Monday, May 18, 2015

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.

Alain Resnais was one of the most enigmatic figures in cinema. Though well-known and widely admired in the film community, he failed to garner the long-term attention and following of other French film-makers such as Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Claude Chabrol, Eric Rohmer, and others. Despite his respected standing in the film community, most of his later films didn’t attract the kind of attention that greeted new films by Godard, Chabrol, Rohmer, and even Rivette. Indeed, it’s difficult to think of any film of Resnais since the 1980s that was treated as an ‘event’. This may seem odd since Resnais’s HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR was one of the most praised and discussed films of the late 50s and early 60s. And his Holocaust short film NIGHT AND FOG remains one of the most powerful statements on the subject(even though some of the ‘facts’ in the film about the Nazi death camps have since been disproved, a matter hardly discussed in cultural circles since the Holocaust has become a matter of faith and worship than historical study and remembrance). Resnais, though older than most of the famous French New Wave directors, managed to outlive most of them.
Why was Resnais eclipsed by the likes of Godard and Truffaut? Because Godard and Truffaut started out with a bang with, respectively, BREATHLESS and 400 BLOWS? But HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR was a sensation and a much-discussed ‘cultural event’ among film lovers and the chattering classes. (But then, Resnais had already been an established director of documentaries considerably before HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR.) Was it because his films were more intellectual and ‘difficult’ than the work of other French directors? Were Truffaut, Godard, and Chabrol, among others, more referential to American cinema and culture, thus making them more engaging and exciting, at least for American critics and viewers? Was Resnais ‘too European’? Was there an age factor? Being, on average, 10-15 yrs older than most New Wave directors, did he lack their youthful spirit and spark? But Eric Rohmer was even older than Resnais, yet many of his films continued to be released across art house theaters in America in the 80s and 90s. In contrast, many of Resnais’s films in the 80s and 90s could only be seen at film festivals in America. MELO, one of his most celebrated films of the 1980s, didn’t get theatrical release in America. (But then, Gilles Mimouni’s L’APPARTEMENT, surely one of the greatest films ever made, didn’t get theatrical release either in America. Who-decides-these-things-and-why is a topic for those who know the ins-and-outs of film distribution.) Another factor may have been Resnais’s relatively benign personality and bland demeanor. Anyone who’d seen and heard Truffaut, Godard, and Chabrol couldn’t help but be struck by their personalities(minted for cult appreciation), but even in a lengthy interview Resnais doesn’t come across as much of a personality. Also, HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR notwithstanding, Resnais’s films have generally been elusive and slippery, more introspective than extroverted.
Robert Bresson may not have been the most popular director that ever lived, but there was an unshakeable force, a mulish stubbornness, that compelled attention. His cinema may not look straight at you, but it stands in front of you; it obstructs your path and refuses to budge.
Resnais’s cinema operates around the corner of your eyes. The viewer is made to feel like a kid trying to figure out why the refrigerator light goes out when he closes the door. In the 2012 SIGHT AND SOUND poll, the highest ranked French film is Jean Renoir’s THE RULES OF THE GAME at #4. Next is L’ATLANTE by Jean Vigo at #12. Right behind at #13 is BREATHLESS by Jean-Luc Godard. At #16 is AU HASARD BALTHAZAR. At #21 is LE MEPRIS by Godard. #29 is SHOAH by Claude Lanzmann. #36 is JEANNE DIELMAN by the hideous Chantal Akerman. It’s an honor that is utterly inexplicable but then all-too-explicable, i.e. JEANNE DIELMANN is probably the worst film ever made by the worst director that ever lived but given its pretensions and pedigree — made by a ‘radical’, ‘transgressive’, ‘subversive’ ‘anti-normative’ lesbian Jewish Marxist feminist, the type favored and promoted by the academia — , it’s hardly surprising that all the lemmings in the film community voted for the film. It was their way of signaling to one another that they belong to a special ‘radical’ tribe and feel superior to all those ‘mainstream’ people who just don’t get it and would never get it. Of course, voting for something like JEANNE DIELMAN is a double or even triple form of ‘radical’ snobbery. Saying that you dig it means (1) you go for ‘art films’ (2) you go for the ‘truly radical’ art film that even most cinephiles wouldn’t understand (3) you’re so far ahead of the intellectual curve that things like characterization, narrative, and whatever else mean nothing to you. (Boy, aren’t we impressed?!?)
But then, the sort of clowns who go for JEANNE DIELMAN wanna have the cake and eat it too. Right after hailing it as ‘one of the greatest films ever made’, they pontificate about some superhero movie or Tarantino junk to show that they aren’t just ‘intellectual’, ‘serious’, ‘purist’, and/or ‘elitist’ but also hip and cool. A bunch of phony-baloners.
At any rate, continuing with the SIGHT & SIGHT POLL, at #39 is 400 BLOWS by Truffaut. At #43 is PIERROT LE FOU by Godard. Tied at #43 is PLAYTIME by Jacques Tati. At #48 is HISTOIRE(s) DU CINEMA by Godard. At #50 is LA JETEE by Chris Marker. At #59 is THE MOTHER AND THE WHORE by Jean Eustache. At #63 is PICKPOCKET by Bresson. Tied at #69 are SANS SOLEIL by Marker and A MAN ESCAPED by Robert Bresson. Tied at #73 are THE CHILDREN OF PARADISE by Marcel Carne and THE GRAND ILLUSION by Jean Renoir. At #78 is BEAU TRAVAIL by Claire Denis. At #90 is PARTIE DE CHAMPAGNE by Renoir. At #93 is UN CHIEN ANDALOU by Luis Bunuel. Tied at #93 is EARRINGS OF MADAME DE by Max Ophuls. At #102 is TWO OR THREE THINGS I KNOW ABOUT HER by Godard. Finally, tied at #102 is a film by Alain Resnais: LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD. HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR shows up at #127. MURIEL shows up at #377.

Of course, such polls serve less as a gauge of artistic worth than as a barometer of trends in the film community made up mostly of academic geeks, privileged ‘radicals’, and obsessive film buffs who need to get a life. While SIGHT & SOUND’s top 20 are, generally solid, the list gets sillier as it goes on. Even in the top 20, THE SEARCHERS by John Ford, APOCALYPSE NOW by Francis Ford Coppola, and MIRROR by Andrei Tarkovsky are deeply suspect. Ford’s movie is undoubtedly one of the most important in cinema, but in the top 10? APOCALYPSE NOW features awesome film-making up to the helicopter attack scene but is mostly downhill from there(though not without interest), and it has a monumentally stupid final part. And anyone who knows anything about cinema knows Tarkovsky’s ANDREI RUBLEV and STALKER are his best works. MIRROR is, at best, an interesting failure.
After the top 20, the list grows ever more suspect. LE MEPRIS is ‘bad Antonioni’ by Godard, the sort of thing done much better by David Hockney the painter. (Incidentally, a ‘bad Antonioni’ by Antonioni himself, like ZABRISKIE POINT, is a lot more fun than LE MEPRIS, the arid modernism of which sucks the life out of the Aegean, but then I suppose that was precisely the point. Godard’s journalistic and poetic instincts, ranging from incisive to intimate, are ill-suited for the semi-epic scope of the production. The film looks threadbare by epic standards and over-dressed for New Wave spontaneity/experimentalism. It is also too detached for tragedy and overly somber for satire.) Its appeal as a slick art film with big stars, sterile tragedy, anti-Americanism is understandable, but #21? Really?
And then, there’s Wong Kar-Wai’s IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE at #24, by golly.
Like Godard’s film with Bardot, Wong’s experiment-in-style is another one of the art film as fashion statements. SHOAH surely made the list for its subject matter and pretentiousness. JEANNE DIELMAN at #36 means there are lots of Jewish and/or feminist degenerates and their castrated gentile mental-slaves in the film community who are so eager to show off their ‘transgressive’ credentials. No sane person can, with genuine honesty, claim to like it.
It is one of those films one has to force oneself to swallow as bitter but necessary pill because "it’s good for you."
LE MEPRIS by Jean-Luc Godard
PIERROT LE FOU is at #43. Like LE MEPRIS, its appeal is a case of having the cake and eating it too. Among cinephiles, Godard is like a god. But deep down inside, many of them don’t like nor enjoy most of his films. But with LE MEPRIS and PIERROT LE FOU, you get the Godardian ‘subversive’ medicine sugarcoated in the colorful menagerie of celebrity and handsome actors. But there’s clearly something wrong when a whole bunch of critics think more highly of PIERROT LE FOU(let alone the ghastly JEANNE DIELMAN) than JULES AND JIM.
But then, it’s possible that many critics didn’t vote for JULES AND JIM because they expected others to do so. Or maybe many new voters were eager to show off their ‘intellectual’ credentials by including films that are relatively more obscure than the iconic ‘art films’, such as JULES AND JIM, possibly the most popular among all the French New Wave films, so much so that its poster was featured in VANILLA SKY by the lackluster Cameron Crowe.
Maybe many voters were using the list to show solidarity with cinema-as-radical-statement-and-movement. Some critics probably voted for films that they thought no one else would while others voted strategically to help certain films rise up the ranks. Given all these considerations, the SIGHT AND SOUND POLL isn’t meant to be any kind of rational or objective ranking of great films.
Despite all that, given that every voter was given only 10 choices, it boggles the mind that so many people would include stuff like LE MEPRIS, IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, MIRROR, and especially JEANNE DIELMAN. If you wanna tell the world that you’re ‘transgressive’ and ‘radical’ because you’re an Akerman fan, okay, but does anyone really think any of her films could possibly be among the10 greatest films? It’s a willful act of mental retardation posing as intellectual sophistication and radical chic. It’s all the more amusing when you consider that most admirers of Akerman are the fancy-pants crowd who hangs around the privileged class in affluent cities and the most elite colleges around the world. Since the elites are economically and socially far above us, they practice their ‘equality’ by pushing nonsense like ‘gay marriage’ and including JEANNE DIELMAN on their top ten list of greatest films of all time. "I’m richer than you, have a better job than you, I hang around privileged pals and associates, and I am favored by the global elites, BUT I’m more egalitarian than you because I dig a three-and-half film where a woman peels potatoes and shines shoes because it is a ‘profound’ statement about the bourgeois enslavement of women or some such."

From an academic point of view, it’s puzzling as to why Resnais isn’t as ENTHUSIASTICALLY admired as some of the other French film-makers. After all, plenty of academics and serious film critics have high regard for Resnais, not least because of his modernist experimentalism and ideological leftism. Some of the most influential critics in the past 30 yrs such as Dave Kehr, Jonathan Rosenbaum, and J. Hoberman haven’t been remiss in their duty to praise Resnais’s works, and I’m sure there have been plenty of University Press releases of studies of Resnais’s films. But then, why the relative lack of a cultist following among cinephiles? Why does Dziga Vertov’s MAN WITH MOVIE CAMERA rank so high but nothing by Resnais? Why are there several Godard films in the top 50 of the SIGHT AND SIGHT poll but a Resnais film shows up only at #102? Just how did Chantal Akerman manage to get one in at #36? Perhaps, answering some of these questions will get us closer to the strengths and weaknesses of Resnais’s films.

Perhaps, one reason is the relative lack of association with events-favored-by-the-left in the films of Resnais. Hiroshima may have been a major event, but the Holocaust is what matters in our times. While ‘progressives’ may feel that the bombing of Hiroshima was overkill, many of them still see it as an act of necessity or justice against a nation that was allied with evil Nazi Germany. Also, Jews don’t want any event to compete with the Holocaust, not Hiroshima, not the Great Leap Forward, not the Great Famine in Ukraine.
MURIEL touches on the Algerian War. Though the subject can still touch a nerve in France, it means little outside France. Besides, THE movie on the subject of the Algerian War is Gillo Pontecorvo’s THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS. As MURIEL only circles around the subject, it is nowhere nearly as compelling, at least in an obvious way. LA GUERRE IST FINIE touches on the Spanish Civil War but, like MURIEL, only elliptically in a roundabout manner. Perhaps, this side-glance approach lacks the kind of force and impact one expects from a truly ‘great film’. MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA(that came in at top ten), one could argue, is also a somewhat elusive and slippery work. Unlike BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN or OCTOBER by Eisenstein, it’s less an ideological expression than an avant-garde experiment. It’s more about aesthetic revolution than political revolution. The invalidation of communism hasn’t detracted from the
Eisenstein’s expressive genius, but as his films are inseparable from political events depicted, they are about a revolution that happened and failed than about a revolution of endless potential that theoretically might have succeeded. Because MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA doesn’t touch on specific political events and is primarily concerned with possibilities of art and technology in relation to the revolution, it has the same appeal to armchair leftists that Ayn Rand’s futurist-fantasies have to libertarians. It’s more about what-can-be and what-will-be than what-has-been and what-is-done. Eisenstein’s films feature revolutionary-theory-forced-on-social-reality and declare it to be a tremendous success, but then history proved otherwise. In contrast, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA plays with the concept of how revolutionary theory may interact with endless facets of reality and leaves it open to all sorts of possibilities. Thus, it comes across less as a propaganda for what has been done than a proposition of all the things that might be done. Also, with the camera used as metaphor for self-conscious mind of the revolution, it is as much about psychological revolution as social revolution, and of course, psychology is more universal and timeless than politics.
BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN by Sergei Eisenstein
In a way, the elevation of Vertov’s film over Eisenstein’s — no less than the elevation of VERTIGO over CITIZEN KANE but even more surprising because Vertov’s film rose almost out of nowhere — signifies the change in the ideological attitude of the globalist left. Though POTEMKIN was admired mostly for its use of montage, there’s no doubt that many critics and scholars have repeatedly voted for it since the 1950s out of ideological commitment to the cause. Even non- and anti-communist critics and scholars sympathized with the element of rebellion and uprising, the dream of a new order, as depicted in the film. While its use of montage still remains powerful and fresh, the narrative now seems cartoonish and even distasteful, given the bloody history of communism and its ignominious downfall. Thus, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA may hold more appeal. Since its less blatant in its political expression, it can be admired for its intellectual and formal qualities.
On the other hand, since Vertov was a communist, his film can stand for the hope of true liberation and experimentation(that had supposedly been the hallmarks of the early years of the Revolution) that was betrayed by Stalin and his goons, i.e. the revolution initially brimmed with excitement and new ideas but was restrained and suppressed by colorless bureaucrat Stalin and his henchmen who turned the Soviet Union into an Orwellian nightmare.
It is, of course, a myth, as even though it’s true enough that the revolution in its early stages was more tolerant of dissident elements and artistic innovators, neither the revolution nor the revolutionary artists believed in freedom of expression for everyone. Before Stalin went after the avant-garde Marxist artists, the latter had supported the total destruction of anti- and non-leftists artists and intellectuals. Vertov was satisfied that ‘reactionary’ artists were being dragged off to the Gulag and being shot.
Anyway, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA has the same kind of appeal that OLYMPIA by Leni Riefenstahl and INTOLERANCE by D.W. Griffith have. If TRIUMPH OF THE WILL and THE BIRTH OF A NATION were blatantly political — and became embarrassing later for that reason — , even anti-Nazis and anti-‘racists’ could admire the aspects of OLYMPIA and INTOLERANCE as bold aesthetic experiments. Of course, there are ideological ramifications all over OLYMPIA, but they are conveyed more as expression than statement, which makes the film more acceptable than Riefenstahl’s other great film.
OLYMPIA by Leni Riefenstahl
Thus paradoxically, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA is more acceptable to the wider base of film enthusiasts precisely for its avant garde experimentalism that is usually associated with difficult and exclusivity. Though BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN is narratively, emotionally, and formalistically more accessible, its blatant politics has somewhat undermined its appeal — though not by much as it’s still very close to the top 10 — whereas Vertov’s film, though more ‘difficult’, can be appreciated merely as a film experiment than as a ‘dated’ revolutionary statement. MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA is associated with but not slavish to the Revolution.
The rise of Vertov’s reputation may also owe to the fact that Jean-Luc Godard once ran a radical film organization called the Dziga Vertov Group(made up of members ranging from two to three men). The resulting films were so terrible that even hardcore leftists generally avoided them — or could hardly stay awake through them — , but the Godard mystique surely helped revive interest in Vertov by association. Since no one cares about the films of the Dziga Vertov Group, why not profusely praise the most famous film by Vertov himself?

