order for Schindler to own ‘white sanctity’, he must do everything in his power to save Jews. [Can anyone think of communist Jews in the USSR who stuck out their necks to save Ukrainians?] Or take the GOOD white goy soldiers in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. They needn’t feel ‘white guilt’ but then ONLY BECAUSE they lay down their lives to fight the mortal enemy of the Jews. So, the concept of ‘white sanctity’ operates on the premise that those who won’t admire, serve, protect, worship, and sacrifice themselves for Jews shall be burdened with ‘white guilt’. So, ‘white sanctity’ is really just another form of ‘white guilt’ because it is the abject fear of being tagged with ‘white guilt’ that drives whites to embrace the ‘white sanctity’ of serving, protecting, and worshiping Jews. Also, ‘white sanctity’ is different from Jewish Sanctity, Black Sanctity, and Homo Sanctity. Those three favored groups are sacred-and-special merely for being what they are and being proud of it. In contrast, ‘white sanctity’ is incumbent on GOOD whites admiring, serving, and worshiping Jews, Negroes, and homos. Whites are not sacred-and-special in and of themselves but only in terms of what they have to offer for the Holy Three. It’s no wonder that so many whites are so fiercely ‘anti-racist’, homomanical, and philosemite. They are desperate to stave off ‘white guilt’ by choosing ‘white sanctity’ that requires slavish adoration of Jews, Negroes, and homos. )
Abe Foxman, the modern-day Herod who stamps out all budding truths about Jewish Power lest they grow into the Manhood of Truth.
Like the Jewish Fatso of JURASSIC PARK, Jews will violate any law and principle to get what they want.
Paradoxically, as Jews become more corrupt and immoral themselves, the more they pontificate about the moral failing of ‘white America’. Offense is the best defense. By piling on the likes of Paula Deen(whose unforgivable crime was having referred to a black armed robber who pointed a gun at her head as ‘nigger’ some 30 years ago) and George Zimmerman(the so-called ‘white Hispanic’ who supposedly ‘racially profiled’ an angelic black lad ‘armed with only Skittles’), corrupt and tribal Jews in the media, academia, and government fool people into believing that the greatest moral challenges facing this nation is ‘white racism’. Never mind that Paula Deen nearly had her head blown off by some black thug, and never mind that George Zimmerman the Hispanic was being beaten to a pulp by young black male who was bigger and taller than him.
Jews in the media exploited both cases to highlight the supposedly ineradicable problem of ‘white racism’ when, in truth, the real problems that America faces come primarily from black thuggery and criminality, Jewish financial corruption and tribal supremacism(in both domestic and foreign policies), massive Third World invasion via an immigration system that is broken(which Jews say can only be fixed in by letting in tens of millions of more Third World immigrants to displace and overwhelm the white gentile population), and political correctness that banishes those who speak the truth AND rewards those who conform to official PC myths promoted by Jews. If we were to see the world with honest eyes and courageous hearts, we would see the full extent of Jewish corruption, collusion, and conniving at all levels of elite power structure throughout networks all around the world.

TO BE CONTINUED.