Wednesday, April 20, 2016

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

Continued from Part 1 of the Blogpost:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, Jews are now allergic to the truth and go about browbeating anyone who dares to speak the truth. Jews denounce him or her as a ‘racist’, ‘homophobe’, ‘anti-Semite’, ‘xenophobe’, or whatever other bullshit term they’ve cooked up over the years. It’s like controlling dogs by saying, ‘bad dog!’. By hysterically abusing their media power to focus excessively on white ‘failings’ — according to Jewish Logic, even or especially courageous white truth-noticing-and-telling are demeaned as moral failings — , Jews render it near-impossible for people to notice and discuss the much more consequential issue of Jewish moral failings. (Jews are, after all, the most powerful people in America, thereby the world.) If your shirt is stained and the other guy’s shirt is totally filthy but if the other guy hogs the megaphone and screams nonstop to draw attention to the stain on your shirt, you will be the main object of derision. Much of socio-political morality is less about who-did-what than who-has-the-power-to-pontificate-about-who-did-what. It’s like Stalin and Mao could kill millions but still accuse OTHERS of moral failings while elevating themselves to the status of gods. It’s like Black Lives Matter thugs turn a blind eye to all the black-on-black and black-on-non-black violence while excoriating ‘white racists’ for all the problems in the black community. It’s like Jews can oppress Palestinians and dispossess white gentiles but act like they are the noblest and most helpless victims. Using Palestinians-as-a-metaphor, we need to exclaim WE ARE ALL PALESTINIANS since Jewish Suprmacists(80 to 90% of the Jewish population) are the new Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos of the world with near-total control of the media, academia, law, finance, and politicians(who serve as their whores). In a way, most Americans are even more oppressed than the Palestinians because Palestinians at the very least know who their enemies and tyrants are. Palestinians know they are living under Zionist Occupation. Palestinians know they’ve been dehumanized, defamed, and dispossessed by World Jewry. In contrast, the great majority of white Americans and white Europeans don’t even know they are living the Jewish Supremacist yoke. Being (1) unaware of the tyranny over your people (2) believing yourselves to be free, and (3) hating the very forces that may liberate your people... those constitute the worst kind of tyranny. In this sense, white people are the most oppressed in the world. Not because they are materially badly off — most white people enjoy far superior living standards to the rest of the world — but because they are blind to the Jewish Supremacist tyranny all around them, infected with the Zio-virus in their hearts & minds, and hostile to the very people who would wake them up & raise their Eurosphere Consciousness. PC is like a mass cult where white children have been cast under the spell of the Jewish equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard(the Founder of Scientology) or Rev. Mhoon(of Unification Church). When these SJW-ized kids are informed of the truth about their identity, heritage, and culture, they shriek with rage, hatred, and disgust. They hate their own race & heritage; they think they can only be saved and redeemed through the PC cult of the unholy trinity: the worship of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. It’s like Red Guards in China were oppressed and brutalized under Maoism but embraced Maoism as their empowerment. Today, young people are exploited and soul-damaged by Political Correctness and Pop Culture, but they think they are empowered by idiot fantasies of destruction, rap gangsta attitudes, and self-loathing. (Even young people in Japan are feeling the disgust of living in a homogeneous society since Diversity is the New Culture. So, Japanese now have massive homo parades funded by Jewish globalists, and there is promotion of Japanese women using their wombs to produce black babies.) At the very least, Palestinians know they are oppressed. So, in a way, the more apt slogan for our time would be WE ARE NOT EVEN PALESTINIANS. At least the Palestinians know the power that oppresses them. That knowledge means they are at least half-free. They are not free politically and physically, but they are free in their hearts & minds because they have no illusion about which people are crushing them. Therefore, Palestinians at least have a chance of struggling for freedom and power. They are focused on the enemy that rules over them. They are shackled but they are not blind. They can see their oppressors. In contrast, white gentiles don’t even know the power that rules over them. They may not be physically shackled but they’ve been blinded. As such, they go where they’re led by the Jews who monopolize the Political Sight. If anything, even the American Right pledges to fight and kill all those ‘evil Muslims’ to protect and save Jews when it was the Jews who destroyed the Middle East(by using dumb white Christian soldiers), created a massive ‘refugee’ crisis, and pressured Western nations to take in all these hostile hordes radicalized by America’s Wars for Israel. A man in chains who can see who chained him is freer than a unchained blind man who doesn’t even know who blinded him in the first place.

Black hysteria owes to the same kind of dynamics. As we all know, one of the biggest — if not the biggest — problem of America is Too Many Blacks: Too many blacks robbing, too many blacks cheating, too many blacks lying, too many blacks fighting, too many blacks raping, too many black bullying, too many blacks murdering, too many blacks having too many babies out of wedlock, and etc. Most blacks are killed by other blacks, and even among non-blacks, much of the violence against them are instigated by blacks. So, what do the so-called ‘black leaders’ and celebrities do? In order to distract us from the reality of black rottenness and foulness, they bitch and whine about ‘racism’. When the alleged ‘racism’ of police departments are curtailed, more blacks end up being killed by other blacks. Even when blacks kill blacks, we are supposed to focus on the black victim than on the black perpetrator. Let’s weep for the dead black than be angry with the black murderer. (Blacks, as one of the unholy trinity that includes Jews and Homos, can never be held accountable for the evil that they do. They’ve been sacralized as the holy children of saint-prophet MLK, a thug-in-real-life who beat up women and laughingly bragged about it. It’s like Jews are never held accountable for Wall Street robbery or the war-mongering in the Middle East & North Africa that destroyed millions of Arab and/or Muslim lives. And homos are seen as pure-as-snow victims of the AIDS epidemic that was the result of too many homos buggering one another like crazed beasts. But because homos are holy, we must blame "Reagan’s Indifference" for not having come up with an instant miracle cure so that homos could go on indulging in the debauchery of fecal-penetrating one another to the Village People and the Artist Formerly Alive as Prince.) According to blacks, non-blacks taking precaution by locking their car doors in urban areas blighted with crime(usually by blacks) is an injustice whereas we should all just conveniently turn a blind eye to blacks robbing, raping, and murdering non-blacks. According to blacks(and their Jewish enablers), some white woman having muttered ‘nigger’ some thirty years ago is a greater transgression than millions of blacks in America acting like stereotypical ‘niggers’. To blacks, perceived or imagined ‘micro-aggressions’ against blacks are more grievous than often deadly black macro-aggressions against non-blacks. And never mind that most insults and attacks upon blacks are by other blacks. Never mind all the black mayhem and just fixate on Paula Deen’s Crime of the Century by invoking slavery and Jim Crow.
Jews and blacks are alike in their self-aggrandizing hysteria, and so are the homos. Now, what caused the HIV epidemic that led to the deaths of so many homosexuals and even non-homos who became infected by HIV-tainted blood donated by manic-ass-buggering homos? The fact is so many homo men went around fecal-penetrating one another like a bunch of degenerates, but PC-talking-points bleat that the true culprit was the ‘criminal negligence’ of the Reagan administration that failed to find a miracle cure for AIDS. A has grown sick and decrepit when it heeds the moral sermons of pushy corrupt Jews, stupid criminal blacks, and bitchy degenerate homos. But of course, the Jewish-and-homo-controlled Western media would have us believe that everything is just dandy in the Land of Obama, and it is Russia that is sick and vile for not allowing homos to take over Moscow to celebrate ‘gay pride’. Funny, isn’t it? Blacks holler endlessly about slavery & white racial oppression, Jews bitch about how Germans & collaborationist Europeans murdered Jews, and homos fume about how ‘homophobic’ society failed to save homos from the AIDS epidemic, but Jews get all hissy when Russians take an honest look at their history and mention the key role played by communist Jews in the destruction of Churches and so many innocent lives. It is how Jews rig the game that they play, yet American Conservatives believe there’s no higher virtue than crawling on hands and knees to kiss the ass of the likes of Abe Foxman and Sheldon Adelson.

Anyway, as George C. Scott said in the opening of PATTON — "Americans, traditionally, love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooters, the fastest runners, big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time" — , the American mind-set revolves around athleticism, and Americans love the individual in competitions with clear winners and losers. Though sports culture played a prominent role in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Castroite Cuba, the ideal was for athletes to train and compete for the People, whose spirit was embodied in the personage of ‘great leaders’ such as Hitler, Stalin, or Castro. Thus, no matter how great an athlete may be, he wasn’t revered for his individual glory but for his service, even sacrifice, to the entire nation. Though American sports wasn’t always lacking in collective spirit(especially in world events like the Olympics), the conventional American sports hero is the individual who demonstrates his superiority, gains fortune and adulation, and lots of sex. Thus, even though each city has its various teams, the city serves the team than vice versa, not least because athletes routinely go from one city to another for higher pay.

General Patton spoke of war not so much as a national or patriotic enterprise but as a sport game to win. And even though he mocks individualism — "Now, an army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post don't know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating" — , he was essentially appealing to the individualist nature of American competition. He was telling the men that they must fight and win because it’s really about their individual worth as Americans. Instead of accentuating the glory of the nation and loyalty to the leader, he was appealing to individual pride of soldiers as members of the team. It sounds like pep-talk given by coach to players. Coach understands that the players need organization, discipline, and a game-plan but also need the fuel of individual ego and the lubricant of improvisation. So, even though soldiers must work together as a team than as individuals, the final product of victory is individual pride for each soldier his own individual American pride as ‘winner’ was at stake. (Speaking of Pride, how times have changed. The ‘Greatest Generation’ that lived through the Great Depression and survived World War II didn’t brag about their hardships, sacrifices, and achievements. They were defined by their humility. But Homos who’ve done nothing but buttfuc* each other think ‘pride’ is something they should own.) Patton was saying that it really came down to self-pride as soldiers than anything else. They grew up admiring the best and toughest athletes, and that’s what war was really about: individual men working as a team to bring home the trophy for self-glory. I doubt if any German or Russian general spoke to his soldiers in such manner.