Except for the inclusion of THE SEARCHERS, the top 20 list of SIGHT AND SOUND may also signify the feminization and homo-ization of the film community. Female-obsessed VERTIGO stole the top slot from the very masculine CITIZEN KANE. The two top Japanese films, TOKYO STORY and LATE SPRING, are by Yasujiro Ozu, a director who might have been a homo. Some of these films clearly have resonances beyond the aesthetic. A film may have been voted for being ‘representative of a nation with a rich history in cinema’. Some critics may have favored PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC as a kind of feminist statement. Some may have voted for THE SEARCHERS to honor the ‘auteur theory’ or as a key statement/critique about American ‘racism’. Obviously, many voted for BREATHLESS to honor the French New Wave as a seminal event. Though there are plenty of French films that are greater, BREATHLESS had a greater cultural impact than most, and its verve and spirit have inspired several generations of would-be film-makers, especially with the digital camera having made everyone a film-maker of sorts. IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE may have garnered many votes as ‘representative of 1990s cinema’, especially to counter the tendency of these lists to be ‘conservatively’ pegged to favor older ‘canonical’ films. It also could have been a nod to the riveting cinema industry and culture that grew up around Hong Kong in the 80s and 90s. Thus, when voters cast ballots, they rarely think purely in artistic terms. They choose films that embody or signify larger themes, symbols, and concerns. They make cultural, moral, fashion, and/or political statements. Especially the politically or ideologically minded tend to be suspicious of the notion of pure aestheticism or art-for-art’s-sake. They see it as lacking in commitment, a kind of bourgeois compromise with privilege, which is rather amusing since Jews and homos, the two most privileged groups in the globalist capitalist order, tend to dominate ideological and political thinking in the West.
Since the arts have generally been the preserve of the rich and privileged, modern artists and critics have clung to political commitment as an expression of their purity. In other words, they are not making art merely to please themselves and a coterie of admirers but to ‘change the world’ or to subvert the system founded on inequality and privilege. (It is amusing, however, that so many people fail to notice that the overly privileged Jews and homos keep getting more and more privileged in the name of undermining ‘privilege’.) Of course, politics has always been problematic to the arts because purity in politics has rarely coincided with the needs of art. Possibly even more problematic is the fact that politics is, by its nature, impure. Though radical activists cling to a pure utopian view of the world, politics in the real world works through compromise and deal-making, not through purism. Politics is inherently ‘corrupt’ and ‘compromised’. Every politician has had to tell lies and make backroom deals. He’s had to dilute his principles and shake all sorts of hands. He’s had to pander to the rich and powerful. This is the curse of politics but also its blessing. Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot amassed sufficient power to push radical actions and programs in a purist manner and, in the process, brought forth WWII, the Great Leap Forward, and the Killing Fields. Throughout the 20th century, many intellectuals romanticized the radical revolutionary warrior with a pure heart. John Reed idealized Lenin and Trotsky. Edgar Snow idolized Mao Zedong. Jean-Paul Sartre and 60s radicals revered Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh as pure-hearted sage/poet warriors. In the end, men of compromise and even ‘corruption’ did better by their nations than the purist radicals did.
Indeed, one of the great appeals of fascism was it began as an ideology of compromise once Mussolini ditched the radical leftist view of internationalism and anti-capitalism. He forged his ideology on the basis of making different sectors and groups in society come to some kind of mutual and complementary understanding. And Hitler played along similar lines brilliantly until his radical ambition got the better of him. It wasn’t Hitler’s intention to round up every German communist and send him to a prison camp. He was more than happy to have German communists switch loyalties and work with National Socialist Germans. If German communists hoped to overthrow the entire system, burn down churches, and exterminate the bourgeoisie, Hitler’s design was to make different classes, sectors, groups, and interests work together, with the exception of Jews. Though Nazi policy on Jews was extreme and later downright crazy and murderous, given recent events in the West it’s not difficult to understand why ‘anti-Semites’ feared and hated the Jews. Jews have finally come out of the bag in the 21st century, and many of them have shown themselves to be hideous subverters and destroyers of the white race and Western civilization, as well as gluttonous pigs and insatiable parasites of power.

At any rate, though different groups can get at each other’s throats, they are also good at different things and possess unique talents. The problem of communism was it soon became overburdened with the task of running everything once it gained monopoly over everything. Since it destroyed the church, it had to provide the spiritual element in society. Since it destroyed the business class, it had to run all the enterprises and manage all the workers. Instead of trying to find the symbiotic links and relations among the various spheres in society, communists sought to own and control all. Communist triumph led to immense power but also obligated the state to run and manage everything for everyone from cradle to grave. Communism became not only repressive for the masses but burdensome for the elites.
Therefore, the so-called ‘fall of the Soviet Union’ was really a case of Russian elites letting go of the burden on their shoulders. They weren’t overthrown; they threw off their obligations to the people as state coffers were running dry. The elites and cunning wanna-be-elites(mostly Jews) figured, "Why not end communism, grab most of the national loot for ourselves, and become the new oligarchs?"
The point of fascism was to work with the enterprising and productive capitalist class. Let the businessman grow rich, but the state would exert pressure on the capitalist class to be patriotic and serve the nation. Without such fascist pressures from government and society-at-large, the rich classes might only care about themselves and link up with globalist elites(many of them Jews) while neglecting their less well-off brethren back home. (One of the major contradictions of American politics is due to the incompatibility of ethnicity and ideology. Currently, the two groups most closely associated with American ‘leftism’ are Jews and homos. Outwardly, this makes sense since Jews and homos have a long history of being discriminated against. So, naturally they have identified with the underprivileged throughout history and around the world. But, Jews and homos tend to be, respectively, ethnocentrically supremacist and egocentrically supremacist. Jewish credo was never egalitarian but supremacist in regarding the Jewish race to be the Chosen of God, the superior people. Also, as Jews became adept at business, law, and academics, they began to feel intellectually and economically superior to other races. So, even though Jews did face discrimination and intolerance from gentiles, they also aimed to beat out all the competition and reach the top. [Ironically, Jews often faced discrimination not because they were seen as inferior but superior in talent. Thus, there was an egalitarian leftist element in ‘antisemitism’ that feared the elite power of Jews. If indeed Jews remained equal to everyone else, why would gentiles have the rise of Jewish wealth and power?] The very character of Jewish culture is, therefore, not leftist or egalitarian. Or, it was an accidental kind of egalitarianism due to social conditions and history. Given freedom and equality under the law, Jews were equipped for meritocratic and tribal-networking reasons to beat out all the competition and become king-of-the-hill. Likewise, homos are naturally a narcissistic, preening, snobby, and bitchy bunch. Queers act like the Queen in SNOW WHITE: "Mirror mirror the Wall...". So, homosexuality’s association with leftism is also accidental. Because homosexuals faced discrimination and persecution in the past, they alliance with the left has essentially been for symbolic reasons. But the core of homo culture was to gain power, wealth, & privilege, and to dilly-dally with the fancy crowd. Also, the rich class was bound to appreciate homosexuals more than the poor masses were. As the rich were better-educated and more cultured, even their anti-homosexual attitudes tended to be less violent and crude than that of the unwashed mobs who were given to name-calling, vulgarity, and fisticuffs. Also, as rich folks appreciated arts, culture, and fancy stuff, they came to appreciate the homosexual knack for such things. So, homosexuals impressed the privileged and the sophisticated classes. Though the homo agenda goes under the rubric of ‘leftism’, its sneering tone, bitchy demeanor, and narcissistic demands are not unlike the airs once put on by the aristocratic class. It’s no wonder that Wall Street oligarchs, Hollywood moguls, Las Vegas tycoons, Silicon Valley neo-aristocrats, and Ivy League snobs appreciate the homos. Homos are a means for them to exercise their elitist snobbery behind the mask of ‘leftism’. Homos demand ‘equality’, but they are championing their own privilege to change the fundamental values of society for reasons of self-aggrandizement. Anyway, because Jews and homos once faced discrimination, they came to side with the left that challenged the conservative establishment and traditional values & prejudices. But once they won the freedom under the Rule of Law to do as they please and succeed to their full content and then some, they reached the top of the institutions & industries and threw their weight around like the masters of the universe. But since their rise to power was justified in the name of ‘leftist fight for equality’, they still cling to the old conceit even though they are the least equal and most privileged/powerful groups in America. Indeed, Jews and homos are very clever in making people bow down to Jewish-and-homo-power in the guise of Jewish-and-homo-powerlessness. If Jews-and-homos were to show off their power and demand that people kowtow before them, we would come to realize that Jews and homos are the kings and queens of America. But if Jews and homos force people to kowtow to Jewish-and-homo power via the symbolism of Jewish victim-hood or homo saintliness, then we will be fooled into thinking we are not bowing down to a great power but being kind-hearted in their support of a much victimized people. So, every goy politician is dragged to Israel and made to bow before the Wailing Wall — even though the real reason why the goy is kneeling before Jews has more to do with Wall Street than the Wailing Wall. And even though straight folks have to bend over to homo power out of fear — as anyone who badmouths homosexuality will be targeted and destroyed as a ‘homophobe’ by the government, media, and banks run by Jews and homos — , they are made to wave the ‘rainbow flag’ and swallow the bogus myth that angelic homos need their kind-hearted protection from bullies and meanies. Indeed, we have a strange kind of ‘leftism’ in America when it is essentially defined, shaped, and warped by two of the most powerful and privileged groups in America. Thus, we see less and less unity and amity between the ruling Liberal elites and the masses of underprivileged people made up of ‘white trash’, blacks, Hispanics, and others. Strangely enough, the main supporters of today’s ‘left’ are the affluent children of the yuppies in gentrified big cities and elite college towns. [Granted, one could argue that there were two kinds of leftism, just like there were two kinds of humanism. The humanism of the Renaissance was elitist and about the highest achievements of mankind, whereas the humanism of the 20th century was essentially about the moral worth of every man, however poor or humble he may be. BICYCLE THIEVES and IKIRU were about the latter kind of humanism. Likewise, one kind of leftism was about justice and equality for the workers, farmers, laborers, the poor, the oppressed, and etc. But another kind of leftism was elitist and ‘radical’ in the notion that only the most intelligent, creative, sophisticated, visionary, and/or imaginative could conceive of something prophetic and revolutionary that will profound alter the trajectory of the world. There was an element of both kinds of leftism in Marxism as Marx claimed to have arrived at a profound truth that could only have been discovered by a visionary genius, and yet, this truth was about creating a new order that would bring equal justice to all humans. But the two kinds of leftism never made for a good marriage since creative avant-garde elites and the masses never saw eye-to-eye on much of anything. If the creative types are enamored of the cachet of the new and original, the masses prefer the familiar and accessible, which often happen to be conservative-in-character. Since the masses could not be elevated or won over to genuine intellectual avant-garde-ism, the most effective way to undermine their conservatism was to hook them to consumerism, especially of popular culture. Pop culture isn’t demanding and is accessible to all, but it keeps changing with the fashions, and this constant mania for new trends and styles has had the effect of turning people away from conservatism. Traditionally, people relied on conservatism as a crutch against a fast-changing world that seemed alienating, threatening, and strange. But once change was associated with orgasmic fun, titillation, and pleasure via pop culture, the masses embraced Las Vegas as their new cultural home. Today, the humanist version of leftism is all but dead and what seems to be thriving is the homo-transhumanist elitist form of ‘leftism’. The ‘leftism’ of the elites isn’t all that different from the vision of Ayn Rand except that it’s much more dishonest. Rand shamelessly championed the ideal of the super-intelligent and super-creative as the superior individual who should amass great power, freedom, and influence to do as he pleases, whereas the super-intelligent who rule as the globalist-elites pretend have equality on their minds 24/7, even though their idea of ‘equality’ is generally fixated on something as ludicrous as ‘marriage quality’ that favors ‘gay marriage’ but not ‘incest marriage’ or polygamy.] Anyway, the American Right also suffers from a contradiction of ideology and ethnicity/demography. True rightism must be nationalist or tribalist. Among any group, there are smart people, average people, and dumb people. It’s like a family can have a smart kid, average kid, and dumb kid. But family sticks together and takes care of all its members because they are all part of the family. Likewise, true rightism must care for its people/tribe over others. Therefore, white rightism must think in terms of white power and white interests before all else. Jews understand this, which is why Zionist Israel favors all Jews over all Palestinians, just like Apartheid South Africa favored whites over blacks. When the dominant majority is powerful and secure enough, it can be generous toward minorities and allow some degree of individual meritocracy based on universal Rule of Law. But when the group itself is threatened or challenged in an existential way, all its members must close ranks and favor their own kind. So, even though rightism should prize excellence and talent, it must also emphasize identity and unity. And that means a rich white person should feel something for average white people and dumb white people. After all, they are all part of the racial/cultural family. To a patriotic Frenchman, an average Frenchman and dumb Frenchman are no less Frenchman than a smart Frenchman. Libertarianism has done great harm to White Rightism because it emphasized individualism over all else. Even if Libertarian individualism claims to be opposed to leftism and anti-white ideologies, it nevertheless undermines white identity and white unity. Thus atomizing whites into individuals who only care about ‘myself’, libertarianism has corroded conservatism and rightism from within. Indeed, if every grain of cement saw itself individually instead of as part of solid block, the cement would never hold and would crumble like sand. Libertarianism turned the cement of white unity into white sand. A castle made of cement/concrete lasts a hell of a lot longer than a castle made of sand. This is why FDR’s New Deal and Hitler’s National Socialism got something right in fusing nationalism with socialism. For there to be a feeling of unity and power, the system must be geared to offer something for everyone within the group. Of course, American Conservatives can argue that capitalism is great for everyone, and this may have been true when America practiced a kind of National Capitalism where what was good for General Motors was good for America. But global capitalism has no such sense of national loyalty. Corporations will play the entire world to rake maximum profits for themselves while leaving their own people in the dust. If there is to be a New Right, it must be developed in the form of the New Deal[without the quasii-Marxist overtones] or National Socialism[without the crazy racial theories]. Today, we have a strange kind of ‘leftism’ and ‘rightism’ in America where the most powerful and privileged groups, the Jews and homos, claim to be for ‘equality’, whereas the bulk of white gentiles, who aren’t particularly talented or intelligent, are under the delusion that individualist meritocratic plutocratism is good for them, indeed as if every single one of them is going to be Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. It’s about time that most white people admit that they are average and nothing special, therefore, their real power must derive from unity in numbers and purpose than from ultra-individualist self-interest. And they must come to realize that the richest, most powerful, and most privileged groups in America, namely the Jews-Homos-Liberal-Wasps-Asians, are NOT on their side. White conservatives and rightists must break out of the illusion that success/power/privilege = white conservatism. Unless this stumbling block is overcome, American politics will continue to be absurd, contradictory, and ludicrous.) Notice how rich whites prefer to dilly dally with powerful Jews, privileged homos, and fancy mulattos than serve the interests of their own white race. Of course, Jews are fascistic in maintaining their Jewish-centrism. Jews hate nationalism/fascism in non-Jews — as gentiles might get the idea to unite fascistically against the Jew — , but they practice it amongst their own kind. Of course, as Jews control the media and the terminology, they never refer to their own nationalism/fascism as such but shield with mantras of ‘remembering the Holocaust’, ‘fighting white privilege’, ‘protecting helpless Israel from neo-Nazi Muslims’ and etc. In this, Jews are of course lot smarter than gentiles. When blacks wanted more power, they shouted out for "Black Power". When Jews want more power for themselves, they don’t shout out "Jewish Power" but point to "White Power"(as the problem). Blacks, by screaming ‘Black Power’, come across as threatening and aggressive. They seem far more powerful than they really are. Clever Jews act like they themselves are powerless and scream about ‘White Power’ as the power that needs to be confronted. Thus, Jews justify more wealth, privilege, and power for themselves as necessary to resist and struggle against ‘white power’. Thus, Jewish power, even as it grows ever greater, still dons the mask of powerlessness that is nobly and courageously fighting ‘white power’. A ghetto black will act like he’s the most powerful mofo in the world whereas a billionaire Jew will act like he just staggered out of the Nazi death camps and need protection from ‘white power’ in America that, having once excluded Jews from country clubs, might as well be the equivalent of Nazism. You always gotta watch out for the Jews.