In the case of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, the fighting men had to surrender their individuality in service of the State or the Great Cause. But in the American case, a kind of paradox was at work because the soldier was expected to suppress his individuality to win as part of a team, but in victory he would reclaim the pride of his individuality. Thus, instead of surrendering one’s individuality, one sacrificed an element of it as a member of the team in order to ultimately arrive at larger sense of individual pride. Patton himself was quite an egomaniacal individualist(at least in the movie by Franklin Schaffner), which was precisely why he got in hot water with his superiors who found his sports-coach style unruly and troublesome. He was like the Knute Rockne of the American military.

However one may feel about sports, it has a clearer sense of winners and losers than most other human endeavor. Though we can generally tell who is the greater artist or greater musical composer, artistic criteria are, to a large degree, a matter of taste, opinion, fashion, tradition, and ideology, especially across different nations and cultures. And judging artistic/creative value or worth has grown ever more opaque and complicated with the rise of modernism and post-modernism that opened up a whole new cans of worms in the very meaning of what constitutes art. If a latrine or a photo of a Crucifix submerged in urine can be called ‘art’, what isn’t art and who decides? If something inane by Andy Warhol or Basquiat can be admired by cultural elites and sell for millions of dollars, how do we define the real winners and losers in art? Is it about who makes the most money for investors and corrupted curators? Who decides which works of ‘art’ should command the limelight? Who were the influential figures in elite culture that made the likes of Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons such major forces at art galleries?
While most sane people can be taught, guided, and/or persuaded to admire a work like CITIZEN KANE, SEVEN SAMURAI, VERTIGO, 8 ½, THE WILD BUNCH, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, or ANDREI RUBLEV — even if the greatness might elude them initially — , what becomes of the meaning of art when so many ‘educated’ fools can be convinced that something as insipid as JEANNE DIELMAN is a great film? In terms of cinematic expression, Akerman’s films are obviously zero(for anyone with a honest pair of eyes), but they are promoted in elite circles where much of discussion of arts/culture revolves around pseudo-intellectual sophistry than a meaningful core critieria. While not everyone might like CITIZEN KANE or VERTIGO, one would be blind not to notice its vision and mastery. Even if one objects to the content or the meaning(or ‘message’), one could still admire the cinematic craft. But when some scholars say that something dull and dreary by Warhol or Akerman is a great(even profound) work of art, most sane people are apt to wonder ‘what?’ and ‘why?’ But given the pressures of status-seeking and cultural vanity, many social-and-intellectual strivers just accept on faith the pseudo-intellectual rationalizations of the ‘creative community’. Now, if the cultural elites only did stupid things like champion the works of Warhol and Akerman, even servile status-seekers would likely see through them, but, as was said of the Devil in THE EXORCIST, ‘evil’ mixes truth with lies. If some people only say nonsense, people will eventually come to see them for what they are. The danger is that some people who espouse sane, insightful, and intelligent views may also espouse utterly insane and ludicrous views for reasons of ideology, neurosis, cultism, or intellectual conceits. (Intellectual-types are addicted to esoteric avant-garde-ism They crave the satisfaction of being way ahead-of-the-curve, e.g. Jonathan Rosenbaum claiming over and over that Jean-Luc Godard is twenty years ahead of everyone else, thereby implying that he too is part of special select since he ‘gets’ Godard’s latest offerings. Intellectual types are divided when it comes to the public. On the one hand, as pied-pipers, they want to bring more people to the well. They want to play the role of Moses leading the masses to the Promised Land. But they also want to feel special and superior to the hoi polloi, as if they have a special connection to history, justice, and/or intellectualism. So, they dread the outcome of the very thing they’re engaged in. They want more people to come to Culture but fear the threat to their own vaunted hierarchy when their special knowledge & influence are no long so exclusive within a limited circle. So, to ensure that a ‘safe space’ for themselves, they prop up the likes of Chantal Akerman who will never win over ‘everyone’. After all, whereas even a non-cinephile can learn to admire Fellini, Bergman, and Kurosawa, it takes a special kind of insanity or initiation process to belong to the ‘chosen few’ who get Akerman.) While some cultural or intellectual types are really nuts, pretentious, or hopelessly lacking in taste, some have a combination of stupidity and intelligence, of ridiculousness and sanity, of pretentiousness and sincerity, of tastelessness and fine sensibility. In some ways, such combination of positive and negative traits often do more damage. If Jonathan Rosenbaum, J. Hoberman, and Dave Kehr ONLY SAID stupid shit, people would eventually learn to ignore them and be spared of dumb ideas. But they wrote some of the best essays about important films. They gained deserved credentials as leading film critics and scholars. Unfortunately, they have certain fetishes, conceits, and delusions that defy taste, logic, sense, and/or truth. Kehr had the crazy tendency to praise anything by Clint Eastwood, and his knee-jerk auteurism(inspired by Andrew Sarris) often favored the lesser films of his favorite directors over fine films by directors Kehr didn’t care for. (According to Kehr, George Romero is the leading candidate of the ‘intellectual American film-maker.) Rosenbaum is clearly a neurotic grubberoon, and there is something slightly Robert-Crumbish about him. He is allergic to anything that is straight, healthy, and sane, which explains why he loves Joe Dante’s SMALL SOLDIERS that pits gung-ho soldier types against a race of grubberoons in SPARTACUS fashion. (On the other hand, he likes ZULU, the British film where a bunch of upright and hardy British Imperialists mow down a bunch of black spear-chucking savage jafro-jivers. Maybe it was because the film was directed by a leftist and reminds Rosenbaum of proud Zionists mowing down Palestinian Arabs. Like I said, Rosenbaum is nuts.) And Hoberman just loves anything that is Yiddish, obscure, experimental, or esoteric. Anyway, because they are so insightful about certain matters, the lesser-minded readers(especially young impressionable ones) come to trust them on just about anything, and I suspect that is how a total louse like Chantal Akerman became a holy cult figure among the millennial cinephiles. Uncritical readers figure that since Rosenbaum wrote so intelligently about Welles, since Kehr wrote so intelligently about Hitchcock, and since Hoberman wrote intelligent studies about cinema & history, they must be right about ‘artists’ like Akerman too.
What this proves is that even intelligent people can have the worst taste and delusions. Knowledge and insight don’t guarantee sanity and sense. Camille Paglia is a very well-read woman, but her idea of the greatest work of art in the past thirty years is the final duel in REVENGE OF THE SITH. She praises Eminem as a great artist. She expended much intellectual firepower on a fraudulent dirt-bag like madonna who would have done well to disappear after her first two albums(like Cyndi Lauper did). It’s like the writer-intellectual in LOVE AND DEATH ON LONG ISLAND. He is highly intelligent and erudite, but when his closeted-homo-lust goes ‘boing’ upon seeing a handsome stud in a cheesy Hollywood sexy comedy, he makes much more of the actor and movie than reason and sanity should allow. It’s like Andrew Sarris’ fetish for certain compositions and camera movements were enough to persuade him to once declare LOLA MONTES as the greatest film of all time. Well, at least even that is a masterpiece compared to JEANNE DIELMAN.) So, some critics who admire real works of art and have written intelligent things about them might also say the most ridiculous things.
How could intelligent individuals capable of penetrating commentaries on art & culture espouse such crazy or moronic notions? Because even smart and insightful people can become blinded by vanity and narcissism. Every ambitious critic is a would-be intellectual, and intellectuals crave superiority of knowledge, understanding, and righteousness. To be sure, such obsession exists in all artistic and cultural fields. Even as Alternative Rock aficionados despair of the general state of Pop Music, they derive pleasure from their own supposedly deeper appreciation of music as personal art & expression, though to be sure, the Industry, in music and movies, has mastered the ‘science’ of recreating the semblance of ‘alternative music’ or ‘independent cinema’ — consider the Disney film the MILLION DOLLAR ARM that is a slickly packaged facsimile of the ‘tropes’ associated with indie slice-of-life films.