It is, of course, easier to talk politics than walk politics, which is why the academia and ‘fringe groups’ are ideologically purer than actual politicians. Also, to be favored by the MSM and make decent money from journalism, one has to be approved by the powers-that-be, which means one cannot overly rock the boat. Even so, the idea of purity in politics or ideology is a tricky proposition. It could mean being pure to the cause/dogma or pure to one’s own conscience. Generally, the former kind of purists far outnumber the latter kind as people are generally sheep than goats. Most people are lemmings and refuse to think as individuals. They fail to develop genuine personal consciences. Their entire sense of right-and-wrong comes from public education/indoctrination, religion, popular culture, academia, and etc. People are also naturally afraid of being ostracized, and so there’s an element of Stockholm Syndrome in most cases. If you’re the lone outsider among a crowd of like-minded thinkers, something within you anxiously craves approval, and eventually, you may cave to the collective consensus.
Perhaps, one advantage of most people being sheep or lemmings is that it has allowed the development of great religions, movements, and systems. If everyone is a stubborn goat, the world around them may not coalesce into a great power or system. For stars to form in the universe, cosmic dust must gather around a cluster. As the center grows bigger, it gains greater gravitational pull and other dust ‘sheepishly’ move toward it to produce a bigger and bigger mass. Without such dynamics, stars would never have materialized. Suppose every piece of cosmic dust acted like a stubborn goat and insisted on its own ‘agenda’. They would never come together to form stars. At any rate, most cosmic dust act like sheep and move toward the greater gravitational mass or pull. Same happens among humans. A religion is essentially something started by one goat but followed by a million sheep. If everyone had the will-power and individuality of a Jesus or a Muhammad, no one would follow anyone and everyone would expect everyone else to follow him. Jews know this. They are the goats of society, and they expect us to be sheep who revolve around them. (Some Jews even look like goats.) The danger of playing the goat is ending up as the scapegoat, as happened to many strong-willed individuals who ended up as martyrs. But if one plays it right, one can gain control of the world through one’s own myth(as Jesus did despite being ‘sacrificed’ and killed in flesh) or one’s own manliness-and-myth(as Muhammad did, becoming supremely powerful in his lifetime and gaining immortal glory thereafter). Hitler also understood the one-goat-and-million-sheep dynamics of social psychology. He played the role of angry and charismatic goat who won over the hearts and minds of millions of German sheep. Jews point to the dangers of such ‘irrationality’ but pull the same trick on all of us. Jewish control and use of media, culture, education, and propaganda are hardly different in purpose from the tactics used by Joseph Goebbels. In political and ideological terms, true rationalism is essentially dead and indeed never worked with most people because most people, as natural sheep, cannot or will not think with individual/personal conscience. Just how did US turn pro-‘gay’ so fast? It all had to do with mass manipulation by the Jews via control of the media. Since it would have been uncouth for Jews to do it in the name of their own privilege or ‘gay’ privilege’, they wrapped the issue around the notion of ‘equality’ and ‘civil rights’. It’s a dirty trick but effective if you control the media, academia, pop culture, and government.
For example, the US invasion of Iraq was Zionist-American aggression against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. But US media controlled by Jews framed the debate in terms of ‘national defense’ against WMD. So, even though US was the aggressor, the media justified US aggression as America defending itself, as if preemptive strike, against a nation that supposedly was stockpiling WMD to bring about a thousand 9/11's on American soil. Or consider how Nazis and Communist framed their own aggressions. Even as Hitler played the aggressor, he framed everything in terms of Germans defending their territory and rights against others, a lie perpetrated in Pat Buchanan’s UNNECESSARY WAR. And even as the Soviet Union funded communist wars all over the world, their agents in the US pushed the Peace Movement. In Vietnam, North was the aggressor against the South. If the North had given up its agenda to invade the South, US would have stayed out of the war. US, in trying to defend South Vietnam from communism, got involved, but the ‘progressive’ community made US the aggressors against the ‘peaceful’ Vietnamese. According to ‘anti-war’ activists, Soviet aid to North Vietnam was not warmongering. North Vietnam’s aggression against South Vietnam was not an act of war. But American role to defend the South from the North was an act of aggression. (To be sure, however, US did create the conditions for war in Vietnam by artificially dividing the nation in half between north and south to ensure that the Ho Chi Minh, the popular ‘national hero’, would not turn all of Vietnam into a communist state.) Jews and homos pull the same shtick on all of us. Jews can get away with murder in America, but Jewish banksters on Wall Street were not prosecuted for all the dirty tricks they’d pulled. Homos are supremely arrogant and love to throw their weight around. In George Orwell’s 1984, it wasn’t enough for you to obey Big Brother. You had to LOVE Big Brother. In Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China, it wasn’t enough for you to accept the power of the communists; you had to pledge undying loyalty to it, even if you were condemned to rot in the gulag. In today’s America, it’s not enough for you to tolerate homos. You must publicly "WELCOME" and "CELEBRATE" homos and their lifestyles. If you’re a big city politician and doesn’t march in the ‘gay pride parade’, you can kiss your career good bye. Homos will take notes and send them to Jews in the media who will target you. If your company doesn’t offer ‘gay-friendly’ policies, you will be attacked by lawyers, government, and other businesses. Supremacist Jews and neo-aristocratic homos have pulled off a coup-d’etat and rule over us, but they act like they’re underdogs still fighting for ‘civil rights’ when they’re really about right-of-privilege or "privil rights". After all, why do only homos get to change the rules of marriage for their own self-aggrandizement but the same ‘right’ or privilege doesn’t apply to polygamists and incest-sexuals? But of course, most people don’t ask that question since they are sheep. Americans are attracted to two things: money/celebrity(material narcissism) and moral narcissism. If a person is merely rich and famous, he will be envied but not necessarily respected. People follow Donald Trump and Paris Hilton but don’t respect them. If you only into morality but lack riches and glamour, people will see you as just another ‘loser’.You will be seen as priggish and boring. But if you have both glamor and ‘morality’, or ‘glamorality’, people will adore and admire you, and this is what homos got for themselves. Homos have lots of money, lots of power, and lots of celebrity coverage. That makes them hip and cool. But they also pose as saintly and angelic victims of all those ‘homophobes’, which makes them objects of pity. And if you pity them, you are made to feel morally narcissistic and superior. Thus, many people are really attracted to Jews and homos for reasons of power, wealth, privilege, and talent — status-seeking reasons — , but their power-worship is given moral justification through the victimology that would have us Jews as ‘eternal Holocaust survivors’ and homos as ‘eternal homocaust survivors’.
Basically, you wanna be friends with or win the approval of a billionaire Jew and millionaire homo, but that sounds so crassly status-seeking. But since the Jew and homo are wrapped in victimological garb, you can pretend that your crass social-climbing is really a form of ‘compassion’ for ‘victim groups’. Conservatives aren’t much better. They suck up to Jews because Jews have immense power and wealth. Conservative politicians act before powerful Jews as dogs do before their masters. But admitting as much would be so crass and craven. It’s not very dignified to grovel like a dog before wealthy masters. So, Conservatives — under the amused snickering of Jews — pretend that they are coming to the defense of helpless Jews from Obama the socialist-stealth-Muslim and all-powerful Palestinians(armed with rocks and bottle rockets) and neo-Nazi Iran(that, by the way, still has no nuke against Israel that has 300 illegal nukes).
Purity(or at least purported purity)of commitment is what most political causes are about. It doesn’t require people to think or rock the boat. They can be personal cowards and sheep without individual conscience pretending to be courageous rebels, but they are really nothing but variations of the Red Guards. No matter how loud they bark, they never think for themselves. Indeed, the loudness of their bark is precisely to drown out the fact that they can’t think or are afraid to. Their rage is really a desperate attempt to repress their own suspicion that they’re nothing but dogs. Most academics in the ‘social sciences’ are mindless sheep like the girl in David Mamet’s OLEANNA. They desperately need to cling to some cause or ideology because they are incapable of thinking on their own and honestly debate with others. They need the power of dogmatic officialdom behind them to browbeat and silence their opponents since they cannot win on the basis on fact and reason. To disagree is to be ‘disagreeable’, and most people are afraid of being ‘disagreeable’ or dealing with ‘disagreeable’ people. (They, of course, may take pride in being ‘disagreeable’ in officially sanctioned ways such as in the mode of ‘angry feminist’ or ‘black rage’, but they don’t know how to be truly disagreeable as individuals with own ideas and consciences.) They want to belong and to be loved.
This need to belong isn’t negative in and of itself. People are, after all, social creatures. But in matters of truth, one doesn’t get nearer the truth by going along with the dogma or the consensus. One needs purity of personal conscience over purity of collective commitment. As the John Reed character(Warren Beatty) argues near the end in REDS, "if you kill dissent, you kill the Revolution." Of course, he’s a fool for thinking a revolution founded on radical ideas could ever tolerate dissent for long. Communism, after all, wasn’t for freedom for all but for its idea of justice, and freedom could only be a casualty in the long run. Communism was a prison system that sought to imprison and reform humanity for its historical crime of class oppression. Even the working class couldn’t be allowed freedom in the new order since they’d culturally been contaminated by reactionary social and cultural systems since the beginning of time. They too had to be reformed so that they wouldn’t use their liberation under communism to grow rich and become bourgeois themselves. Physical proles had to be made into ‘spiritual’ proles. A merely physical prole, if given a million bucks, might ‘betray’ his comrades and live the good life. But a ‘spiritual’ prole, even if offered a million bucks, would reject the temptation just like Jesus rejected offerings from Satan. Given the ideology of communism, it rationalized the new order as a prison system where people would be watched and controlled at all times. Humanity had to be sentenced, punished, and reformed for its entire history of oppression, exploitation, brutality, and ignorance. Even the oppressed classes had to be properly indoctrinated in the new faith and imbued with correct attitudes so that they would never use freedom for exploitation of others. A true communist with freedom should only act like a communist. That was the communist paradox. It could only allow freedom where people ‘freely’ acted like communists. For people to attain the right to be free, they had to be conditioned to act only like communists. Communism played the role of God. It’s like the God wanted man to be free but also for man to use that freedom only in ways approved by Him. But to be free means being able to disobey God as well as to obey God. God couldn’t tolerate disobedience but still wanted man to be free. After all, if man wasn’t free and obeyed God merely out of programming, then there could be no real love and devotion since man’s faith little more than a recording in a doll that mutters ‘mama, mama’. For man to truly love and obey God, he had to freely choose to devote his life to God. But when man freely chose to disobey God, God simply couldn’t tolerate it.
Maybe one way the story of Abraham and Isaac could be interpreted is God told Abraham not to kill Isaac because He was afraid that Abraham might actually not do it. The Bible says that Abraham was really about to kill Isaac but was halted by God. But how do we know Abraham would have done it unless he’d really gone through with it? Maybe Abraham might have pulled back the knife at the last moment. Or maybe the blade may have gone in an inch and then Abraham would have pulled it out and spared Isaac and disobeyed God. But since God ordered Abraham not to do it ‘at the last moment’, God could make Himself believe that Abraham is indeed loyal and obedient. (The relation between man and God/gods is one of the most puzzling in the history of man. How could man create something and then worship it as his own creator? How could a fiction made by man gain such total control over man[though, of course, one could argue that the original gods weren’t so much inventions of man as interpretations by man of the forces of nature]? But then, of course, God or gods never had complete control over man because man was always subconsciously controlling God or gods. Man subconsciously nudged God or gods to will upon humanity the sort of commands that served man’s interest. In a way, the relation between God/gods and man is like that of Jews and their gentile overlords. Clever Jews ever so gently nudged gentile overlords into thinking and acting in ways that subtly advantaged Jews, and so, it seemed as if the godly gentile rulers were in control and Jews were merely carrying out the wishes of the gentile rulers. But as Jews were toying with the minds of the goy rulers, Jews were the real wizard behind the Oz. Jews would have us believe that Wasps still rule America when, in fact, Wasp power is an empty shell of its former self. Thus, mankind messed with God or godly powers just as God or godly powers messed with mankind, that is IF the tribe in question possessed the wit and brilliance to mess with the minds of others, be they human or divine. It’s like how the ghosts at the Overlook Hotel in THE SHINING make Jack Torrance believe that he isn’t merely the caretaker of a hotel but an emperor of an empire. Torrance is made to feel the power, but his mind is being nudged every which way to serve the agenda of the ghosts. Wasps in America today are like the characters in THE WIZARD OF OZ. Like the Scarecrow, they don’t have a brain, at least compared to Jews. Like the Tin Man, they are stiff and mechanical. Like the Cowardly Lion, Wasps still act like they have the power but it’s just a charade. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney talk big but they are little more than toy boy scaredy cats of the likes of Sheldon Adelson the Jewish casino tycoon. And most white conservatives are like Dorothy, so ‘innocent’ and naive in their faith in the Jewish wizard of Globoz. It’s amusing that the creature who sees right through the wizard in the movie is Dorothy’s dog. Like the horse in KAGEMUSHA and the military dog in the fourth segment of Akira Kurosawa’s DREAMS, it isn’t easily fooled. It goes to show that people can be dumber than animals in some ways. Animals can be fooled too, but because they lack an understanding of abstract concepts, they go by directness of senses. The dog hears where the sound is really coming from and pulls open the curtain. Culture, civilization, and ideals are what make us human, but they can blind us from the raw and naked truth. Concepts of myth and honor blind the Takeda Clan from the dangers in the final scene of KAGEMUSHA. All that stuff about the sacred Yamato spirit blinded Japan in its assessment of war with America. All that stuff about Brotherhood of Man blinded communists to the dogmatic naivete of Marxism-Leninism and its radical misunderstanding of human nature. All this Holocaustianity crap blinds white people to the true nature of the Jewish mind and the true breadth of Jewish history in which Jews weren’t merely hapless victims but often cunning exploiters or ruthless oppressors. The Magic Negro myth blinds white folks to the true dangers of the Negro who is physically stronger and more aggressive. All the stuff about white male pride and honor blinds white rightist males from admitting that the Negro is stronger and that their fears are motivated more by the Negro’s physical and sexual threat than by his lower IQ. If all Negroes were like Gary Coleman, who’d give a crap about lower black IQ? Whites flee from blacks out of physical fear, not due to fear of lower IQ. Indeed, all things being equal, you’re more likely to be intimidated by a smart pushy person than a dumb dim-witted person. Anyway, man’s worship of God or gods shows power dynamics can be the exact reverse of reality. Man can create God or gods and still believe that God or gods created him and has power over him. To be sure, one could argue that man didn’t create God or gods but rather that God or gods were merely man’s conceptual or intellectual manifestation of the essence of reality. If we look at physical matter, there’s tension between matter and energy, not least because at its deepest core, matter is energy. Since living creatures are also entities made of matter and energy, all life-forms feel the tension between their material presence and energetic projection. As brains in evolving organisms grew larger and finally developed into the human brain, the tension was manifested through the concept of spirituality in cooperation with and opposition to materiality. As early man didn’t understand physics and the science of matter and energy, he saw his own flesh as a thing and the energy within him as a soul or spirit, as energy. In this sense, man didn’t invent or create God or gods, but rather, God and gods were the natural conceptual outgrowth of the central tension in all life forms, the struggle between their material presences and energetic projections. Even so, as God or gods also constitute abstract principles, He or they can serve as a useful metaphor of all ‘great’ ideas that have come to shape and guide mankind. God is an idea that arose from man and gained power over man. Even among the godless, the same dynamics applies. Even in the modern secular age, people have come to worship ideas as if they have talisman-like power and as if they hold greater truth than reality itself. Radical leftists have worshiped the abstract ideal of Equality. The word has such power that you can attach it to anything to lend it magical power. Thus, ‘gay marriage’, once turned into ‘marriage equality’, became as American as Fruit Cocktail. Or take words like ‘racism’, which no longer has any rational meaning. It’s a demonic word that frightens adults like horror tales scare little boys and girls sitting around a campfire. And Jews want us to think and feel in such manner because emotional control is more powerful than rational control. If you control people through rational debate, there’s always a chance that one of the controlled may use reason and facts to challenge the official dogma. But if you gain emotional control over others, they will be afraid to raise any question, no matter how much it may be based on facts and reason, that might make them feel foul and dirty for deviating from the sacred line. So, it doesn’t matter than Jason Richwine has all the data to back him up on differences in racial IQ and the impact of immigration. ‘Racism’, as used the powers-that-be, is not a rational definition — race + ism = belief in races and racial differences — but an emotional definition. It means a person deemed a ‘racist’ is an ‘odious’ and ‘noxious’ and bad, very bad, and super very bad person. He is spiritually and physically diseased, a moral and intellectual leper. He must be cast out of decent society, and others who agree with him must also be hunted down. Thus, not only was Richwine attacked but so were the mostly ‘progressive’ professors who’d reviewed his work. The emotional reaction against Richwine shows the power of emotional control, and this is why Jews have de-rationalized debates into emotion-laden invectives against ‘racists’, ‘homophobes’, ‘xenophobes’, ‘rabid anti-Semites’, and etc. If you disagree or oppose the Jewish agenda, you are not merely wrong and to be argued with. You are psychologically and clinically diseased. You must be silenced and ‘treated’ than debated with since your view of truth has no basis in reality, at according to the prevailing Political Correctness dominated by powerful Jews.
Pushy Jews and bitchy homos now control most of elite positions in American culture, and American conservatives don’t know how to fight back for several reasons. For one, American Conservatives agree with many of the premises of Liberalism, such as the godliness of MLK and the evil of ‘racism’. American Conservatism expends much time and energy demonstrating how it has Thomas Sowell on its side and how the Democrats are the ‘real racists’. Ann Coulter’s diatribe about ‘racist’ Democrats is mostly bullshit since most of those ‘racist’ Democrats became Republicans. American Conservatism is also just as or even more slavish to Jewish power than American Liberalism is, not least because American Liberalism, being so Jewish-controlled to begin with, doesn’t have to be blatantly pro-Jewish to show off its philo-Semitic credentials. Also, libertarian wing of American conservatism isn’t even conservative and yammers mostly about radical individualism. No movement gets anywhere just be yammering about individualism. Power comes from unity and collective/coordinated action, not by "I wanna gamble and smoke pot all I want." There is the respectable rich wing of American Conservatism, and it is too obsessed with matters of status and vanity to put up a fight, lest the fight sully their reputation as ‘reformed conservatives who no longer feel hostile toward Jews and Negroes’; just look at the spinelessness of the Bush clan. You can’t rely on the kind of ‘conservatives’in Whit Stillman’s movies. Then, there’s the Evangelicals whose idea of Conservatism is "Earth is 6,000 yrs old", a real laughing stock in the modern world. And then you have the gun nuts. While I support the 2nd Amendment, guns are only useful when matters violently come to a head. Most of modern society battles with words and ideas, not with guns. A person with the power of pen and camera has more power than some redneck with a huge gun collection. Wasps had long been the leaders of American conservatism, but the Wasp model has long been dead. It eventually lost the fire and became tepid and dry. And country music is kinda dumb. And Christianity of the Right generally ranges from ignorant to stupid. What American conservatives need do is to embrace a kind of Chechenism. American conservatives must be the new Chechens. This doesn’t mean conservatives must do everything the Chechens do, such as wife-stealing, throat-slitting, and blowing up Marathons. Instead, American conservatives should take the vibrant, aggressive, and colorful aspects of Chechenism for cues on how to revitalize themselves. Chechen music and dance makes you wanna fight for your people. Country music makes you wanna drool saliva. Chechen masculinity makes a guy wanna take a stand and push back. Wasp manhood means remaining wry and calm while the pushy Jew and bitchy homo spits in your face. Chechenism has no concept of collective guilt. Only tribal pride. That’s what white folks need. Also, conservatives need to come up with something that might called ‘Chrislam’. Christianity, sorry to say, has run its course. With the National Cathedral sounding the bell in celebration of ‘gay marriage’, American Christianity has lost its soul, meaning, and authority. It’s merely a plaything controlled by Jews and homos who’ve infiltrated and subverted the halls of Mainline Christianity. If communist Jews in the Soviet Union sought to physically destroy all the Churches, sly and dirty American Jews decided to destroy Christian power and authority by making homo-sanctity the central tenet of Christianity. At the very least, the communist Jews were honest in their virulent hatred against Christianity. In contrast, dirty American Jews hide their hatred and pretend to serve Christianity by turning Churches into playpens of decadent homosexuals[or Pussy Riot-ers or Pussy-Rotters in Russia]. Just like Jews turned the GOP from a white party into Zionist-worshiping party, they’ve turned Churches from defenders of the Faith and timeless spiritual-moral truths into collaborators with fashionable nouveau-pagan decadence and Mammon. The Mormon community, which has long been known to put profit before principle, has sold its soul to Wall Street and Hollywood Jews. This way, Jews can destroy the Christian Church while pretending to be its friend. Jewish role in communism gave them a bad rap as the ruthless destroyers of Christianity, and Jews are careful to avoid such accusations because Jewish violence against Christianity led many people in Italy, Germany, and Spain to side with anti-communists and ‘anti-Semites’. But then, Jews know that destroying the soul of something is more effective than destroying its body. After all, Jesus was destroyed in body but not in soul. But suppose Jesus had been spared in body but corrupted in soul. Then, there would have been no Christianity to begin with. It’s why the Jesus figure in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST chooses the destruction of his body via the crucifixion to save his soul for the good of mankind. When Jewish communists smashed 50,000 churches in the USSR, they destroyed the body of Christianity but not its soul. But in the US, by turning Churches into dens of homo-sanctity, Jews have destroyed the soul of Christianity, and therefore, Christianity is all but dead in the US. It has been Jew-ized, homo-ized, and shopping-mall-ized. Many churches have been infiltrated by homo operatives while others, like the Mormon church, have sold themselves for thirty pieces of silver. Evangelicals are a bunch of dodos who worship Israel and Jews more than they do God and Jesus. And they go boo hoo hoo over MLK the woman-abusing drunkard lout. That said, there’s no denying the great history of Christianity in Western Civilization, so the Christian tradition cannot simply be dispensed with. It would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. So, what is to be done? Conservatives need to take some cues from Islam. While Christianity is dying and shrinking, Islam is growing in power. Muslims are fervent in their faith. Why? Because their faith makes them feel proud and strong. Christianity had once filled white folks with feelings of pride, dignity, and honor. While Christianity imbued Western folks with humility and reverence, it also made them feel they were on the side of God. Today, Christianity makes most white people feel like worthless sinners who must atone forever all the ‘evils’ done by their ancestors, at least in regard to Jews, Negroes, and homos; after all, most white Christians don’t seem to care much about Hiroshima, the demise of the American Indians, the ‘cultural genocide’ against indigenous European pagans, or the Nakba. Christianity only reminds white folks of all the ‘sins’ committed by their ancestors against Jews, Negroes, and homos. It makes them feel morally inferior even to some half-naked savage in Africa chucking spears at hippos. There is much that is negative, crazy, and dangerous about Islam, so it makes no sense for white folks to convert to Islam. But there are good things as well. A Muslim takes no shit from Jews and homos for one thing. We can reject something but still learn and borrow from it. National Socialists hated communists but borrowed certain things from communists. Japanese patriots hated Western Imperialism but borrowed ideas and methods from the West to build a powerful modern Japan. Jews hate European fascism but learned from it to create their own system of mass mind control. Jews also hate Wagner the man but found much inspiration from his music. So, we don’t have to love Islam to learn and borrow things from it. This process of learning can lead to something like Chrislam, a revitalization of Christian West with something of the Islamic warrior spirit that refuses to cower before hideous Jews and haughty homocules. If most white American conservatives were Chechenized and Chrislamized, they wouldn’t be taking any shit from Jews and homocules, and we can have a proper civil war and kick some ass. Of course, there’s something to be learned from Jews and Homos as well. The Wasp ideal was to be intellectual and dry. The Jewish ideal has been to be intellectual and pushy. Wasps have been emotionally objective whereas Jews have always been very subjective in their emotions. Subjective emotions beat objective emotions. So, white folks need to learn from Jews to be counter-pushy and fight back against nasty vicious Jews.)