Jonathan Rosenbaum the Grubberoon
Dave Kehr who looks like a Space Alien Dork
J. Hoberman, a Jew with many fetishes
‘Elitism’is a dirty word among most film critic & scholars who claim to be ‘leftist’ and committed to ‘progressive equality’(which today mostly consists of singing endless quasi-spiritual hosannas to homos and trannies whose kitschy pageants are funded by Wall Street, Las Vegas, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley). But every thinker or writer wants to feel like he or she is far ahead of the game. He or she wants to be part of an elite, of the best of the best. (The so-called ‘progressive’ whose secular faith is ‘equality’ must seek a way to be elitist without seeming elitist. Since it is no longer fashionable to take pride in being higher-up or more elevated than the rest of humanity, the neo-elitism consists of avant-garde-ism expounding that the ‘radicals’ are way ahead of the curve of everyone else. So, while one cannot be ABOVE humanity, one can be AHEAD of humanity. In other words, you can’t be more ELEVATED but you can be more EVOLVED. Being AHEAD of humanity, one enjoys being part of the neo-elite, but such privilege is rationalized on grounds that one is forging ahead as a navigator of justice to bring about greater equality for everyone. Of course, the globalist-capitalists understand what this conceit is really about. They understand that the radical intellectuals don’t really want to be part of humanity with regular jobs and hassles of life. The Rads want to be professors, curators, critics, artists, authors, celebrities, ‘creative’ folks, agents of NGO’s, and etc. So, the globalist-capitalist and ‘radicals’ struck up a bargain whereby the former would fund the latter who would mainly redefine ‘equality’ in terms of homomania, transmania, and gender-bender obsessions. This is wonderful for the super-capitalist class since the homo/tranny community consists only of 3%[if that] of humanity. So, if the ultimate goal of ‘progressive leftism’ is about making all of humanity bow down to the vanity and narcissism of a small percentage of people who indulge in fecal penetration, cross-dressing, and genital mutilation, it really means that neo-equality consists of the 97% serving the vainglory of the sexually deviant 3%. This is great for the super-rich since homos and trannies, in all their self-glorifying vanity, love to rub shoulders with the men and women of privilege.) Being part of the cinephile community makes one feel smugly superior to 95% of movie lovers since a relatively small segment of the movie-watching public care to see ‘art films’ and ‘foreign films’. But if your average film-lover is satisfied with that degree of elitism, there is radical elitism sprouting within elitism. It’s nothing special to know the films of Hitchcock, Ford, Kurosawa, Welles, and Bunuel in the film community. To remain special WITHIN the community, you need to hold extra cards up your sleeve, and so, intellectualism gets ever more precious and delusional. (It is only right for serious cinephiles to want to know and understand more out of genuine passion. The problem is some gain esoteric, cultist, or obscurantist knowledge, wrapped in difficult[often disdainful] attitude or impenetrable opacity, simply to maintain the self-serving protective distance between themselves and the rest. General rule of leftist intellectualism is that the more radical it becomes in the name of reality and the people, the more divorced it becomes from reality and the people.) If the likes of Jonathan Rosenbaum and Dave Kehr said they admire Hitchcock, Welles, Truffaut, Ozu, and early Godard, most cinephiles could perfectly understand why, because MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, TOUCH OF EVIL, REAR WINDOW, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, 400 BLOWS, TOKYO STORY, and BREATHLESS are obviously remarkable films(even if one didn’t care for them on the personal level). But when we are told that something like Warhol’s EMPIRE or Akerman’s JE TU IL EL(the first twenty minutes has the director in the nude moping around in a room eating from a bag of sugar) is a great work, there is simply no sane explanation. Since there is no visual or physical evidence in the film itself to validate the greatness and importance or Warhol or Akerman, we are left to rely on the ‘higher’ intellect of the critic or scholar who supposedly sees what we can’t see. It becomes a matter of faith, a cultist devotion to certain critics and thinkers. A person with sense would call such mentality a case of ‘emperor or empire has no clothes’, but the vain status-seeking fools eager to be(or feel) admitted into the intellectual/cultural community just nod their heads and pretend to ‘get’ the bogus claims.
Chantal Akerman in JE TU IL EL. The dumbass Jewish-Marxist-Feminist-Lesbian bitch spends the first 20 minutes walking around nude and eating from a bag of sugar. According to the likes of Rosenbaum, Kehr, and Hoberman, this is 'profound' stuff. I suppose if Amy Taubin walks around naked eating a candy bar, that'd be deep stuff too.
This is a case where the critics take precedence over the artist and the art — but then, ‘artists’ who make such works tend to be ‘intellectuals’ who use the artistic canvas to demonstrate ‘theorems’ that would be better-served with pen and paper — , and we are left to take the words of critics and scholars in uncritical adulation of their intellectual superiority and ideological commitment(though I don’t know moral cause would be served by Akerman-as-prototype-of-Emma-Sulkowicz moping around eating from a bag of sugar for twenty minutes. Notice that Akerman, Sulkowicz, Masha Gessen, Andrea Dworkin, and Judith Butler are all Jewesses. Maybe there’s something naturally nutty about Jews, and without the power of God to restrain their egos, their personalities goes over-drive into deviant messianic lunacies. It is no wonder Jews and Homos are such natural allies. Then, it is a great irony of history that Judaism became the most virulently anti-homosexual of all great religions and cultures. Could it be that the early Jewish elders took notice of the Jewish tendency toward lunacy and therefore severely proscribed any tendency toward deviancy? If you are ruling over a tribe of Howard Sterns and Sarah Silvermans, stern measures would be necessary to keep things under control. Well, the nutjob Jewish genie is out of the bottle now, and it’s turning the world into Sodomia.) And in due time, a growing number impressionable young fools(especially the millennial castrati) also claim to appreciate the meaning of a monstrosity like JEANNE DIELMAN. They are really nothing but sheep because they would never have arrived at Akerman-worship on their own. Actually, they are too sane for that, a good thing. Their failing is the pitiful lack of spine, confidence, critical acumen, and the courage to call bullshit when they see it. Such lack of immunity means an incapacity to resist the conceits, delusions, or lunacies of their god-hero-prophets such as Rosenbaum, Kehr, and Hoberman. (To be sure, Kehr and Hoberman are relatively sane compared to Rosenbaum who has the personality of someone who’d like squeeze the skulls of people he doesn’t like between his ass-cheeks and crush them like melons. His endless diatribes against fellow film critics attest to this.) The millennial castrati cinephiles blindly and mindlessly agree with their intellectual ‘superiors’ and ‘heroes’. Indeed, the media have reported that the millennial generation is one of the least independent-minded ever, but then, to be fair, they are the products of boomers and especially the ‘Generation Xers’ who insisted on neo-managerialism of life and learning from cradle. Nothing is left to chance as PC in mind and habit are supposed to suffuse every moment of our lives. So, the millennials grew up in a world of mental mine-fields where they must be extra-careful not to say or do something that is ‘incorrect’ and collectively shame and shun anyone who violates the established rules. (PC has gotten away with its neo-control-freakism by offering limitless freedom for those who choose the ‘correct’ path. It offers blinkered anarchy for those who play by the rules. So, if you choose anti-white-male rhetoric, you can be as wild and crazy as you want to be, even making up rape hoaxes to smear college fraternities. If you choose the way of Slut Pride, you can skank yourself out totally as an imitation Miley Cyrus. If you choose the way of tattoos and body-piercing, you can turn yourself into a completely hideous-looking freak. If you choose homo ‘pride’, you can act in ways that trample all over rules of decency and propriety. You can also work with Jews to push for WWIII against Russia because it won’t cave to homo poo-ride parades. If you choose gender-fluidity, you can come up with new nano-gender-identities against ‘heteronormativity’. If you choose black rage, you can fume all you want against the white gentile devil. If you choose the mantra of Diversity or the bogeyman of 'white privilege', you can howl all you want to the moon until the cows come home. So, if you choose the correct cause or agenda, there is no limit to your freedom to hate, berate, throw tantrums, and act crazy. This creates the impression that freedom is everywhere in our so-called ‘liberal democracy’. Freedom becomes problematic ONLY IF you question, critique, and counter the holy writ of PC. Indeed, Jews who control PC say that ‘hate speech’ isn’t free speech. If you practice free speech to counter the PC agenda, you are said to be ‘threatening’ the freedom of the PC crowd by making them feel ‘unsafe’. So, if you practice free speech against PC and if the PC crowd attacks you, YOU are to blame for aggressing against them because you made them feel ‘threatened’ even though they are the ones who attacked you physically. According to PC, verbal criticism of ‘progressives’ and certain ‘peoples of color’ violates their right not to feel ‘threatened’[which means to be challenged or offended because the PC crybullies have been raised from cradle to flip out over anything that offends their tender feelings and righteous conceits]. So, if violence is done to you by the PC gang, their right not to be offended or ‘threatened’ trumps your right of free speech. It’s not unlike the logic of the Cultural Revolution in China. The Red Guards could exercise and enjoy unlimited freedom, even to assault and murder, as long as they stuck to the ideological script provided by Mao. As long as they claimed to serve the revolution and destroy the capitalist-roaders, there was no restraint on their madness. Such blinkered anarchy that allows total freedom and aggression in one direction creates the false impression of liberty. It’s like the freedom of dogs that can never attack the master but can act with total savagery against the targets chosen by the master. Dogs feel totally free in their unrestrained bloodlust as they tear apart a boar or deer chosen by their master, but aren’t they mere tools of their master? Mao tricked the Red Guards the same way. By giving the Red Guards unlimited freedom to attack and destroy Mao’s rivals, real or imagined, the impression of youth power was created. Many people assume that PC must be against the Powers-That-Be. After all, PC opposes 'white privilege' in a society that is presumably ruled by Privileged Whites. This is a sleight-of-hand trick because, in truth, the West is under globalist-imperialist rules of Jewish Supremacists[who chose homos and white Liberals & Cuckservatives as their collaborators agents]. White elites in the West don’t serve White People. They serve the Jewish Globalists to further dispossess and displace white people. Just look at worthless ‘white leaders’ like Jeb Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. All this emphasis on 'white privilege' is a smoke-and-mirrors trick to obfuscate and distract us from the real power that is Jewish Supremacist Power. So, PC doesn’t challenge and oppose the Real Power. It is essentially a means by which the Real Power, that of Jewish Globalists, manipulates the ideology of ‘radicalism’ to redirect the fury of the rising tide of color against white gentiles who are really living under Jewish-Homo-Globalist Imperialism served by the collaboration of white Liberal elites and Cuckservatives who get to keep their personal privileges as long as they serve the Globalist Elites than their own peoples.) When someone like Jonathan Rosenbaum sits in a roomful of minions professing their allegiance to JEANNE DIELMAN, he feels the elation of a master surrounded by reverential acolytes. This all feeds into intellectual vanity and narcissism. Critics like Rosenbaum and Hoberman aren’t satisfied with shared love of cinema with the rest of the film community. They feel a Talmudic need to demonstrate higher understanding of cinematic truth and to set themselves apart from the rest. This egotistical and competitive drive can sometimes yield interesting insights beyond the reach of less ambitions and committed critics, but it can also lead one astray to delusions of meaning that are unwarranted or simply not there. Film critics are often like the ghosts in THE SIXTH SENSE. They see what they want to see. (But then, cinema itself entices us to suspend disbelief and accept the fiction on the screen as real or more-than-real.) The likes of Rosenbaum and Hoberman feel a compunction to champion films/filmmakers whose supposed importance seems elusive or nonexistent UNLESS instructed otherwise by themselves. It’s like Jewish psychoanalysts who fooled a lot of clients into believing that they won’t understand the full significance of things in their lives & dreams UNLESS examined and interpreted by the psychoanalysts.