Anyway, we were saying something about the impure nature of politics(as practice and expression at least in contrast to theory and ideology). Then it follows that George Lucas can be construed as one of the most political film-makers. One need not make political films to be political within the film industry. Politics can mean ideology in the realm of principles, but in the realm of reality it more often means power. Everyone who vies for power is being political, and Hollywood has always been a competitive field for power politics. Even if all shakers and movers in Hollywood were without ideology, they would be ruthless and ravenous political animals since it is a dog-eat-dog industry. In the struggle for power, principles always take the backseat. George Lucas made one truly principled film on the basis of personal expression: THX 1138. It failed at the box office despite its release in the early 70s, a period often hailed as the golden age of the Film Generation. As it turned out, either most of the Film Generation didn’t care for films like THX 1138(and Robert Altman’s MCCABE AND MRS MILLER, another bomb), or the Film Generation, mostly centered in colleges and bohemian parts of big cities, wasn’t big enough to fill up the theaters. One can argue about the ideological trappings of STAR WARS, but even without them, it is one of the most political films because it was the product of Lucas’s coming to terms with the power of the industry and marketplace. To be sure, Lucas wasn’t purely in it for the money. He did have a grand vision and a fairytale excitement with the material. Even so, he watered it down to make it appeal to as many people of all ages all around the world. When we contemplate Lucas’s artistic decline from THX 1138 to STAR WARS movies, we tend to bemoan the price one has to pay in going with the politics of power over politics of principle. On the other hand, had Lucas decided to make more films like THX 1138, no studio would have backed him, and he might not have made another movie. And had he not made STAR WARS, he wouldn’t have gained the clout to lend help to Kurosawa in his comeback with KAGEMUSHA. And for all its problems and compromises, the STAR WARS saga some real strengths. Lucas also created lots of jobs for all sorts of people with all the money he made. Though film scholars like to blame Spielberg and Lucas for the blockbuster craze that pushed out the little movies, the indictment is only half-true. First, most of the highly regarded films of New Hollywood of the 1970s were failures. Dennis Hopper and Robert Altman had smash hits with EASY RIDER and M*A*S*H, but most of their subsequent films were money losers and even critical flops. So, it wasn’t as if New Hollywood was thriving with all these personal films but then got sideswiped by the Spielberg/Lucas circus wagon. New Hollywood was losing lots of money with the personal films of ‘auteurs’, and the industry was finally saved by the blockbusters. Also, little personal movies never went away. After all, there were hundreds of cheapie slasher flicks and horny teenager movies in the 80s, so there evidently was funding available for smaller productions. The problem was that most people had little interest in the personal art film as the boomers grew up & lost interest in edgy things and raised their kids to listen to rock music, watch TV, and play video games all day, the sort of behavior that doesn’t foster the kind of curiosity, empathy, and patience necessary for appreciation of ‘art cinema’.