According to this logic, if you say you admire CITIZEN KANE or SEVEN SAMUAI, you’re just a run-of-the-mill cinephile(and nothing special), but if you say you admire JEANNE DIELMAN, you are part of a select community. (Despite the intellectualism of such conceit, there is also the allure of faith. After all, even though arts & creativity are not an objective science, most people can be made to appreciate through a combination of analysis and emotions why a film like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or THE GODFATHER is great. But no amount of intellectualism and emotional appeal can justify something as dull, dreary, and demented as JEANNE DIELMAN. So, there is a point where one has to take it on faith that a 3 ½ hour film about a woman peeling potatoes and polish shoes is an important work of art & culture. This shouldn’t be surprising since cinema is the substitute religion for many in our so-called Secular Age. But then, I suppose it could be worse, and indeed it has become worse, as the new main religion of the West is Homomania, the celebration of Sodomia.) Some critics — usually strong-willed egotistical Jews — set the template while most others, especially gentiles, are merely content to follow and nod in agreement. Jews have the combination of ego, will-power, and verbal skills to make even nonsense sound like profound sense. Jews are more confident and assertive in professing crazy nonsense than gentiles are in defending solid truth. Jews lead, others follow. (This is most starkly apparent when we observe the Jewish-American and East-Asian-American communities. Both groups tend to vote alike in elections and share similar views. But all these views and positions have been staked out by Jews. Asians just follow and imitate. Jews don’t need Asians to know what to believe and think, but Asians need Jews to define what is right and wrong. Asians cannot think for themselves and lack the vision/talent to forge their own world-views. Jews are leader-‘progressives’ whereas Asians are follower-‘progressives’. Jews define what ‘progressivism’ is, and Asians merely agree and follow. But the dynamics isn’t all that different between Jews and white gentile ‘progressives’. In almost every case, Jews set the template, white gentiles followed. We saw the same thing in American Conservatism Inc. Neocon Jews redefined what ‘mainstream conservatism’ should be, and the ‘cuckservatives’ merely and meekly followed. Sometimes, gentiles are so impassioned[as if from the bottom of their hearts] about certain causes but remain oblivious to the fact that the causes are Jewish concoctions. What they feel to be emanating from the bottom of their heart was actually implanted in their brains by the Jew-run media and academia. Take ‘gay marriage’, about which so many white gentiles and Asian-Americans are so impassioned, what with that bimbo-robot or bimbot S.E. Cupp even breaking down in joy of the Supreme Court(packed with 4 Jews) that made it law of the land. But did gentiles come up with this nonsense themselves? No, it was cooked up by Jews who have the combination of boldness, daring, cunning, intelligence, creativity, and power to turn even nonsense into the New Sense, indeed even the New Faith. So often, the Truth isn’t so much about what-is-real as about what-is-rapturous. It’s like Jordan Belfort in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET has the daring, cunning, intelligence, and verbal power to turn trash into treasure to would-be-investors who are ultimately taken for suckers. And even when people suspect he is a charlatan, so many flock to work for him because people admire those with the will, vision, and talent.) And so, worthless tripe like JEANNE DIELMAN got voted as the 35th greatest film ever made in the 2012 Sight and Sound Magazine Poll. Critics and scholars can be prescient or precious. When prescient, they grasp the significance of a work before everyone else. At their best, critics and scholars guide the public to appreciate worth beyond conventional criteria and/or mass preference. But critics and scholars can also be precious, vainly insisting they are privy to the importance of a work that, to honest and sane people, remains pointless and worthless. This isn’t to say that critics and scholars who champion or defend the likes of Chantal Akerman are necessarily crazy or dumb, but they are obviously preening and precious in their veiled egotism & elitism.
There are plenty of sane and decent people who’ve fallen for the Akerman cult — along with other phonies like Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Theo Angelopoulos, Jane Campion, and for the most part, Michael Haneke — , but it’s due to their lack of genuine honesty and courage to call out on bullshit, especially in our Age of Political Correctness. Reservations about a Marxist, lesbian, Jewish, and feminist film-maker-of-genius might get one labeled among the ‘preciousites’ as ‘reactionary’, ‘conservative’, or ‘conventional’.
ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. Its greatness a matter of fact.
JEANNE DIELMAN. Its greatness a matter of faith.
Anyway, the refreshing thing about sports is there are clear winners and losers. Consider the flashback scene in ANNIE HALL where Woody Allen’s character withdraws from his wife’s party(full of intellectual guests) and shuts himself in the bedroom to watch a basketball game. Wife asks, "What’s so fascinating about standing around watching a group of pituitary cases?", and Allen’s character replies, "What is fascinating is that it's physical. You know, it's one thing about intellectuals. They prove that you can be absolutely brilliant and have no idea what's going on. But on the other hand, the body doesn't lie, as we now know." True enough, but then, Allen’s problem was he desperately wanted to be thought of an intellectual or serious artist himself, especially as he grew up in the shadow of the legendary Ingmar Bergman whose films embodied not only serious art but the world of ‘Aryan’ types that Allen had love/hate feelings for. Allen could watch the Swedish ‘Aryans’ with a certain relaxed detachment because the German types were associated with the Holocaust and the Wasp types in UK & US were associated with ‘subtle antisemitism’. Furthermore, Bergman’s neuroticism made his ‘Aryans’ more accessible and relatable to Jewish neurosis, especially as the Wasp kind in the US was associated with excess ‘white bread’ normality. (As it happened, Bergman too had a fascination with Jews in turn.)

Of course, athleticism doesn’t apply only to sports but any endeavor where the effect is immediate and obvious. For instance, you don’t have to intellectualize to find LOONEY TUNES and Rodney Dangerfield to be outrageously funny. Wit and humor can be ‘athletic’ and scored in terms of hit or miss. It may not be as precise as who wins the 100 m sprint, but successful comedies make a lot of people laugh. They deliver the goods and score the points. AIRPLANE! is a good example of a successful laugh-riot. To be sure, there are comedies like Jacques Tati’s PLAYTIME, a commercial failure, that require some degree of patience and aesthetic sensibility, albeit more as appreciation of their cinematic vision & imagination than easy laughter.
In contrast, there’s no need to think about AIRPLANE! It may be childish and stupid, but it really packs the punches. And Woody Allen was the great athlete of wit and humor in the early 70s. Whatever one thinks of Allen personally, it’s impossible not to laugh like crazy watching stuff like TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN, BANANAS, SLEEPER, and LOVE AND DEATH. Even the more sophisticated jokes were plainly funny and didn’t fall back on conceits. We felt the impact intuitively and immediately, just like we know a KO in boxing or a triple axle jump in figure skating when we see one. And here was the main difference between Allen and someone like Godard or Bergman in the 1970s. While your average cinephile could see what was special about a 1950s Bergman movie or an early Godard film, the films of Godard and Bergman had gotten so esoteric, personal(bordering on private), and confusing by the early 1970s that critics and experts were necessary to explain their meanings and their potential worth as works of art or something or other. Were the early 1970s films of Godard and Bergman difficult or confusing because they were so deep, profound, ahead-of-the-time, intelligent, intellectual, or some such, OR did Godard and Bergman fall into a funk and wallow in solipsism to fool others(and themselves) that they were grappling with thorny and important issues? In contrast, the early 1970s comedies of Allen don’t need any kind of justification. They are among the funniest movies ever made. They are like KO’s in boxing, like perfect landings in gymnastics. They may not be cinematically innovative or necessarily original even in wit, but the fact is Allen was making the hoops and adding up the scores.
LOVE AND DEATH. Total Hilarity.