In life, there’s the politics of idealism, the politics of dogmatism/commitment, the politics of opportunism, and the politics of truth. Politics of idealism and politics of dogmatism sometimes overlap, but the difference between the idealist and dogmatist is that the former is primarily interested in serving an idea whereas the latter is mainly devoted to serving the power of an idea. An idealist may be foolish or misguided, but he does think about the world in terms of ideas weighing the rights and wrongs. An dogmatist has no use for thought; he just goes along with the orthodoxy he was either raised with or indoctrinated with, whether it be Nazism, communism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or etc. Rousseau was an idealist, right or wrong. He may have thought wrong, but he did think on his own. Most politically correct people are dogmatists; they swallow whole hog all the propaganda fed to them by college professoriat, pop culture, and advertising. Politics of dogmatism differs from politics of opportunism because, however stupid and narrow-minded it may be, dogmatism is nevertheless is premised on genuine faith. Politically correct people may not think but they believe in the tripe they believe with genuine commitment. Politics of opportunism is less interested in ideas than power, and to gain the power, one must be malleable with ideas and principles. Bill Clinton is a classic politician of opportunism. He was against ‘gay marriage’ when it served his purposes; now he’s for ‘gay marriage’ because homo power, in alliance with Jewish power, rules the Democratic Party and has control over elite institutions. Clinton, Obama, and Romney have their ideological leanings, but they are the kind who that sell their souls for more money and power. Politics of opportunism may be dirty, but it generally favors smarter people than the politics of dogmatism. A dogmatist sticks to whatever dogma that is dished out to him or her. An opportunist has a dog’s nose and ear for detecting shifts in trends so as to adjust his or her own positions at opportune moments. Politics of pragmatism is related to the politics of opportunis, but whereas a pragmatist is often an idealist who realizes he must make compromises in the real world, an opportunist’s only real objective is power and success. As success and power in capitalist America are measured primarily by wealth/status/connections, those who want to be player must make a lot of money or associate themselves with those with lots of money and the right kind of ‘reputation’. If you have the money, you can have the power. But if you don’t have the money, you can hope to associate yourself with the rich and powerful by two means. One is to slavishly serve the rich and powerful, which is what Reagan, Thatcher, and conservatives did. Lower the taxes of the rich, promote ‘free trade’ to serve the globalist capitalists, loosen regulations, and etc.
Paradoxically however, being morally critical of the rich may be a more effective way to associate oneself with the rich. There’s a saying, "why pay for something you can get for free?" Since Conservatives fall all over themselves to serve the super-rich, why should the super-rich bend over for Conservatives? Conservatives are like running dogs playing fetch and rolling over for super-rich masters. In contrast, Liberals and Leftists have been critical of the super-rich. Thus, the super-rich must win and buy favors from the so-called ‘progressive’ community that happens to be influential in the arts, culture, academia, and media. Also, the Liberals and Leftists can offer the prize of moral narcissism for the super-rich if the price is right. By funding some Liberal and ‘leftist’ causes, the super-rich can earn praise not merely as superior entrepreneurs but as kind-hearted ‘saviors of the world’. It’s like the old pact between Jewish Rabbis and Jewish businessmen. The rabbis were often critical of Jewish businessmen, but that was precisely why Jewish businessmen sought to win favors and feted the Rabbis with donations and money. Jewish businessmen feared and respected the rabbis; they felt no respect for their loyal servants and servile dogs. Conservatives, having chosen to play fetch and roll over for the super-rich, get no respect from the super-rich. Leftists and liberals, playing the role of secular rabbis critical of the super-rich, have been lavishly bribed and funded by the super-rich. Super-rich folks want to win the ‘progressive’ prophets — proghets — to their side. There had once been a time when the Christian Church in America had been critical of wealth and materialism. But the Christian Right that prevails today, especially the Evangelicals and the Mormons, does little else but suck up to the super rich. With the Christian Right being so slavish to the super-rich, it gets no respect as the super-rich can rely on its ‘spiritual’ support for free.
Adolf Hitler understood this aspect of politics of morality and power. He understood the socio-political psychology of the rich. He knew that they held the power but that they also felt morally insecure and threatened. The rich would have to be dealt with carrots and sticks. They must be threatened with the stick of socialism. Also, no political movement cannot maintain loyalty of the masses for very long if it is primarily seen as serving the rich. While many Americans voted for the GOP in the 80s out of hatred of communism and disdain for liberals who were ‘soft on crime’, as America became increasingly de-industrialized and workers couldn’t help but notice that CEOs were raking in record profits — or being released with golden parachutes — while they themselves were either losing their jobs and wages, GOP was bound to lose to the Democrats. Of course, Democrats were hardly better, especially as Clinton signed onto ‘free trade’ and de-regulation of Wall Street, but Democrats at least put on a token ‘nationalist-socialist’ show of wink-wink admonishing super-rich over the problems of inequality. Paradoxically, the super-rich felt safer with the Democrats than with the Republicans because, with Democrats in power, there was at least the impression among the populace that something was being done for the sake of ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’. In contrast, when GOP was in power, it seemed as if it was only allowing the super-rich to get super-richer. This is also why Jews prefer Democrats over Republicans. Jews are the richest, most successful, most powerful, most privileged, and most unequal people in America. So, why don’t they prefer the GOP that is so slavishly pro-rich and pro-Zionist? Because Jews don’t wanna be perceived as superduper-rich-powerful-and-rich. When they see the likes of Bush, Romney, McCain, and others kiss them on the ass, they fear that the goy world will awaken to the truth: Jews are the masters of America. The King of the Hill has always been a resented figure whom others set out to dethrone. So, Jews prefer someone like Obama who, though sucking up to Jews no less than Republicans do, is at least generally less brazen about it. Republicans are running dogs who loudly cheer on the Zionist oppression of Palestinians. Obama pretends to be more evenhanded though he’s done nothing for Palestinians whatsoever. Better to oppress Palestinians under the cover of silence than under the spotlight of delirious tasteless approval. (I do not misperceive Palestinians as saints or ‘innocent victims’. Many Palestinians are nasty buggers not unlike the rest of humanity. But it is disgusting that most American Conservatives are so hostile to a people who never did any harm to Europeans or Americans? Palestinians weren’t behind communism, pornography, interracism, open borders policy in the West, the ‘gay’ agenda, Wall Street robbery, and etc. Jews were behind those things. Yet, most American Conservatives have rabidly cheered on the destruction of the Palestinian people with sadistic and cruel abandon. And when Palestinians fought back with primitive weapons, Americans — who carpet bombed Germany, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam and killed millions of innocent babies and pushed sanctions on Iraq that killed 100,000s — dare call Palestinians ‘terrorists’! If there is a poetic justice to the destruction of white America, it is as a comeuppance for its vile support of Zionism that destroyed a people who’d never harmed Americans. Palestinians never hurt white Americans, but white Americans have funded, supported, and served Zionism that destroyed Palestine. White Americans felt no remorse, not even an iota of sympathy for what happened to the Palestinians. Currently, Jews are doing to white Americans what they did to Palestinians, yet white Americans like Ann Coulter continue to cheer for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. At least on this score, white Conservatives are a disgusting bunch. In a way, they are getting what they deserve for having aided and abetted the destruction of a people who never did Americans any harm. When Jews were killing and terrorizing Palestinians, white Americans cheered and laughed with joy just like Nazis who laughed at the victimization of Jews. As white power is being undermined by the tide of non-whites in America under the Jewish policy of Open Borders, Palestinians can laugh at stupid white Americans who are being ‘Palestianized’. Most pathetic is how white American Conservatives crawl up to Jews and plead with doggy eyes, "We helped you destroy Palestinians, so please help us white folks keep the power." These groveling white dummies just don’t get it. The logic behind Jewish policy in the US is the same as it has been in Israel/Palestine. Tactics may differ but the agenda is the same: Jewish Supremacist Power. Jews destroyed Palestinians to own Palestine and turn it into Israel. Jews are destroying white America to turn it into a mutt-nation. Jews don’t want to face unite population of independent-minded white wolves. They want a whole bunch of docile mutts rolling over and playing fetch for Jews.) Then, there is the politics of truth, which tends to be rare since politics favors delusional utopianism, blind obedience, opportunism, or compromise. As such, there is almost no effective politics of truth in the actual world. Politics of truth may be found in the academia, but as the academia is form of organized education, one must win the approval of the powers-that-be who are closely aligned with other kinds of politics. Of course, in the field of science, truth is all that should matter, but certain subjects, despite grounding in facts and reason, are discouraged by the official power structure. For example, the science of race is disapproved of in most academic settings. And consider what happened to Lawrence Summers for even speculating that there may be more male geniuses than female ones. At any rate, when scientific research and discourse are allowed to progress in a pure and un-compromised manner, it is usually concerning matters that have little to do with human truth(even if they may profoundly impact our lives). The laws of physics and chemistry, for example, may save or destroy millions of lives, but they hold little Emotional Truth for us. We don’t spend our days thinking of stuff like ex dx = ex + C or arcsin x dx = x arcsin x + (1-x2) + C(which I copied and pasted from some calculus site as I don’t know what they mean). By ‘truth’, we usually mean social truth, moral truth, emotional truth, ‘spiritual’ truth, etc. And the endeavor of art, culture, and humanities has been the search and expression of truths that cannot be conveyed through means of pure logic and hard facts alone. It is art that allows us to delve into — or speculate as to — the nature of other, deeper, hidden, or complex realities. Art allows even political enemies to somewhat understand one another even as they continue to disagree on legal, ideological, or pragmatic matters. Even non-Germans and anti-Nazis can watch a film like DAS BOOT and DOWNFALL and get a sense of the ‘human side’ of the equation that motivated Hitler and his aides during World War II. Also, art makes us aware of how each person is more than what he ideologically and/or socially assumes or claims to be. Luchino Visconti claimed to be a Marxist, but he was also a homosexual aristocrat, and the latter aspect of his character is revealed in THE LEOPARD. There’s more to reality that meets the eye or departs the lips. People claim to be communist, Muslim, Christian, libertarian, feminist, Zionist, or etc., but such labels tend to be the outerwear than the inner-ware of what they really are.
Humanism, at its best, convincingly emphasized the essence of what makes us human. Humanism, at its naive worst, promoted the notion of ‘save the world’ brotherhood-of-man universalism, as if the problems of the world could be overcome if mankind embraced socialism or destroyed nationalism and capitalism.
But another kind of humanism was skeptical of utopian fantasies. It accepted the human condition as essentially and eternally problematic. If social problems didn’t get to you, personal or psychological ones would. This kind of humanism reminded us of our ineradicable imperfections, foibles, & hypocrisies — regardless of our ideological allegiances — and urged us to laugh once in awhile because what else could we do? If humans are, by nature, a bunch of clowns, a good laugh was in order when a mirror was placed in front of them. Lina Wertmuller’s humanist films feature, for instance, characters talking a lot about social issues and politics but with a sense that ideology is as often as not a means of justifying one’s greed, envy, resentment, vanity, and aggressiveness. If the naive kind of humanism posits that all people around the world will be as one(like in John Lennon’s knucklehead song "Imagine")if ‘bad ideas’ like capitalism and nationalism are done away with, the hardier kind of humanism posits that, behind the mask of every utopian ideology-religion-or-allegiance, there hides the core human spirit that is, at once, truer and more troublesome than any idea or conceit. Generally, liberal humanism said "get rid of ‘bad ideas’ and people will naturally be brothers", whereas conservative humanism said, "look behind the mask of ‘good ideas’, and you’ll see that self-professed do-gooders and progressives are little more than pigs like everyone else." How truly selfless and ‘spiritual’ were those hedonistic hippies and freaks at Woodstock? How truly peaceful were the Christians through the ages? Jews recite Holocaust hymns to make themselves out to be a people who are especially sensitive to the suffering of humanity, but the Jew behind the mask is really out to grab as much loot and power for himself. Liberal humanism has exposed the abuses of conservative authoritarianism, but it has also made people obedient to ‘progressive’ authority and Jewish power.
Though there has been much overlap among art, fantasy, and propaganda, art has been the domain through which human truths have been explored and shared. Even those without direct knowledge and experience of nations/cultures such as France, India, Germany, Japan, Italy, Iran, or Russia might have seen a film or read a novel about or from there. In some ways, films have done more than books to facilitate exchanges of cultural experiences because translations of literature across cultures necessarily result in loss of pungency and flavor. Films use subtitles but something of the other cultures nevertheless comes across through the sound/texture of the language/music, the styles of behavior, and visual details. One may not a know a word of French, but the musicality of the language comes across in film in ways it can’t through the pages of translation. The sound of Russia, German, Japanese, Hindi, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Spanish, and Greek — even if one doesn’t know the language — conveys something of the cultural character of a people. Also, unless one is familiar with the physical details of another culture, it is difficult to grasp the look and feel of its world merely through literary descriptions. And no amount of description of physical characteristics can truly convey what a people and especially a person look like. (If you gave them a detailed oral description of what Charles Bronson looks like to a bunch of people who never saw him, each person will visualize a figure starkly different from those imagined by others. This is, of course, the advantage of novels for those who want to fill in the characters with their own preferred faces.) Someone who has never seen images of Asian Indian civilization and architecture won’t gain a clear mental picture from details in a book because every word is worth a thousand pictures. For this reason, most visualizations of other cultures based on textual accounts tended to be way off the mark. Western illustrators oftentimes projected Western norms of looks and details onto foreign worlds. Indeed, this is why Jesus came to be depicted as a very European-looking man. Europeans also illustrated figures like Genghis Khan and Moctezuma with distinctly Western features. And other cultures did the same thing, which is why the Chinese and Japanese made Buddha look East Asian even though he was an Asian-Indian. In film, you don’t just get the story, the dialogue, and descriptions but the very details of another culture. In the APU TRILOGY by Satyajit Ray, one can see the kinds of houses, dresses, foods, animals, plants, and other facts of life that populate the Indian landscape. One can hear the cadences of Bengali language, languish to the sounds of Indian music.

The arts can make us look beyond ideological and/or tribal commitments. Even while clinging to our biases, we can at least acknowledge the ‘truth’ of the other side. Because fiction can serve as an imagined ‘neutral’ zone between ‘us’ and ‘them’(whereas no such place could exist in reality as the nature of conflict is for both sides to focus on winning), we can let down our guard for the duration of the work and empathize/sympathize in ways that would be hazardous in reality where any lowering of the guard can be seen as weakness and vulnerability. (For this reason, art can be used as a sly weapon to weaken the defenses of the other side. Though art should ideally serve to increase empathy on all sides, something that mimics art can be formulated to persuade one side to lower its guard while urging no such obligation to the other side. Consider a movie like TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD that seems like a mature, intelligent, and morally thoughtful work. Indeed, if it were blatant pro-black and anti-white propaganda, few people would have been fooled by it, and its very hostile nature would have, if anything, strengthened the defenses of whites who would have felt insulted by its overtly simple message. But the movie was made to seem serious and weighty, as if it could well be a honest depiction of how things really are. Thus, even some ‘racist’ whites were goaded to lower their knee-jerk defenses and ‘see things from the other side’. But in fact, it’s a very dishonest work because it’s premised on the false notion that black males are childlike innocents who never got no mind to mess with white women, therefore, a black guy accused of a heinous crime must have been railroaded by ‘racists’. Art is noble, whereas propaganda is lowly, but nothing is lower than propaganda passing itself slyly as ‘thoughtful art’.) Even if the ‘truths’ of our enemies are not our ‘truths’ and vice versa, we realize they too have a history, heritage, perspective, and narrative. This may have been one reason why Jews developed a hostility toward idols. On the one hand, idols were false gods that were an affront to the one and only true God. But the other danger of the idolatrous arts-and-culture was that they ‘seduced’ Jews towards an appreciation of other cultures and their sanctities and narratives. A Jew may look upon Greek or Persian arts & culture, and even if he maintained his own Jewish identity and tribal separateness, he might nevertheless be tempted toward acknowledging gentiles as the equal of Jews as human beings with their own cultural ‘truths’ that had equal validity to themselves as Jewish religion did to the Jews. Thus, anti-idolatry among Jews wasn’t just an attack on false gods of other peoples but an attack on the ‘truths’ of other cultures as well. As far as Jews were concerned, there was only one God and only one Truth, and Jews were the keepers of that truth. Only Jews could be a true people with a true culture since their culture was blessed by the one and only God, whereas all the other cultures developed in relation to false gods and false idols that could have only inspired their peoples to follow false narratives.
To be sure, Jewish history see-sawed back and forth between melding with and separating from other cultures. Generally, people tend to be most compromising when they are too badly off or too well off. When one has nothing, ideals and principles be damned. You might even have to make a deal with the Devil himself to feed your family. On the other hand, when one feels too powerful and privileged, one might grow lax & complacent and become overly tolerant, as was the case with the Roman overlords in ancient times and with Anglo-Americans in the 20th century. It is when a people have attained power but are still afflicted with intense anxiety that they are most cautious about the nature of foreign influences.
If Jewish destruction of idolatry was a means to destroy and deny the truths of other cultures, the case of the Nazism demonstrated that art can be a destructive force in its own right. For Hitler, art was not about truth or meaning. It was a narrow vision of beauty of a particular race. Thus, the best kind of art in his mind had to glorify and celebrate ‘Aryan’ beauty. As for the arts of other cultures that served as reminders that non-Aryans have their own ‘truths’, they had to be destroyed, at least if German ‘Aryans’ were to occupy those lands. Thus, Hitler didn’t plan only to invade and conquer Russia but to raze Moscow to the ground. He wanted to erase all reminders that the Slavic peoples also had a culture, a truth rooted in their history and heritage.

But there is another kind of art that is seriously and in principle committed to the truth, and it is this kind of art that expands and deepens our understanding of other peoples, cultures, systems, and traditions(as well as of our own hidden/repressed fears and desires) EVEN IF we may find them offensive or repulsive on the conscious level of morality and politics. Such art guides us to peer into the lives of others or stare at our hidden selves through the creative looking glass. We may detest real-life gangsters, but GOODFELLAS reveals what makes them tick. Jews may loathe the German war machine of the World War II period, but even Jews will find themselves acknowledging the humanity of German submarine crew. Even Zionists could learn something from a film made by Muslims, and vice versa.
Granted, empathy can lead to sympathy, especially in a medium as powerful as cinema. Consider all the people who found themselves rooting for the hoodlums in SOPRANOS, and this is why Hollywood generally keeps its distance from real art. When Hollywood yammers about the need for empathy, it’s always about favoring certain groups over others, never about seeking to understand all groups on the equal basis of curiosity and honesty. When it comes to white Southerners, Jewish Hollywood either portrays them as subhuman ‘racist’ scum(as in FRIED GREEN TOMATOES or MISSISSIPPI BURNING) or as good ole boys with some sentimental but hardly any social or moral value. Jews portray white southerners worse than D.W. Griffith portrayed Negroes in THE BIRTH OF A NATION. (And 12 YEARS A SLAVE seems to be an act of Jewish revenge against Mel Gibson’s PASSION OF THE CHRIST by promoting ‘white guilt’ related to black slavery over ‘Jewish guilt’ over the killing of the Son of God.)
For every side, genuine art is both useful and dangerous. It’s useful in pressuring the other side — even the bitterest enemies — to see your own people, group, or side as real people with heartfelt emotions and sincere values(even if they differ from those of others). But, true art can never be mindless propaganda on behalf of your own kind because its commitment to truth necessarily dredges up the problems and failings of your own people. Furthermore, there’s the danger of making your side acknowledge the humanity and justifications of the other side(that may well be a bitter enemy), thereby weakening the resolve of your people to do battle victory or survival.
This is why most American Jews prefer to deny the humanity of Palestinians. This is why Jews who control the media fill our minds with images of ‘terrorist Muzzies’ and defacto forbid most images of Palestinians suffering under Jewish/Zionist domination. Jews also know that while violence is news, oppression isn’t necessarily. Violence even in a free society gets far more attention that peace under an oppressive order. Suppose there are Nation A and Nation B. Nation A is relatively free but has lots of social violence and protests. Nation B is very oppressive but has quiet streets. Which nation will be in the news more often and receive bad press? Nation A since the news industry feeds on overt violence and exciting events. Israel was less oppressive toward Palestinians in the 80s than it is today, but that led to the Intifada, and that made Israel look bad in the eyes of the world. Even in the US with a Jew-dominated press, there were nightly images of Palestinian kids with rocks battling Israeli soldiers with tanks and assault rifles. And things got hot in the 1990s when violence flared up again. So, Jews decided to go heavy-handed and erect walls and use outright apartheid policies to keep Palestinians under control. Thus, there’s more peace in the West Bank as Zionist oppression has been greatly expanded. As a result, West Bank as prison state is relatively quiet now, which means there’s less violence that attracts media attention. Though Jews yammer on and on about the need for empathy through arts and culture, they’ve politicized empathy so that certain peoples get more favorable attention than others while some are reviled as near subhumans. Just as ‘hate’ never applies to Jewish animus against gentiles, ‘empathy’ never means true empathy in the hands and hearts of Jews who run most of the art-and-culture industries. It means we should all empathize with Jews as saints, victims, heroes, geniuses, and lovable comics but never venture to look into the dirty side of Jewishness. True empathy means more than sympathy, especially for select groups; it means seeing the bigger picture and the whole equation of human reality. Scorsese worked in genuine empathetic mode with GOODFELLAS. He showed us the ins and outs of the world of Italian-American organized crime. Scorsese made us see Italian-American hoodlums as humans but also how humans could be anti-human with greed and sadism. But if a film were to portray the unseemly side of the Jewish community, it would be condemned as ‘antisemitic’ — which was one of the reasons why THE WOLF OF WALL STREET barely touched on the ethnic identity of Jordan Belfort who, by the way, was played by un-Jewish-looking Leonard DiCaprio. Jews hog ‘empathy’ as special sympathy for themselves. Jews can say things about other peoples that other peoples cannot say about Jews. Jews can do stuff in finance, media, law, academia, and government that other peoples cannot do. What Jews call ‘empathy’ is empty of any value to us.
GOODFELLAS - a truly 'made' work of art
Despite all the right-wing rants about the liberal domination of arts and entertainment, much of the respect for the left in the cultural sphere owes to individuals like Alain Resnais. While there has been plenty of brain-dead propagandizing on the Left and simplification of issues by liberals, many people with ‘progressive’ leanings have been able, at least in areas of creativity and criticism, to favor truth(or some degree of complexity, sophistication, and ambiguity) over one-sided propaganda, at least much more than mush-brained Conservatives. (If American Conservatives were, at the very least, mush-brained and simpleminded in favor of their own racial & cultural interests, it wouldn’t be so bad, but the morons are usually foaming-at-the-mouth over issues, usually pertaining to Israel, that have nothing to do with white/European well-being and, if anything, waste the precious time and energy on the Right that should be focused on issues of Jewish-directed racial animosity against whites IN America and the West. If you’re gonna be pigheaded, at the very least do it for the power and survival of your own kind, not for a people who are overwhelmingly and virulently anti-white.)
The liberal and leftist view of truth is often tainted by ideological bias(but this is true of all sides), but it has nevertheless cultivated some space for truth outside ideology. Thus, a leftist or liberal may wave the political banner at rallies and show solidarity with the cause but, as an artist or critic, may go beyond knee-jerk reactions and ponder the hidden complexities and depths of reality. (To be sure, there are conservatives of that sort too — especially found at The American Conservative magazine — , but they tend to be a neglected, even disdained, minority within the American Right[that relies mainly on Fox News], and furthermore, while they tend to be appreciative of arts & culture, they lack the spark to create arts and culture that make a difference. To be sure, there have also been a wide array of artists and entertainers who could not be pigeonholed conventionally as ‘right’ or ‘left’. Consider film-makers such as John Ford, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, David Linklater, David Mamet, David Lynch, Bob Dylan, and etc. And some famous leftists artists, such as Elia Kazan, had their biggest detractors on the left and the biggest defenders on the right. It appears that the rise of Political Correctness in all areas of life has narrowed the creative field for would-be artists. In the 40s and the 50s, the conflict between the right and the left was strictly about ideology, what with liberals & leftists[who often insisted on the party line] dominating the artistic institutions and with anti-communists trying to weed out the political radicals. But what was political then wasn’t necessarily personal and vice versa. But as the personal increasingly became politicized since the late 60s and especially the 70s with the rise of feminism, a person’s career could eventually be destroyed for his or her views on sexuality, social relations, moral values, and etc. that once had little to do with ideology. After all, most leftists of the 40s and 50s could today be denounced as ‘sexists’, ‘homophobes’, ‘racists’, and etc. based on their personal lifestyles and views. To be sure, long before the 60s as far back as anyone could remember, careers could be destroyed over non-political matters. In earlier times, one’s reputation, standing, and/or population could be ruined over infidelity[as happened with Ingrid Bergman], rumors of homosexuality[as almost happened to Liberace], and etc. Still, those were seen as moral issues, not necessarily political or ideological issues. Today, even the personal is held to be political and ideological, which is why Donald Sterling was attacked as if he were the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan over what he said, privately by the way, about his sexual hangups. For a time, from the late 60s to the late 80s, Americans generally became more tolerant and separated the ideological from the personal, but beginning with the rise of political correctness, the more intrusively radical ideas that had sprouted in the 60s and 70s began to grow and spread their roots and stems throughout the institutions, indeed to the point where professors, students, and others could be persecuted and brought down over even matters of private speech or non-ideological musings or speculations. So, even someone like Stephanie Grace could be called out by the dean of college for her thoughts on race and IQ in a private email. And the Jew-run media, instead of standing up for the right of Grace to exchange her personal views, joined the university in attacking and maligning her. In a cultural climate where even one’s personal remark about homosexuality can endanger one’s reputation and career, the creative field has been narrowed to tolerate only the politically correct and the most cravenly opportunistic. Ironically, the very Liberals who attack Elia Kazan for having betrayed his principles to further his own career have created a system where anyone who doesn’t agree with PC must lie and betray his/her own principles and conscience in order to get a leg up in the industry. We now live in a society where anyone in Hollywood will be blacklisted if he or she is known to have said, even privately, that homo-‘sex’ is foul and gross. Bitchy and snotty homos demand that anyone who is critical of the homosexual lifestyle be sent to the gallows and beheaded. And of course, this is precisely the sort of setup preferred by Jews and homos since they can freely invoke PC to smoke out and destroy anyone with the slightest whiff of ‘antisemitism’ or ‘homophobia’. Jews and homosexuals had once led the charge in expanding creative spaces for all kinds of eccentric voices. In order to secure greater creative freedom for themselves, they championed freedoms all around for it would have been bad form to demand only freedom for themselves in a broad struggle against a social order that was deemed too Waspy, too conventional, and too ‘normal’. Therefore, there was an explosion of all kinds of views, ideas, and expressions in the late 60s and 70s. But Jews and homos soon discovered that eccentric, fresh, and daring voices were not necessarily pro-Jewish or pro-homo. And of course, feminists learned that new expressive freedoms were often ‘misogynistic’ in arts, music, and literature; Philip Roth, for one, wasn’t a beloved figure among feminist critics and intellectuals. So, Jews, homos, and feminists found PC useful in favoring only the kind of eccentric voices that were ideologically ‘acceptable’ to their own agendas. It would be difficult for a film like TAXI DRIVER to get the green light today. But then, what good is eccentricity if it has to conform to PC? In some cases, the ever-multiplying strictures of correctness are turning almost self-parodic, as with transsexuals, for instance, demanding that the feminist eccentricity of the VAGINA MONOLOGUES be scrapped because it offends transvestites without vaginas who consider themselves to be ‘women’. So, feminist eccentricity must be careful not to ‘offend’ or ‘exclude’ transsexuals. This kind of PC is dangerous because it follows a crazy logic and has the backing of the most powerful people in the world: the Jews. Most people are craven like Peter Keating character in Ayn Rand’s THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Out of 100 people, 95 are craven and only 5 have the guts to stick up for one’s convictions. But being true to one’s convictions doesn’t necessarily make one sane or right. After all, a Stalinist or a Holocaust-denier could be true to his or her beliefs still be batshit crazy or ignorant. Therefore, fewer than 5 out of 100 are both principled and right. And even fewer, maybe just one 1 out of a 100[or one out of 1,000 or 1,000,000], has the principle, the rightness, and the talent. It’s a steep uphill climb for 1 to struggle for truth against the 99 or 999,999,999 that comprise the powers-that-be, their craven agents, and the masses of dummies.)
Granted, there is no clear cut-off line between truth-seekers and propagandists. Sometimes, the two modes intermingle(often subconsciously); an artist or critic may seek the truth one moment, wave the flag the next moment. Oliver Stone is an interesting case. In films such as BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, HEAVEN AND EARTH, NIXON, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, and ALEXANDER, he’s shown an interest in personalities and histories beyond simple dichotomies of good vs evil, right and wrong, us vs them. At his worst, in films like JFK and NATURAL BORN KILLERS, Stone is either a paranoid conspiracy sensationalist or a cynical misanthrope, but at his best, he’s been a film-maker of considerable empathy and passion. It isn’t difficult to understand why Stone was drawn to ANY GIVEN SUNDAY. Other than his love of sports and cultism in manhood, the phenomenon of pro sports was for him what Nashville was for Robert Altman. Using football as a metaphor for American society and the game of power, the most interesting facet of ANY GIVEN SUNDAY is the contrast between what happens on and what happens off the field. On the field, it’s winner-takes-all, one team vs another team. One city cheers for one team, the other city for the other team. It’s an all out war between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Your team is ‘good’, other team is ‘evil’. You cheer for your team to crush the other team, and it doesn’t matter if you the fan think that players, coaches, and the owners are a**holes. It’s your team and you root for your side. And people of the other city feel likewise. That’s how politics works. It’s possible that most Conservatives don’t have much respect for Republican politicians, and most Liberals don’t much care for Democratic politicians. But politics-as-played is like sports, and you mindlessly cheer for your side to beat the other side. It’s about winning, and you don’t really care how your side wins — as long as it doesn’t get caught cheating. Stone, like everyone else, roots for his side. He may not like the leaders of his side, but everyone needs to belong to a team. Politics is about take-no-prisoners and give-no-breaks. Your side is right, other side is wrong, and come crunch time, the other side must be crushed.
In contrast to politics, there’s long been a tradition in journalism, scholarship/academia, and the arts(especially literature) that favors ‘objective’ truth over ‘subjective’ bias or tribal/ideological bias. Thus, even if you’re a liberal reporter, you have a journalistic obligation to report the dirt on the liberal side. Even if you’re a conservative biographer, you should reveal the darker side of conservative figures and the conservative movement. Even if you’re a conservative or liberal novelist, you need to empathize with all the characters, even those you despise, instead of filling up the novel with one-dimensional angels and devils.
Until relatively recently, the ideal of American journalism was to be objective. Of course, it never was. There was the history of yellow journalism, tabloid journalism, propagandistic news reels, and the like as evidence of how tainted journalism always was. Even so, it was the ideal of objectivity and truth — in media and academia as well as in justice — that fueled reform and progress in newspapers and universities. Initially, the standard of objectivity was a great boon to social reformers and liberals since much of the media was owned by conservative tycoons and much of the academia used to be relatively conservative(and wasp-dominated) at one point. There was a time when a liberal needed only to be objective in reporting the problems of the social order to be ‘subversive’ and ‘radical’. Simply by reporting on the living conditions of American blacks and American Indians, one could demonstrate that US failed to live up to its promises. One needed only to dryly report on the privilege and corruption among Wasp elites to show how some people were ‘more equal than others’. John Hersey needed only to report objectively about the bombing of Hiroshima to make Americans rethink the decision to drop the bomb. Even during the FDR and Truman(and Kennedy) yrs, America was, more or less, a morally and culturally conservative society where certain matters were not discussed. There was a time when the mere objective discussion of homosexuality would have been a challenge to the social status quo — even among liberals. In a society where even the relatively liberal medical/psychiatric institution portrayed homos as mentally sick perverts, the dryly objective observation that homos are born homo could be a challenge to conventional wisdom or official doctrine. But as liberals gained greater power over the media and academia, objectivity became an hindrance to their agendas that became ever more ambitious — indeed more so as Jews and homos, two most neurotically restless and aggressive groups, entered the media and academia in increasing numbers. If conservative had suppressed objective facts that undermined conservative biases, liberals with expanded powers were annoyed with objective standing in the way of their social vision. Just like free speech had once been an advantage to the Left when it came under attack during the peak of the Cold War but then turned sour when it came to protect ‘reactionary’ criticism of the ‘progressives’ elites, objectivity went from a hammer of the liberals to a ball-and-chain around their ankles. Once their powers had greatly expanded, liberals were no longer interested in using the truth to challenge the dominant biases of conservative society; instead, their primary interest became the Agenda and the Narrative to be enforced with messianic will. Objective truths about racial and sexual differences stood in the way of the Liberal mission(especially as it was dominated by devious Jews who were using Liberalism to topple white power for the sake of Jewish supremacism). Liberals and leftists attacked ‘objectivity’ on the grounds that it was a intellectual concept cooked up by Dead White Males in order to gain and maintain dominance around the world. Since West became synonymous with science and since science became synonymous with objective truth, the spread of Western dominance came to be equated with the spread of truth and the extinguishment of superstitions of non-whites people still stuck in the dark ages. Thus, science, rationalism, and objectivity became the new justification for white ‘racism’ and imperialism. If the West initially justified its aggressive expansion around the world on the basis if spreading Christianity and the Word of God to the benighted peoples across the seas, the new rationale in the Age of Reason became the West’s monopolization of ‘objective truth’ and the burden of ‘sharing’ it with the rest of the world. Since European Imperialists claimed ownership of universal truth based on objective methodology of science, they felt justified in their power over their colonial subjects. Since even ‘racism’ was advanced and discussed in terms of scientific theory, it too could be used to gain control over the other races. If racial theory was indeed scientific and could demonstrate that whites constituted the superior or most advanced race, then it only made ‘objective’ sense for whites to gain dominance over the world and rule over the rest of mankind who would presumably benefit from Western wisdom, leadership, and talent.