But Allen felt that NY intellectuals, even while admiring of his wit, didn’t take him seriously as an artist, satirist, or thinker. He noticed that most of the ‘serious’ attention was being paid to film-makers like Bergman, Antonioni, Godard, Bunuel, Kubrick, Bresson, and the like. (Even Truffaut, whose films had become rather tame, was winning more accolades than Allen who was admired essentially as an intelligent clown like Mel Brooks.) On the one hand, Allen wanted to mock the intellectuals and serious arteests for being so full of themselves, but on the other hand, he suspected maybe they were onto something that always eluded his kind of talent of wit and humor. Maybe there was a depth and profundity in the works of Bergman and Godard that eluded his creativity that could make fun of stuff but not create stuff. Maybe he was just a parodist. Parody, no matter how good, is parasitic on another’s creation. Also, while parody could expose and mock what is stupid in something taken to be serious, it could also an envy for something one couldn’t create oneself. Allen had wit superior to just about anyone in the film business, but maybe it was just shallow and pokes fun at things without meaning or depth. (Humor is precious commodity, and few people have it. But then, why do so many funny people want to be taken ‘seriously’? Robin Williams wasn’t content to be a clown and took several serious roles, the best being in INSOMNIA or FISHER KING, though something of a comedy-drama-fantasy. It’s been said that comedy is most difficult to do. It has to work like a song, and we know it isn’t easy to write a pop melody. So, genuinely funny people have a special gift. In a way, Mozart’s talent in AMADEUS was presented as essentially light and comic in contrast to the plodding ‘seriousness’ of Salieri. Serious drama doesn’t need effect whereas comedy does. Even a serious drama that only good and hardly great is passable as drama. It’s no great success but no failure either. In contrast, comedy has to produce laughter. There is no middle ground. Either it works or it doesn’t. Perhaps, the reason why naturally funny people seek out serious roles is because people devalue what comes naturally to themselves while envying what others have. What may seem like a precious gift to most of us may seem rather ordinary to someone like Robin Williams who could crack a funny joke per second. He breathed funny stuff from morning to night. It was like air, and maybe he found no special pleasure in humor. It’s like a smoker with lifetime supply of cigarettes. It could also be that the funny person finds serious material even more challenging in some ways. Comedy doesn’t need meaning or depth to be successful. It just has to make people laugh. Same with a song. Never mind the lyrics or depth. It works with a catchy tune. In contrast, a serious drama, novel, or film has to relate some truth about life. It can’t just be about effect. A decent-enough serious work can remind us of the familiar ‘lessons’ about life, but a truly great serious work reveals something startling about the mind & soul, power, society, and/or history. [To be sure, some may argue that even great serious works are more about effect or ‘form’ than about depth or meaning. After all, the meaning of any Shakespeare play can be summed up with a few sentences. What makes them remarkable is the artful use of language for expressive and emotional effect. Still, the effect in serious works takes more time to grow, develop, and emerge. It’s about exploration as well as expression. Comedy is like popping candy in your mouth. Serious drama is like slow preparation of a meal. Also, even if everything that can be said about life has been said, a serious work conveys how every person and every experience are as powerfully singular & unique as they are part of the larger pattern of humanity and history. As pleasurable as humor is, it is not a deep emotion but a passing sensation. And in the end, life is nothing to laugh about, as the sad death of Robin Williams made clear. Also, there’s a thin line between people laughing with you or at you. It could be Robin Williams could no longer escape his personal problems with non-stop jokes, especially as humor must have grown tiresome to him who couldn’t help but think funny all the time. Besides, even in comedy plays and movies, humor isn’t enough. A narrative can never be a series of jokes like in standup comic. In the end, there has to be something more than funny. FANDANGO and MIDNIGHT RUN are very funny but memorable because they offer something that sinks in deeper than laughter. In the face of the great tragedies of life and history, humor is at best therapeutic and escapist. It doesn’t address the big questions about life. Humor shrivels in face of Horror. In the end, even Mozart who was so full of gaiety & comic brilliance in AMADEUS is faced with the problems of politics, power, decline, guilt over his father, illness, and looming death, none of which can be adequately addressed in comic mode. Humor can sometimes be wielded as a sharp satirical instrument against the stupid and the powers-that-be, but it is also often a disingenuous form of escapism from the problems of life. In our day and age, humor and funny stuff are more often than not the tools of the powers-that-be. While humor and ‘funnery’ can be used to mock and lampoon the powerful, the powerful can also use them to control the masses. In BRAVE NEW WORLD, people are treated to funny stuff and all sorts of pleasures. Feeling ‘free’ with fun and pleasure, they never ask the big questions about power and history. Their only reality is the here-and-now of pleasure and funnery within the system that controls them from cradle to grave. There is no need to think of any other reality or alternative, past or present. In the West, Jews are the ruling elites, and they use their control of the media to make fun of people they don’t like, the kind of people who might challenge and undermine the Jewish grip on power. Jewish writers, Jewish comics, Jewish directors, Jewish actors, and etc. use TV, movies, and print media to ‘punch down’ at white gentiles who are derided as ‘white trash’, ‘rednecks’, ‘racists’, and other such epithets. Late Night TV Comedy Shows serve the Establishment Industry, and the comics have usually been insiders like Jay Leno or David Letterman who defer to the Establishment Parties. In a way, the Democratic Party’s reputation as a ‘progressive’ organ also allows the Jewish powers-that-be to get away with murder, especially since the ‘new leftism’ has been revamped to promote little else but the homo agenda closely tied to globo-Jewish elites. With elite Jewish Power bundled with the so-called ‘progressive’ rhetoric of the Democrats, even Jewish oligarchs and moguls can get away with anything just by muttering the right kinds of words. Also, the media that are owned by their own tribesmen aren’t going to target them. Why not just make fun of Evangelicals and white gun-owners instead?) Thus, in films like ANNIE HALL, MANHATTAN, and STARDUST MEMORIES, Allen wanted to have the cake and eat it too. He would adopt various styles of ‘art cinema’, all the while mocking ‘intellectual’ pretensions. Allen somewhat associated American Wasps with the Nordics in Ingmar Bergman films, but Allen eventually lost interest in the Wasps for two reasons. (Jews of Allen and Kubrick’s generation grew up in awe of Wasp preeminence when US and UK dominated the world, and Kubrick’s films also reflect an Anglo-obsession. Steven Spielberg could be the last of the Jewish breed that grew up with Anglo-Americans as the icons of American Prowess and Manhood. J.J. Abrams, who grew up in a Jewish-dominated America, has no respect for white gentiles as he goes about filling STAR WARS sequel with a gorillian black guy as future impregnator of a white girl. In some ways, the Anglosphere is more powerful than ever with US being the sole superpower and with the Americanization of EU, Latin America, and East Asia. American-style English language is firmly entrenched as lingua franca around the world. But even as Anglosphere grows ever more powerful, Wasps in it become less influential and consequential. The New World Order is more like the Anglowicz Sphere that is dominated by Jews and their homo proxies.) In the end, Woody Allen just didn’t feel that Wasps were his kind of people. (Besides, as a famous celebrity he’d gotten his fill of sexual delights with shikses. Forbidden fruit as daily fare isn’t special anymore, especially when you know that the ONLY reason women have sex with you is because you’re a celebrity.) In a way, one of Allen’s best films, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS is about a man’s search for identity and roots in his darkest hour. If most of Allen’s characters are rootless individuals — even their Jewishness is an attitude and eccentricity than heritage and loyalty — who live for the present, the Jon Landau character of CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS feels a connection to forbears and larger Jewish community. This part of him is moving & meaningful but also serves as a crutch to lean on in desperation. Identity and heritage are meaningful, but like morality and spirituality, people often turn to them for impure reasons. Still, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS is that rare Allen film that presents characters as something more than modern individuals living for the here-and-now, with no direction home. And as contemptible as the Jon Landau character is, there’s no denying the measure of meaning he finds in the remembrance of roots and family in his time of troubled anxiety. It is a realization that none of just materialized out of thin air, arose out of pages of a book, or walked off the movie screen like Jeff Daniels character in THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO. Despite all the peoples and things we attach ourselves to in the modern world, we are the product of our parents and grandparents who, prior to rapid globalization and deracination of the world, had a sense of roots and identity. Also, meaningful continuity of identity through time(as opposed to mere identity of individuality) depends on the passing down of culture, heritage, and family history. Landau’s character is more than an individual because he feels a connection to Jewish life and culture of his parents. The connection between him and his late father isn’t one of individual-to-individual but Jewish-father-to-Jewish-son. And to maintain that cultural connection, he has to bequeath more than ideas of liberty and individuality to his own children. (After all, even a poor Jew can pass down Jewish culture-as-compass to his children whereas a rich Jew who only cares about abstract principles and material success will leave his children stranded with only fashion & money as the meaning of life. In the end, even a poor Jew with identity is richer than a rich Jew who lost his identity. Culture is something that can be passed down forever no matter how rich or poor a people may be. In contrast, material success and liberty change drastically from parent to child, and in and of themselves, they mean nothing and must attach themselves to things to gain meaning. In our time, they mostly attach to pop culture, fashion, and political correctness with its empty slogans about ‘diversity’ and ‘gay pride’.) But he is torn and corrupted by insatiability of modern ego for which anything is justified for the sake of self-satisfaction. Identity and heritage, as rich as they are, are wearying to the modern soul who prizes autonomy and freedom. (It’s like the Jewish cop in David Mamet’s HOMICIDE whose immersion into Jewish Community leads to headaches and hassles but also to meanings that had been missing in his life: Meanings he’d subconsciously been craving without knowing it.) Culture and community are often burdensome, but then, there are also ways an egotist can exploit them for self-aggrandizing reputation and respect. We see some of that in CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS and even more so in BLUE JASMINE. The affluent and their pet causes to show that they are Good People.
Much of Bergman’s final output dealt with issues of ancestry, family, and history. An artist who’d mostly made films about modern neurotic individuals detached from past and history reached back into his childhood and family. Bergman had made films about parents and children before — WILD STRAWBERRIES, VIRGIN SPRING, AUTUMN SONATA, etc — , but it with FANNY AND ALEXANDER(Bergman’s THE GODFATHER in a way) that a sense of something deeper and bigger began to emerge. It wasn’t just about parent-as-individual and child-as-individual but a saga that added up to a larger sense of history connecting, by implication, everyone from Bergman’s own children and grandchildren to Bergman’s parents and grandparents .CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS was a sign that Allen too might move in that direction but he didn’t. In the end, Allen discovered that the Bergman way was not his way.