Especially with the rise of cultural studies and multi-culturalism, the ideal of objectivity(which was so closely associated with the West) came under attack. To be sure, the Left was somewhat schizophrenic on this matter. When politically competing with the Western Right, the Left continued to invoke Reason and Objectivity as their rationale for ‘progress’. It argued that the Left stood for science, secularism, reason and logic, and the discrediting of ‘false science’ of ‘racism’ and the ‘reactionary’ superstitions of religion. In contrast, the Western Right was associated with religious bigotry, customs and traditions irrelevant in the modern era, and tribal biases that resisted universal truth of the brotherhood-of-man as posited by the Enlightenment. But when the Left discussed the non-white world, it switched gears and warned people NOT to judge non-whites and the non-West with the same yardstick used for whites. Judging non-whites on the basis of the principles of Reason and Objectivity would be ‘Euro-centric’ and insensitive to the ‘diverse’ truths of their own cultures. And this weird kind of double-standard came to apply not only to different cultures and races but to different social groups.

Consider homosexuals, today the most favored group after the Jews. Liberals laugh at the Christian Right’s notion of Creationism and bogus pseudo-scientific theories such as Intelligent Design. And Liberals express outrage at unscientific and anti-biological claims by a Republican politician who said a woman who is raped cannot become pregnant. But when it comes to the ridiculous notion of ‘gay parents’, liberals throw science, biology, and objectivity out the window. So devoted are they to the ‘gay’ agenda that they make believe that homos can be parents. Of course, Liberals know that homo ‘sex’ cannot biologically produce a child. Even the most hardline Liberal knows that a man fecal-penetrating another man cannot produce a life-form via the process of inseminating a piece of turd lodged up a man’s anus. And no Liberal believes that two lesbians can produce a child by poon-grinding one another.
Of course, Liberals can argue that there is a CULTURAL meaning to being a parent. After all, some biological parents feel no love for their kids while adoptive parents may play an admirable role as caring guardians. Even so, there’s something disingenuous about Liberal claims because they don’t merely assume that two homos can play the role of parents. Liberal media would have us believe that two lesbians ‘are having a baby’. ‘Having’ a baby and raising a baby are two different things. While the non-biological adoptive parent can raise a child that is not his or hers, the term ‘having’ means that the individuals aforementioned produced the baby together. Liberals have used corrupt terminology to make us wanna believe that two lesbians really did produce a girl named Heather or two homo men really did produce a boy named Harry. Of course, Liberals and we know that such things never happened and never can happen, but still, terminology in media and academia pressures us to make believe that homos are indeed ‘having children’ together. It’s like HANDMAID’S TALE where a younger woman is made to produce a baby for an older woman who then pretends that she herself ‘had’ the child.

When it came to attacking the Religious Right, liberals and leftists insisted on the biological facts of life. But when it came to serving the homo elites, Liberals and ‘leftists’ smothered the truth of biology to make us believe that two lesbians or two homo men really ‘had’ a child together. In truth, all children are produced by man and a woman. So, if we are to make believe that two lesbians ‘had’ the child together, it means we must force ourselves to treat the actual father as a non-person. And if we are to make believe that two homo men ‘had’ a child together, we must force ourselves to believe that actual mother is invisible or non-existent. The existence of the real father and real mother who produced the child is objective proof that ‘gays having children’ is a lie, a fraud, a fantasy, a fairytale. (Even if the sperm or the egg was donated and provided through a third party, the child is still the product of a man and a woman. It’s like even if I buy tomatoes from a middleman grocer, they were still grown by a farmer.) The media are now playing Handmaid’s Tale for the neo-aristocratic homo lobby closely allied with and protected by the Jewish Lobby, the most powerful in America. But then, most of the media and academia are owned and controlled by elitist Jewish Supremacists.

The best argument one can make against ‘objectivity’ is it’s often been used as cover for an ideological agenda, and indeed, it’s easy to mistake the objective style for objectivity itself.
BBC, PBS, and NPR, for instance, generally convey an objective style — though not always, as evinced in their use of manipulative music, loaded words, and/or narration in documentaries — but they almost always push a Liberal agenda. Even the term ‘liberal’ is problematic as most ‘liberals’ are capital ‘L’ liberals who care more about the agenda than about open-mindedness and genuine liberality. Few Liberals agree with Voltaire’s words(by the way of Evelyn Beatrice Hall), "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Most Liberals now push for laws such as those in Britain, Sweden, and France that will fine, blacklist, and/or lock up anyone who is critical of Jewish power or homosexuality.
Though pure or absolute objectivity in the workings of social reality is impossible, we need to make distinction between objectivity as ideal/goal and objectivity as cover/rationale. Some people try their personal best to be objective and admit to errors and prejudices on their side. But others only feign objectivity to hide what is a really an ulterior motive or hidden agenda. Consider the many Jews who put on airs of dry academics while conspiring with their tribal brethren in the media and government to steer events around the world to serve Jewish interests.
Consider how neocon history professor Donald Kagan’s son, Robert Kagan, is married to Victoria Nuland the neocon hag witch who messed up Ukraine. This isn’t to say Donald Kagan got together with Nuland in a dim-lit room to hatch out a plan but only to suggest that most Jews wink-wink see eye to eye on issues of the world. Though Jewish-controlled US government messed things up in Ukraine, notice how the globalist media(also controlled by Jews) have been beating the war drums against Russia. It’s been a Jewish War on Russia all along, just like it had been Barzini who’d been behind the War against the Corleones all along in THE GODFATHER. Jews want to shut down free speech as ‘hate speech’ because they are afraid of people calling out on Jewish supremacist foulness.

There’s a lot of bogus ‘objectivity’ on the anti-left-sphere as well. Many(though far from all) Libertarians, for example, are really white interest advocates who prefer libertarianism because they see it as being advantageous to whites with higher IQ. If the Rule of Law and/or meritocracy judges everyone fairly and equally, then smarter whites will generally prevail over others. But if the average black and Hispanic IQ were 120 while the average white IQ were 90, many white Libertarians would no longer embrace their ideology; they’d probably call for ‘affirmative action’ for whites. (Indeed, many whites who oppose ‘affirmative action’ that favors blacks and Hispanics over white non-Hispanic whites tend to prefer ‘affirmative action’ for whites vis-a-vis Asian-Americans. Whites complain that whereas blacks and Hispanics don’t try too hard, Asians try too hard.)
Similarly, Jews recycle many objective facts not so much in the service of objectivity but to favor their Jewish Supremacist agenda. What Jews remind us about the violence and discrimination against blacks in the American South is objectively true. But if Jews are really into all-around objectivity, why do they suppress objective facts about black violence and crimes against whites? Why do they intimidate those who discuss objective facts of racial differences? Consider what happened to Jimmy the Greek for saying that blacks are biologically favored in football because they’re naturally stronger.
Therefore, every instance of objectivity gains different shades of meaning depending on the context. If we objectively focus ONLY on the carpet-bombing of Dresden and Hamburg and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then those would seem as unconscionable acts where entire civilian populations, including women-old folks-babies, were indiscriminately destroyed.
However, if we see those factually detailed events in the context of the larger war, they become rationalized, if not fully justified, as military strategies or acts of vengeance. Thus, the relationship between objectivity and contextuality is not an easy one. The reason why the Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman incident became such a hot topic was that the Jew-run media reported a single objective fact(Zimmerman killed Martin) minus other objective facts and the larger context within which they happened. It’s true that George Zimmerman shot the unarmed Trayvon Martin to death, and if that’s all you know about the case, Zimmerman would seem to be a murderer. But the media downplayed the fact that Zimmerman was being beaten to death and shot Martin in self-defense. Media suppressed the fact that Zimmerman’s neighborhood had been robbed many times by black males, and therefor, Zimmerman had every reason to be suspicious of a black guy lurking about. The media used objectivity in the most selective and devious way. They reported on Zimmerman as ‘white’, but even though Zimmerman’s father is white, his mother is of mixed-race, and Zimmernan doesn’t look like a stereotypical white person. Objectively, Zimmerman is part white, but the media initially spun it simply as ‘white’, finally settling on ‘white Hispanic’, which is rather amusing since even blue-eyed and blonde-haired Hispanics in America are allowed to pose as ‘people of color’ and generally not referred to as ‘white’ by the Jew-run Media. Also, while it’s true that Martin was not armed with a weapon(he was said to have been ‘armed with only skittles’), he was using his bare fists as weapons on Zimmerman’s head that suffered a broken nose and bleeding skull. The media also deleted certain words Zimmerman said to the 911 dispatcher. Zimmerman said the suspect was black when he was asked of the race, but the media edited the track to sound as if Zimmerman was on the hunt for a black guy. Zimmerman’s lawsuit was rejected by the court, which should tell you how the legal power structure is really run in this country. (Btw, if Zimmerman really had his heart set on killing a black guy — any black guy — that night, why did he call 911? Why not just sneak up on the Negro and shoot him?) Anyway, the thing is everything the media reported about the incident was, more or less, factually true but willfully and selectively constructed to be misleading. If Bob is half black and half white and if he uses a knife to defend himself against a fully black James who is punching and kicking him and has a bag of cookies in the back pocket(and if, in the struggle, James dies of knife wounds), it would be factually and objectively accurate to say that white Bob stabbed the unarmed black James ‘armed only with a bag of cookies’?
But it would leave out the fact that Bob is only half-white and was being pummeled nearly to death by James who was using his fists as weapons. Given the nature of contextuality, objective facts can take on all sorts of significance. Also, reality is such that there are countless objective facts surrounding any incident or social phenomenon. Which ones do you choose to play with? Even when both sides agree on the same objective facts, they may differ on conclusions due to different perspectives and contexts. Today, most Israelis have come around to admitting that massive ethnic cleansing(known as the Nakba) did take place in the creation of Israel, but they still justify the creation of Israel as having been necessary on the basis of the Holocaust, Jewish historical claim to the Holy Land, and Arab intransigence in reaching a settlement when Palestine was divided in two by the ‘international community’(dominated by US and USSR).
Jews often say Arabs attacked Jews first following the partition, but then, Arabs can say that the artificial division of Palestine by the UN was a violent act of imposition against Arabs. I mean how would Polish people like it if the international community divided Poland in two and have one half to the Turks or Chinese? We wouldn’t expect any people to accept or submit to such intrusion on their territory and rights as a people, but for some reason, the Jewish-dominated media in this country would have us believe that Palestinians should have accepted the deal that was force upon them by the UN in 1948. It’s all the more amusing if we recall that most American Jews believe America was the bad guy in Vietnam War. Jews say that Americans and Europeans had NO RIGHT in dividing Vietnam in half, making the south anti-communist and using it as a client state against communist North Vietnam. Therefore, according to Jewish liberals and leftists, the North Vietnamese, the true patriots in the conflict, had every right to carry out a ruthless war of terror and attrition against South Vietnam in order to drive out the imperialist Americans. But for some reason, the same Jews insist that it was wrong for Palestinians to rise up in 1948 and challenge the artificial division of their country by the great powers. At least in the case of Vietnam, even the southern part still remained Vietnam and was populated by the Vietnamese. What happened with Palestine was infinitely worse. It was divided in two and one-half was declared officially Jewish, which meant that Palestinians in Jewish areas would become second-class citizens in what had been their homeland for over a thousand years.
So, in consideration of all these factors, objectivity is a problem-riddled principle in the attainment of truth. Human truth is not so much in the facts as in the interpretation of facts, in the emotional attachments and in the grand narratives spun from them. Steven Spielberg’s MUNICH is a piece of fictionalization of real events, but even if everything in the film were factually true, its use of context justifies Jewish violence over Palestinian violence. (Indeed, just consider the title that focuses our attention on the attack on Jewish athletes in a city in Germany, the nation associated with the Holocaust.) Because the story of Mossad violence is framed in relation to acts of Palestinian terrorism, Zionist violence is defacto rationalized and justified. But suppose the film had begun with the massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Then, Palestinian act of terrorism might seem justified, just like the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima are thought to have been justified because Germany and Japan started the war.
Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner's bogus 'objective' movie about tit-for-tat violence between Jews and Arabs.
American Conservatives are fools because they fail to understand the power of contextuality. They see some Jewish ‘conservatives’ on their side and make believe that Jews are their friends. They stupidly and willfully ignore the larger context of Jewish power, i.e. most Jews hate white conservatives and tolerate only castrated white Liberals who roll over and play fetch and sign onto monstrosities like ‘gay marriage’. Jews only tolerate whites who are easy dupes of the globalist Zionist agenda. As conservatives aren’t as easy to sway as white Liberals are, one might think they’re smarter and more skeptical, but this isn’t true. (Incidentally, as Jews have realized that white conservative tribal instincts are ineradicable, those passions have been channeled toward waving the Israeli flag than the white power flag. Since white Conservatives have a lot of muffled pent-up rage due to its alleged ‘racist’ content, they are grateful to allowed total lack of restraint in their pro-Zionist hatred of Arabs and Muslims — and Russians and sometimes Chinese.) The main reason why most American Conservatives resist the Jewish-led social agenda is as stupid as to why white Liberals bend over to it. If white Liberals are PC-brainwashed drones who will bend over to whatever globalist Jews put before them — notice how they weren’t for ‘gay marriage’ but then quickly changed their mind soon after Jews unleashed an endless barrage of homo propaganda through media and academia — , many white Conservatives are brain-dead Christian Right types who stick with Old Truths mainly out of a fear of anything new or different. As for Libertarians, they live in a fantasy land where legalization of drugs, prostitution, and gambling can solve all problems. Libertarians believe that the main reason for the demise of Detroit and Gary(Indiana) was too much ‘socialism’ and lack of free markets! As most Jews are Liberal, they must be ‘socialist’ and anti-wealth. Then, why are Jews the richest people in America? Texas is pretty conservative and has few regulations. Then, how come it has so many poor blacks who are just as problematic as the ones in Detroit or Gary? Libertarians pretend to be courageous objective/rational thinkers in accordance with facts and logic, but they are mostly cowards hiding behind abstractions mistaken for facts — ‘abfactions’. They are afraid to touch on the truly important subject of racial differences, and so they opt for ‘principles’ of freedom and liberty. But given the reality of racial differences, white Libertarians — and almost all of them are white — must know deep down inside that total freedom under equal treatment of the law will generally favor whites over non-whites.
But Libertarians pretend that the only thing they care about is principles and that these principles will be universally good for individuals of all races(as ‘race is just a social construct’). Of course, Libertarians do have a point. Blacks and Hispanics do have something to gain by embracing greater sense of individual responsibility, freedom, and initiative. Instead of relying on the State to provide them with everything, people of all races have much to gain by focusing on individual input. And Libertarians do believe in the rule of law and, furthermore, argue that negative consequences of poor decisions will help deter individuals from doing dumb things in the future. (But then, the libertarian argument in favor of gambling — an industry prized by Jews since they get to rake in billions from suckers from around the world — undermines its own logic. If indeed individuals can be trusted to make smart/sensible decisions following negative consequences of stupid choices, why doesn’t the gambling industry go out of business? Surely, most people who gamble lose money, and in most cases, the more they gamble, the more money they lose. So, why do so many people keep gambling despite all the negative consequences of their decisions? So much for individuals making rational decisions based on negative consequences of their behavior. If libertarianism is indeed correct about human nature, then gambling industries would have gone out of business long ago as most people who lost money would have quit the habit. If anything, the addiction to gambling is about making perpetual losses seem like fresh chances for winning. Consider the gambling addictions in ATLANTIC CITY and MURIEL. They are not about rationality.) Libertarians ignore one key facet of human nature: a lot of people are morons, more emotional beings than rational beings. If Libertarianism allows maximum freedom for people to indulge in drugs, gamble, prostitution, and the like, then many people will become so addicted to wantonness that they’ll fail to cultivate the kind of character that strengthens their inner-core to make the right decision. If everyone had the resolve of Ron Paul, libertarianism might work. With rock solid core values, Ron Paul remained married to one woman and never used dangerous narcotics even as he called for greater freedom of choice. But too many people are not like Ron Paul, and unfettered access to all sorts of narcotics and vices are likely to coarsen their characters, infantilize their behavior, and ruin their lives. (Our culture of wantonness has turned Wall Street into a mega-casino where Jews exploit the global market to rake in trillions from everyone who get suckered by one bubble after another.)