Even as Allen showered fulsome praise on Ingmar Bergman in many interviews, he had an easier rapport with the films of Fellini. STARDUST MEMORIES, a riff on 8 ½, is easier to take than something like INTERIORS or ANOTHER WOMAN; also, the worst parts of HANNAH AND HER SISTERS are the moments when Allen goes Bergmanesque, going so far as casting Max Von Sydow in a supporting role. Allen was looser and more natural when working with Italian-American characters in films like BROADWAY DANNY ROSE(probably his best film), RADIO DAYS, and BULLETS OVER BROADWAY. Though Jewish-Americans have certain gripes about the ‘greaseballs’ for their oily ways and mafia violence against Jewish gangsters, they also saw Italian-Americans as something like ‘white niggers’, a fellow ethnic tribesmen also trying to claw their way into Wasp power and privilege. Also, as Northern Europeans traditionally saw Italians — at least Southern Europeans — as less white or ‘not really white’, the hook-nosed and curly-haired Jews were bound to feel a degree of affinity with the ‘dagos’. Also, Italian-Americans were expressive and emotive like the Jews, which set both groups apart from the rather reserved and taciturn Wasps of Anglo, German, and Scandinavian backgrounds(and Poles as well) — among the lighter-skinned northern Europeans, it is the Irish and Scotch with a reputation for personality and pugnacity though, of late, they’ve either become as ‘bland’ and ‘white-bread’ like the Wasps or degenerated into a bunch of ‘whiggers’. Indeed, even though a Liberal Wasp may have more in common with a Liberal Jew ideologically, the Jew may still get on better with a conservative Italian-American. Behind closed doors, both like to talk shit.

The ‘athleticism’ or athletocentrism of American culture drives Americans to prove their worth in the most blatant way. Though the Hollywood ‘pitch’ — do-or-die on a proposed project in a matter of minutes — has been oft-ridiculed, the advantage(at least from the perspective of competition) is that the American product is more likely to be a winner with the masses. Most audiences of entertainment don’t seek deep meaning or truth. They want have a good time or feel easy sentiments(often gushily mistook for passion) in no uncertain terms. So, even though FORREST GUMP and SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION are shamelessly manipulative, they made millions feel the sweep of emotions and sob & smile in generic rapture.
While a great film, a genuine work of art, can have powerful impact on the audience — think of BICYCLE THIEVES, FORBIDDEN GAMES, SEVEN SAMURAI, I VITELLONI, TIME OF THE GYPSIES, SIBERIADE, etc. — they almost always offer something to think about, something to discover. There remain veins of gold to be mined, which is why lively discussions of Shakespeare’s works continue to this day. In contrast, a movie like FORREST GUMP or SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION might wash over you one time — maybe not even that — , but a careful viewer simply wouldn’t miss all the cheap manipulations planted throughout. And there’s no reason to revisit such a movie except for sociological interest or tawdry know-how on mass manipulation. Even so, given the fact of mass taste, there’s no denying that FORREST GUMP and SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION are impressive cultural-athletic feats in working over an audience. They know what buttons to push in the field of mass psychology and ‘pathosology’(the science of pathos — ‘bathosology’ might be useful too). Whether one thinks such buttons should be pushed in such manner is beside the point when it comes to the issue of commercial success in terms of giving the audience what they want. As crowd-pleasing feats, both movies are grand slams, no question about it. Same could be said of TOY STORY, a movie I detest but nevertheless could understand its mass appeal.
Many Jews are heavy hitters in the field of cultural-athletic or culturathletic competition. A great quarterback has to assess the situation, know the strengths and weaknesses of his own team and the opposing team, and devise and execute plays that will gain the greatest yardage. Jews in popular culture play the game the same way. They assess the situation in real terms of ‘what do the audience want?’, ‘what kind of talent can we assemble?’, ‘where to we get the money?’, ‘how do we promote the product?’, ‘what buttons do we push?’, and ‘how do we hook the audience for more?’
SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. We know that prisons are now filled with muscled Negroes who rape 'white boys' in the ass, but Hollywood gives us a white boy learning wisdom from a Magic Negro. This movie is well-made tripe that pushes all the right buttons but falls apart on every level if you think about it. On the other hand, some might say it is a slyly subversive movie about Jewish Power. Though the prison warden is a Bible-Thumping Christian, he looks like a money-grubbing Hollywood Jewish mogul who cooks the books for maximum profit.
FORREST GUMP. White Gump tries to save Black Gump. The best formula for racial harmony is for most men to have 70 IQ and low testosterone. A world of white gumps and black gumps will get along like the muppets. Of course, blacks are less likely to be gumps than grumps who beat up white boys who end up with bumps(on their heads). Still, given blatantly anti-white films like MISSISSIPPI BURNING and FRIED GREEN TOMATOES, a film like FORREST GUMP was praised by some Conservatives and jeered by some Liberals as not being 'angry' and 'committed' enough. After all, Pat Buchanan liked it.
Even though the biggest American cultural products have been thin artistically and intellectually, their expertise(and even brilliance) as crowd-pleasers cannot be denied. After all, no one seeks meaning in a sports game. It’s about the thrill and excitement, the suspense and drama, the highs and lows, and the rapturous moment of victory. If in sports not everyone can win — after all, only one team wins the Superbowl — , everyone can made to feel like a winner in a movie since the movie-makers almost always have the bad guy defeated by the good guy rooted on by billions of audiences all over the world. A grand slam that wins the baseball game is an objective fact, a real feat. The pass that wins the Superbowl is an objective fact, a real feat. And some of the great successes of Hollywood almost reach the level of objective fact in having pushed exactly the right buttons on the audience who hunger for thrill, excitement, triumph, and rapture. (The real triumph of Hollywood is not the formula of good-guy-beats-the-bad-guy, boy-gets-girl, or the happy-ending. After all, any national cinema can offer as much. Even the cheapest Mexican Western can feature a good guy beating the bad guy. Even a shoestring-budget Filipino movie can show a boy getting the girl. The real objective fact or ‘objective feat’ of Hollywood is in the expense and expertise in all the departments that turn the basic formula into Movie Magic.) Like feats in sports, much of the success and power of American culture can be ‘measured’, which is why box office numbers have become so integral to discussion of American cinema. Industry people talk of movies the way sports commentators talk of baseball and football statistics. It’s almost like a forum on horse-racing. (Some would say Hollywood is more like Wall Street and Las Vegas.) In this sense, MONEYBALL, more than NASHVILLE(1975 film by Robert Altman), serves as an apt metaphor of what American culture is all about. It’s about finding the most ‘objective’ ways to come out on top. It’s like the old lady in the 1980s Wendy’s commercial said, "Where’s the beef?" In other words, don’t gimme any fancy talk about what makes a good burger; gimme the burger with the meat. Similarly, MONEYBALL is about the rise of the ‘objective’ numbers-crunchers over the experts with esoteric opinions and personal ‘wisdom’. Numbers don’t lie according to MONEYBALL.
MONEYBALL - Fat Jew who can crunch numbers know best. In politics, there is Nate Silver. In JURASSIC PARK, there is the fat Jewish guy who looks like Abe Foxman.
Now, none of this can be used to establish the cultural, artistic, or intellectual superiority of American products. If most people have mass taste and if the entertainment industry gives the masses what they want — most accessible and immediately gratifying — , then, more often than not, a lot of stupid movies will be made, and Adam Sandler movies(that are really dumb) are a good example of that. On the other hand, given the choice between dumb dumb movies and smart dumb movies, even the dummies will go with the latter. Almost all comedies play to the ‘lowest common denominator’, but some do it with genuine cleverness(even brilliance at times) — like AIRPLANE! and SPACEBALLS — while most are just plain dumb. (And some comic strips, though hardly deep, are works of genius or at least ingenuity.) So, even the ‘dumb’ stuff can be the work of real wit and skill. Take the SIMPSONS, a show which I cannot hate enough and makes me wanna grab a shotgun and shoot every character, BUT it is loaded with cleverness and talent. It is filled with moronic characters, but it’s clearly not the work of morons but professionals who know the rules of comedy. (BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD is ugly and demented too, but its full immersion into caricature makes it easier to take. In contrast, SIMPSONS features gross caricatures but also asks us to identify with them as genuine characters with real biographies and pathos. BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD is firmly situated in Pop-landia. We never ask who their parents are or how they manage to pay the rent on the house. In contrast, we are supposed to see the gross and disgusting Simpsons as part of Americana. Mike Judge did his cartoon version of Americana with KING OF THE HILL with characters who situated were somewhere between realistic and caricature, and it worked better. He didn’t turn people into shit who are then supposed to be seen as gold. Not that I was ever a fan of KING OF THE HILL, but Judge understands something Matt Groenig the booger-eater does not. You can’t go full-caricature and full-human at the same time. You can’t do Robert Crumb and EIGHT IS ENOUGH at once.) Though sports aficionados know all the ins and outs, even non-experts can easily grasp the basic rules, ‘get’ the excitement, and know why Player A or Team A is the winner and Player B or Team B is the loser. To be sure, not all sports have the same appeal, and not all sports have obvious outcomes. For example, certain events are scored by judges, and politics or corruption(bribery) sometimes enter into play, as have often been the case in boxing, gymnastics, and figure skating in the Olympics. Also, even when judges are fair, they may see things of merit or demerit that most viewers do not. In some sports, victory can range from obvious to dubious. KO in boxing leaves no doubt who the winner is, but when it goes to the scorecards, it’s sometimes up for grabs at the mercy of ‘politics’ or commerce. (Also, the partially subjective ranking of players and teams affects the match-ups that may prove to be decisive, especially in college sports with so many competitors.) Even so, determining success and failure in sports is never as subjective as in arts and culture, and even in sports where judges score the performances, the audience is likely to agree with the experts more often than not.
No Amount of White Power Ideology could beat Jesse Owens in the Olympics. Owens established the fact of racial differences and black superiority in sprinting, just like Joe Louis and other black boxers established the black superiority in fighting, which is why so much of the racial violence in America is black on white/non-black. Blacks are tougher/better fighters and more aggressive by nature to boot due to dynamics of evolution. Power of Evolution trumps hopes of Social Revolution.