For most people ranging from middle class to underclass, the best ideology is neo-fascism. Before people can be free and responsible as individuals, they must be conditioned, trained, educated, disciplined, and shaped into thinking civilized beings with core values and set of sacred truths. Without the cultural, historical, and moral bedrock, even smart people are likely to develop destructive and/or decadent habits.
A libertarian fantasy might be something like the film M*A*S*H where the surgeons mess around, talk shit all day, tease and taunt women, and break all the square rules BUT still manage to be sterling characters and get the job done. The film suggests that since the surgeons are so funny and smart, they don’t have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. It’s like the Counterculture version of the Nietzschean Superman. No matter what they do — harass womenfolk, talk a nurse into having sex with a suicidal guy who think he’s gay, ridicule Faith, dope a kid, use blackmail, inject the opposing team member with drugs, and etc. — , it’s cool and hip since they are politically liberal and behaviorally libertarian. And of course, their victims are made out to be strawman targets, just a bunch of lame squares, hypocrites, dupes, and dullards(who deserve what’s coming to them). M*A*S*H is a truly despicable film. It is sanctimonious but preaches against sanctimony. It is bullying and nasty but sermonizes against bullying and nastiness. It is full of verve and spontaneity but foul just the same.
What may appeal to Libertarians about the film is the notion that if you just allow people to be free, everything will fall into its place because, after all, even as the anarchic Hawkeye, Trapper, and their cronies turn the army hospital upside down with their endless antics, everything and everyone somehow turn out better for it.
M*A*S*H by Robert Altman. 'Anarchism' that is too good to be true.
Like THE LONGEST YARD and THE BAD NEWS BEARS that surely drew inspiration from it, M*A*S*H was a sign of the times as America was undergoing major shifts in its social values and cultural attitudes. (The TV sitcom ALL IN THE FAMILY also captured this national mood that was actually far more contradictory than thought at the time. The conventional view of the messy, disorderly, and ‘anarchic’ hippie/rebel versus the orderly, uptight, and square members of the older generation was only half-correct, especially pertaining to affluent wasp families. On the one hand, the younger generation of boomers was indeed frustrated with social controls and repressions that held back their yearning for freedom in sex, drugs, and rock n roll. But on the other hand, the boomers were really upset over the fact that their parents[especially if working class and/or ethic] were often boorish, rough, wild, and ‘barbaric’ when it came to cultural sensibility, social graces, and racial attitudes. Though Meathead may have long hair and beard, he is actually very meticulous about issues of right and wrong, much more so than Archie Bunker who has more of a mercenary and street-smart view of humanity. Though hippies and counterculture folks sometimes over-indulged in their liberties and made a mess of things, the true ideal of the movement was for people to be groovy, cool, harmonious, brotherly, and full of good vibes. It was ‘spiritualist’ than tribalist. In contrast, most of the ‘greatest generation’ never developed refined tastes, appreciation of arts & culture, sophistication, or some dream of a perfect society. Their moral values mostly consisted of conventions they grew up with. It wasn’t something they thought about or idealized. It was customary than conscientious. So, even as the one side of boomers rebelled against the uptight squareness of their parents, another side actually resented and were embarrassed about the fact that their parents were such rough, uncultured, and messy slobs and barbarians. When Archie and Meathead get into an argument, we aren’t always sure who is supposed to be the barbarian. Meathead may sometimes seem like the barbarian-at-the-gate, but Archie often seems the barbarian-in-the-castle; Meathead seems like an uptight moral crusader trying to bring order and light into the castle run by a barbarian king with potty mouth and lack of social graces, such as burping, sitting around like a slob, and mispronouncing words. It’s no wonder that as soon as the boomers grew up and found economic success and social status, they put on airs and turned into prissy social puritans — especially with Political Correctness — that concocted endless rules about seatbelts, smoking, drinking, forbidden words, using education as indoctrination, and etc.) But despite its spirit of spontaneity and free-wheeling madness, it is disingenuously formulated to push all the right buttons on us. It is more manipulative than liberating. If a movie like GREEN BERETS(with John Wayne) made Americans mindlessly wave the flag and respect authority, M*A*S*H made the audience mindlessly cheer for its anti-establishment heroes. Unlike a true work of satire, it drowned you in laughter than pricked you with clarity. If M*A*S*H was merely content to be mindless in its anarchy — like ANIMAL HOUSE or STRIPES — , it could be enjoyed as honest trash, but it pretends to say something about the System, Vietnam(with Korea as allegory), Freedom, and Truth. Ring Lardner and Robert Altman’s message in a nutshell may have been "Don’t judge a book by its cover", i.e. though Hawkeye(Donald Sutherland) and Elliott Gould(Trapper) act like clowns, they are dedicated surgeons and decent human beings and, when push comes to shove, they do the right thing... whereas the self-righteous pricks and prigs talk a good game but are really full of themselves.
But the problem is Hawkeye and Trapper aren’t merely ragged around the covers but smudged from page to page. Some of the stuff they do in the film cannot be justified on any grounds; they are simply mean and nasty, even downright cruel. If your child needed brain surgery, you wouldn’t be making an appointment with either. The rough guy with the heart of gold is as hoary a cliche as the hooker with one. Not that such people don’t exist, but it fails as a standard truism about life.
We can certainly understand the appeal of M*A*S*H, especially to the Jewish audience. Upper-crust Wasps had better manners and more refined demeanor whereas lots of Jews were wily and vulgar. Even so, many ‘vulgar’ Jews lacking in social graces made better lawyers, doctors, and scientists than their counterparts in the well-heeled Wasp world. Einstein always looked kinda casual and messy, but he was a greater scientist than most German scientists with clean uniforms and combed hair. Muhammad Ali acted the clown but was maybe the greatest heavyweight boxer ever. Bob Dylan and many Rockers in the 60s looked rough and crude but made more brilliant and exciting music than musicians who stuck with conventions and/or traditions. It’s like the Mozart-and-Salieri dichotomy in AMADEUS. (Or it’s like the Toshiro Mifune character in SANJURO, though something of a social outcast, is truer in ethics and talent than most of the respectable men of the establishment.) So, there developed the cult of authenticity and being real. Real substance was about your ability than your image. (Movies like BROADCAST NEWS and QUIZ SHOW perpetuated the Judeo-centric narrative that Wasps were favored for their image over the Jews who were actually superior in ability.) A doctor could look unprofessional on the outside but be a great doctor where it counts in the surgery room, whereas another doctor could look ideal in manner and demeanor but be a second-rater as a doctor. One could argue that first-raters shouldn’t care about the look-of-things since their worth can be proven with demonstration of talent; in contrast, second-raters must rely more on appearances and impressions as masks of ‘dignity’ and ‘sobriety’ to hide their relative lack of talent.
This may be true enough in certain cases, but the problem of M*A*S*H is it conflates roughness and vulgarity with worth and talent. While it’s true enough that Ali acted the clown but was a great boxer and Bob Dylan acted the jerk but was a great rock artist, it doesn’t follow that clownishness and jerk-like behavior are, in and of themselves, virtues associated with talent. In other words, a book can have a crappy cover and a great story, but it doesn’t follow that any book with a crappy cover tells a great story.
Indeed, more likely than not, a vulgar and rough person will generally be worse at what they do than a well-organized and neat person. One of the tragedies of the Sixties is that it went FROM rough-on-the-outside-can-be-good-on-the-inside TO rough-on-the-outside-IS-good-on-the-outside, and M*A*S*H was a prime specimen of such fallacious and slovenly thinking.
But was it really a case of slovenly thinking, or was Ring Lardner Jr.(its writer) just being willfully subversive out of contempt? As a member of the communist-sympathizing Hollywood Ten, he couldn’t have been for anarchy and libertarian freedom. His ‘rebellion’ against the American government was predicated on his ideological affinity with the International Left with its conformist dogmas. Lardner didn’t defy the government in the name of freedom but out of his greater loyalty to the Cause. He certainly expressed no sympathy for the millions of victims of communism, the most totalitarian ideology of the 20th century(and maybe in human history), so the libertarian-ish freewheeling on display in M*A*S*H is suspect.
To be sure, it’s possible that what passed for ‘leftism’ in Lardner’s case(he was born in 1915) was simply of a different order than what later came to be associated with ‘progressive’ attitudes. By today’s standards, most American leftists and communists of the first 2/3 of the 20th century would probably be thought of as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘male chauvinist’, ‘reactionary’, ‘male dominated’, and etc. Let us remember that Ernest Hemingway was thought to be a leftist in his day. And even a lifelong liberal like Harold Bloom got in hot water a few times for his comments about blacks, homos, and feminists. From Lardner’s point of view, the bad boy antics in his screenplay might have been the means by which to ruffle the feathers of conservative American society. Today, with Liberals holding sway over the cultural system and enforcing its politically correct ‘new norms’ — and with many Conservatives all-too-comfortable with vulgarity and even embracing it in stuff like FAMILY GUY, SOUTHPARK, and KING OF THE HILL as an affront to Liberal pieties and sensitivities — , roughhouse antics may now seem more offensive to the ‘Left’ than to the Right. After all, it’s Liberals who now throw conniptions about people saying, sharing, or tweeting the wrong thing. Paula Deen’s show was canceled when it was revealed that she had said ‘nigger’ in a private conversation long ago after being robbed by a Negro. And it’s Liberals who rake Pop Culture over the coals to burn all the ‘gay jokes’. Homos are the new puritanical prigs who cannot abide by any jokes made about them, and Jews are even more fervent in going after ‘anti-Semites’ than Joseph McCarthy was in going after communists. Of course, an ‘anti-Semite’ today could be anyone who speaks truth to Jewish power. Indeed, Jews are even planning to enact laws that would forbid criticism of Jewish power. Such laws already exist in Europe, and most Jews in America are fully supportive of them and want the likes of Obama to fill the Supreme Court with more Liberals so that the First Amendment of the Constitution will no longer protect speech that dares to spill the beans on Jewish power. Of course, even without such laws, anyone who dares to sound the alarm on Jewish Power has no chance of making it in politics, business, law, and academia since Jews have a lock on all the elite institutions. Given the hostility of most Jews toward conservatism, you’d think American conservatives would logically play the role in countering Jewish power, but most American conservatives are fools and idiots who harbor this fantasy that Jews like them. (Jewish pushers of ‘hate speech’ legislation complain about ‘group defamation’, but then, all general statements about any group could be construed as such. After all, if one says, "Germans invaded Poland", one is defaming Germans since not all Germans supported Hitler and even many who did support him didn’t necessarily support his war plans. All general statements about any race, any religious group, or any nation are bound to be ‘defame’ the group since no single statement about any group can apply to every one of its member. If one says "Americans firebombed Dresden" or "Americans invaded Iraq", what about all those Americans who had nothing to do with the bombing of Germany[or may even have opposed it] and what about all the Americans who opposed the Bush Doctrine and its application in the Middle East? And the statement "whites enslaves blacks" could also be said to be group-defaming since most whites didn’t own slaves, and many white immigrants arrived in America long after slavery was ended. And surely, the term ‘white privilege’ could be said to be a case of group-defamation since it doesn’t apply to most whites. Indeed, even if whites in general had been favored by the law and the powers-that-be through much of American history, it still doesn’t follow that most Americans were ‘privileged’. Most Americans, even if favored racially for jobs and positions, had to eke out a living working on farms, in factories, in coal mines, on railroads, and etc. Suppose white workers are favored over non-white workers for janitorial jobs. Does being a white janitor make the white person ‘privileged’? It’s like many illegal aliens have been favored by amnesty but that doesn’t mean that they are ‘privileged’ like Jewish children born to millionaire lawyers.)
There's no limit to sheepish conformist stupidity, especially among self-righteous and naive young white people brainwashed by PC controlled by Jews.
Despite Alain Resnais’ assured standing in the film community, most of his films(with the possible exception of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD) failed to generate long-term interest as subjects of discussion and veneration among cinephiles. One possible reason is that most of his films have eluded categorization as to what they’re about. One could argue Time and Memory have been recurring themes in Resnais’ films, but his films leave the impression of the illusory, fleeting, and deceptive nature of time and memory, which, by their very nature, are intangibles difficult to ascertain and locate. Furthermore, Resnais’s approach was like quicksilver than metallurgy. He didn’t pull fish out of the water and turn them into trophies; he captured their movements through wavy waters or split-second leaps into the air.