And indeed, this was why sports was the field in which White Power was threatened before it was in other fields. For, even though cultural experts could go on demeaning the worth and significance of black popular music in favor of ‘white music’, one could not argue with the fact that Negroes were knocking out ‘white boys’ in boxing and out-sprinting whites guys on the track field. One could make a cultural argument that ‘white music’ was more advanced and civilized than ‘black music’ or that ‘Aryan Art’ was superior to ‘degenerate Jewish modernist culture’, but when Joe Louis KO’d Max Schmeling and when Jesse Owens outran and out-jumped the German runners, one simply couldn’t argue with the results or rationalize them. (Of course, there are white nationalist types who attempt such arguments, e.g. "Blacks are not athletically superior; it’s just that they can run faster, jump higher, punch harder, and etc, but you see, there are OTHER kinds of athleticism." This is all very amusing since it sounds remarkably like Negroes arguing that whites don’t have higher IQ but only have better facility for logic and reasoning; you see, there are other kinds of intelligence, like the ability to wiggle one’s ass while rolling one’s eyes.) And this is why Jews loved to promote black athletics because it’s been one area where whites could not demonstrate their superiority by sophistry or pseudo-intellectualizing. If the world were populated with only Jews and blacks, most Jews would hate and fear blacks as a lot of blacks would be attacking, robbing, raping, and murdering Jewish folks. Why isn’t Jewish fear of blacks what it should be?
We need to look back to history for answers. In the first half of the 20th century, blacks were better behaved than in the second half because they feared the united force of the white community in both the South and the North. So, there was less need for Jews to fear blacks. Black fear of white power made them behave better, and this meant acting better with Jews as well. Also, especially with the horrors of WWII and Jewish involvement in leftist causes, Jews sympathized with blacks. (Also, Jewish sympathy for blacks at the expense of white gentiles who are vilified for ‘racism’ is a dirty means to cover up Jewish anti-black prejudice that was and still is considerable. Blacks remember many instances of Jews who exploited them and sucked them dry in sports, music, entertainment, organized crime, and etc., and indeed, there’s long been a Black School of History that made Jews out to be the special blood-suckers of the black community. This tradition is carried on by Louis Farrakhan to this day. While it’s true that many Jews did rip off blacks — but then, many Jews ripped off other Jews, and many blacks ripped off other blacks — , there is also the issue of envy and resentment that blacks have toward any group that does better than them. Anyway, Jews value the symbolic unity between Jews-as-Holocaust-People and Blacks-as-Slavery-People, and it just won’t do for the Narrative to point out that Jews in the past had often been just as ‘racist’ as any other white group. So, Jews make a lot of noise about ‘white racism’ to cover up their own against the black community. Of course, if white gentiles were to point out Jewish transgressions against blacks, it would be deemed as ‘antisemitic’.) And even when many blacks began to get unruly in the second half of the 20th century, Jews had less need to fear blacks since Jews were smarter, more successful, could afford to move to nice/safe areas, and enjoy the privileged life. Though Jews had no love for urban black thugs, Jews nevertheless perceived white gentiles as their main rivals, and therefore, Jews exploited the moral issue of black plight to morally blackmail the white community, all the while aiding and abetting the oppression of Palestinians in Israel/Palestine, of course. (Back then, before gaining total supremacy in all elite areas of American Power, Jews faced Wasps who were above them and blacks who were below them. Even though Jews feared black crime, they knew they could always move away from it. Just make enough money and move to a better neighborhood with few or no blacks. Jews could flee from blacks but not from whites, especially Wasps, because the white elites possessed what Jews wanted. For Jews to get what they wanted, they had to deal with whites at the upper echelons. Jews could climb above the blacks in the ghetto but had to climb into bastions of white elite power. Jews merely needed to take flight from blacks, but they had to take the fight to the Wasps in order to be King of the Hill. So, the main Jewish struggle was against white elite power to gain dominance over big industries and big institutions. Jews thought it would be an epic struggle, but as it happened, the deracinated Country-Club-ized Wasps gave up the fight all too easily and became pathetic collaborator ‘cucks’ of the Jews. One reason for the sudden collapse of White Elite Power was Jewish control of the academia and media totally demoralized White Power and White Prestige. For white elites to keep their privilege, they had to appear repentant for their historical ‘sins’. Today, Jews keep peddling the cult of ‘white guilt’ not so much to gain power/dominance, which is firmly in their hands, but to secure it for all time lest the white masses realize that the white elites are more than willing to sacrifice white mass interests to keep their own privilege as ‘cucks’ of their Jewish Globalist masters. For most of American History, white masses took it for granted that white elites were looking out for them, and this had indeed been the case. But, white masses had been kept in the dark about the Elite Revolution — a revolution that happened quietly within halls of power — whereupon Wasps surrendered prestige and dominance to the Jews in both Liberalism and Conservatism. Disney is a good example of how a once proud Wasp-held company passed into the hands of what are essentially Jewish kiddie-pornographers. It’s like a sports team keeping the same name and symbols but having a new owner and entirely new coaching staff. As such, white elites went from representing the white masses to serving Jewish Globalists. Look what the likes of Tony Blair, David Cameron, and the Clintons must do in order to keep their white elite ‘cuck’ privilege. The Donald Trump Campaign exposed the nature of the Silent Elite Revolution. The huge discrepancy between white masses supporting Trump and white ‘cuckservative’ elites trying to reassure their Jewish bosses that they have things under control is hilarious to behold.) So, more than any white group, affluent Jews could safely remove themselves from dangerous blacks while, at the same time, making the most noise about white ‘oppression’ and ‘exclusion’ of blacks, made all the easier because Jews came to dominate most of mainstream media shaping mass perceptions. Indeed, notice how the national Jew-run media say almost nothing about the racial profiling policy in NY city — known as ‘stop and frisk’ — but scapegoat George Zimmerman not only as a ‘racist white’ guy but as a racial profiler. Just like Israel can have the most restrictive immigration policies in the Free World while European nations are expected to open their borders to millions of Muslims, Africans, and Asians, rich Jews in ‘liberal’ cities can resort to various draconian controls against dangerous blacks, BUT a lower-middle class Hispanic guy like George Zimmerman is smeared and attacked for the mere ‘transgression’ of noticing patterns such as the fact that young black males commit the bulk of the crime in America. It’s the Jewish Way to play dirty.
George Zimmerman the 'white Hispanic'
Favored Policy of 'liberal' and 'progressive' Jewish-Homo-dominated New York: STOP AND FRISK THE NEGRO
Anyway, it was true enough that White America in the past sought to keep the power and dominance, and it used the control of elite institutions to rationalize its prestige and dominance, even superiority. They could more easily do this in the arts and culture since ‘winners’ were determined by insiders and experts who, despite their dedication to fairness, often rigged the competition, consciously or subconsciously, to favor their own kind. (And of course, Jews-Homos-and-Negroes do the same thing today, using politically correct standards to degrade inconvenient truths while favoring even blatant falsehoods that fit their Procrustean agenda. Black Lives Matter or BLM is built on a total lie. Thus, a charlatan like Stephen J. Gould is still respected as a hero-scholar in many circles despite recent revelations of his willful fraudulence, whereas an impeccable scholar like Jason Richwine has been blacklisted and banished from even a Conservative organization like Heritage Foundation for discussing the truth of general IQ differences among various racial groups. Politically Correct types who took over the humanities and social sciences now even proclaim that objectivity is neither possible nor desirable and profess that the true mission of academia must be to promote ‘progressive’ agendas regardless of the factual validity of their premises. Some even call for outright censorship of certain objective truths since it might empower the ‘racists’ and throw a monkey wrench into the Narrative and the Agenda.
To be sure, not all Politically Correct types are the same. If smart Jews use Political Correctness for what are ultimately tribal Jewish-Supremacist objectives — to morally browbeat and intimidate the white population(as most smart Jews know full well about general differences among the races and about the Jewish control of media and academia and much else) — , white gentile Liberals are generally brainwashed dummies who earnestly worship Political Correctness like the true believers in George Orwell’s 1984 really loved Big Brother. They are clueless about the true nature of the Jewish agenda, and this consciousness has something to do with consciousness rooted in Christianity and Northern European temperament. Christianity fostered the mind-set of earnest faith — different from the more ironic and troubled manner of faith among Jews — , and Northern European temperament, having developed in the cold, tends to be more ‘straight’ and ‘pure’. (Christianity has been the paralyzing venom of guilt-and-conscience injected into white consciousness that eventually made it possible for Jews to take over the white body and soul. Of course, Jews didn’t consciously create Christianity to weaken white people. If anything, Ancient Jews feared Christianity and did everything to suppress, even eradicate, it. And pagan Romans detested it too. Sometimes, the true character of something is revealed only by the long arc of history. It’s like the Selfish Gene according to Richard Dawkins. It operates without the conscious awareness of the organism. It is a sub-strategy than a conscious or willed strategy. Consciously, most Jews didn’t see anything good about Christianity. They saw it as heresy, as a threat. Also, as Christianity morally and spiritually empowered Christian converts against Jews who came to be despised as the killers of Christ, it could even be mortally dangerous to Jews. But because the core ethos of Christianity was pacifism and self-abnegation, everything white Christians did to maximize and further their own power, wealth, and privilege could be turned against them eventually. Jesus wasn’t a proud warrior like Muhammad who justified the use of violence and conquest. Jesus urged people to give up all wealth, turn the other cheek, and repent. So, in the long run, everything that white Christians did to increase their power could be used as evidence of their moral failing and spiritual betrayal of God and Jesus. Without this element in Western Civilization, Jews could not have taken control over the white body and soul. The long reach of Christianity’s sub-strategy has come into view only in the 20th century. It was the Achilles Heel of the West, especially after something like the World War II. For a long time, Christianity seemed the elixir-like injection of power and glory into the Western vein. But that was only when the West acted against the true spirit of Christ, indeed only with the perverse alliance of warrior deed and spiritual creed. Once the alliance was disentangled and Christian ethos had to survive on its own, it offered little else but Western Guilt for all its historical ‘sins’ of having betrayed the spirit of Christ. Jews found this useful, but then, Jews don’t want to take ‘white guilt’ too far. After all, Jews still need white Christian Soldiers to fight the Good Fight against Muslims, Russians, and Chinese. If white gentiles were to go fully and totally into turn-the-other-cheek mode, they wouldn’t be able to fight Wars for Israel and Wars for Jews. Without white gentiles as their military muscle around the world, Jews wouldn’t be able to carry out their globalist agenda. So, even as Jews re-jiggered Western Christianity to feel endless guilt about Jews and Negroes, they also remade it into a homomaniacal faith where white folks are partially redeemed if they fight fresh wars against anti-homo Muslims, Russians who don’t allow homo ‘pride’ parades, and Chinese who don’t allow homos on TV shows. Jews re-engineered Christianity so that homo sinners need not repent and atone before God; instead, god and jesus must serve the vanity of homos, the main allies of Jews.) Because of their earnest nature, Northern Europeans could be the most devoted Christians(Lutherans), the most devoted nationalists(modern Germans), the most committed class-ists(the British), the most devoted statists(Swedes), the most devoted ‘progressives’(all over Northern Europe today). Jews prefer to think and lead. Northern Europeans prefer to believe and follow. If a Jewish maid served a rich gentile lord, she would be angling for ways to undermine his privileged status and would be personally offended if he said, "come here and suck my dick, Jew bitch" But if a Northern European maid served a rich Jewish lord, she would try to serve dutifully and would meekly comply if he said, "come and suck my dick, shikse whore". While Jews can be as nasty and virulent as Nazi Germans, it’s unlikely that Jews could worship a Jewish Hitler like the Germans did with the real Hitler. Jews may passionately SUPPORT certain causes and movements, but they generally don’t like to SERVE them, whereas countless Germans became completely and mindlessly devoted to Hitler. They surrendered their minds and souls to Der Fuhrer. If a Jewish Leftist serves himself, a Northern European Leftist serves others, especially the Jews(and increasingly the homos, the people favored by Jews as their #1 ally. If you want to please Jews, it isn’t enough to please them; you must also appease the friends of Jews. Because American Conservatives are so slavish to Jews, it’s only a matter of time before they too bend over to be buggered in the ass by the homo agenda. If it pleases Jews, it must be good). Jews think, "We deserve the power" whereas Northern European types feel, "we need to serve the power."

If you wanna know the true nature of the Jewish personality, look no further than the mug of the vile and hideous creature named Rachel Abrams.
The souls of too many Jews are as ugly as the face of Rachel Abrams. Even though Hollywood has often used pretty goyesses to play Jewish characters, thus fooling a lot of people that Jews are "just like the rest of us, only more tragic and sad and thus in need of sympathy", the truth is people like Rachel Abrams are all too common in the Jewish community. This horrible bitch wrote the following lines about Palestinians: "Then round up his captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women — those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others — and their offspring — those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god — as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose." Ugly Abrams totally overlooks the fact that Palestinians have been resisting Zionist oppression and occupation for several decades. She doesn’t seem to be troubled by the fact that Jewish communists killed million times the people killed by Palestinians. As with Madeline Albright who, like Lazar Kaganovich, was pitiless about the countless innocents starved and diseased to death by Zio-American-enforced sanctions, Rachel Abrams found sadistic pleasure in the idea of Palestinians getting butchered like cattle. And John Podherotz of COMMENTARY, who never stops bleating about ‘antisemitism’ and ‘racism’, goes out of his way to praise Abrams whose vile screed makes Hitler’s MEIN KAMPF sound like Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. This is how Jews fight, and this is what white folks are up against, but most of mainstream American Conservatism thinks there is no higher cause or glory than sucking up to the likes of Podherotz and his ilk. By the way, Abrams was a close friend of Jennifer Rubin whose accusation of ‘racism’ against Jason Richwine got him fired from the Heritage Foundation. We know that Jews totally control American Liberalism, so when even Conservatives fall all over themselves to appease Jews, only an ignoramus would be blind to the fact that Jewish Supremacists rule this country, thereby the world.

Anyway, White America did, at times, disingenuously invoke ‘dignity’, ‘nobleness’(if not nobility), ‘seriousness’, ‘sobriety’, ‘civility’, and ‘maturity’ as a means to safeguard white power and privilege from would-be competitors. Thus, even if person A was more talented than person B, person B could be favored because he was said to possess more poise and dignity as a man of civility and honor. Indeed, this is invoked even in sports, as when a player is penalized for unsportsmanlike behavior even if he didn’t commit an obvious foul. So, even if the player is the best in the game, if he acts too much like an arrogant jerk, he could be called out of the game. So, even though many blacks Jazz musicians were playing instruments more creatively and expressively than white American musicians in third rate imitations of European classical music, the Boston Brahmin often favored the latter over the former since it had more ‘dignity’ and ‘sobriety’. Of course, Jews were no dummies and recognized the sleight-of-hand that was being employed by white elites. So, Jews came up with stuff like Marx Brothers movies where zany Jews run circles around stuffy and less bright Wasps seeking to maintain superiority through the demeanor of ‘dignity’, ‘honor’, and ‘class’. And this was one reason why lots of Jewish relished the jiveass act of Jack Johnson. He didn’t merely defeat the ‘white boy’ but mocked the entire edifice of white cultural norms of superiority. He didn’t just beat white guys up but acted as clownish and unsportsmanlike in the ring as possible. He not only violated the white man’s face but the white man’s norms. It was as if he not only beat the white man but spat on his cultural foundations and raped his wife and daughter who went from fear and horror to jungle fever-ism of ‘if you go black, there’s no going back’. Jews loved this. It was as if the sheer athleticism of pure merit — dignified or not — was whupping and humiliating the pompous ass of white gentile elites who’d invoked ‘higher standards’ to protect their lesser talents — in improvisational music & sports relative to blacks AND in intelligence & verbal skills relative to Jews.
DUCK SOUP - Marx Brothers - Two Zany Jews drive a lower-class white goy crazy.
DUCK SOUP - Marx Brothers - Two Zany Jews drive a upper-class white goy crazy.
Jack Johnson taunts and destroys white man Jim Jeffries before going off to hump more white women who've lost respect for the loser white male. The appeal of  'progressivism' among white males is in allowing a Narrative of magnanimity whereby 'good' & 'repentant' white males willingly chose to accept defeat out of historical atonement. In other words, they didn't just lose but CHOSE to lose out of conscience. It offers a sense of power, indeed even over the Negro who whupped them. It also makes the white male feel morally empowered in his self-willed decision to 'do the right thing'. But in truth, he is just a loser who got his ass kicked by blacks who also steal white women from white men. All this 'radical' and 'revolutionary' posturing by white 'progressive' males is really just pathetic. It is a dishonest refusal to accept their own pathetic defeat at the hands of black savages. Also, by rooting for blacks who beat whites, these 'progressive white males' fantasize that some of that badass blackness would have rubbed off on their white-bread skin.
Ironically, what blacks and Jews were doing to the white Americans(both elites and masses) was largely inspired by the justification used by white Americans against Europe. After all, America was founded on the notion that any man with genuine talent could rise from the bottom regardless of his class of origin. In aristocratic Europe, the dumb child of the nobility held higher status and esteem over even the intelligent children of peasants, but in America, there was the ideal of the ‘natural aristocracy’ as put forth by Thomas Jefferson. It was egalitarian in the sense that anyone with natural talent shouldn’t be hampered by social obstacles. So, even if you didn’t have fancy manners of the European aristocracy — the poise and ‘dignity’ of ‘good upbringing’ — you could rise in the world with talent and diligence put to good use. Of course, Jefferson wasn’t anti-dignity and anti-manners, and, if anything, he was part of the American gentry, but the air of ‘dignity’ and manners wasn’t enough to define a man’s worth, as was still the case in aristocratic Europe where too many useless fools born into upper castes put on fancy airs despite low intelligence, character, and ability. Jefferson wanted a society of both dignity and natural talent.
Jews and blacks took it another step — though, to be sure, the rough-and-tumble populism of Andrew Jackson had already laid down the groundwork — and separated talent from ‘dignity’, especially because too many Negroes naturally felt like jumping and hollering like wild baboons — they simply couldn’t hep theyselves as 100,000s of years of evolution made them savage and aggressive — and too many Jews looked in the mirror and saw hook-nosed and wavy-haired characters who didn’t look classically ‘dignified’. Indeed, Albert Einstein’s image became iconic not only for his genius but his symbolism of substance free of style. He didn’t have to look the part of a respectable scientist to be the greatest mind of the 20th century. (The variation of this theme is found in AMADEUS where the childish and vulgar Mozart has the gift that the more respectable court composers do not.) So, even though German gentile scientists may have dressed better, acted more professionally, and exhibited finer manners, it was scruffy Einstein who made the biggest difference in science. Of course, the negative effect of such outlook is the fanciful fallacy that genius = slovenliness, which is why there are so many untalented geeks who think they are so brilliant because they rarely shower and can’t be bothered to get out of bed in the morning. Just as ‘dignity’ can be invoked to mask lack of talent, casualness can be fronted as conceit of ‘misunderstood genius’ when, in fact, most slovenly ‘bohemian’ types in arts & tech are imitative hacks with only the surfeit of originality. Similarly, just because Muhammad Ali acted the clown as a great boxer doesn’t mean acting the clown will make one a great boxer. But over the years, too many fighters in the ring seem to think they can improve their fight by showboating and putting on an act. And even though the likes of Jack Johnson, Muhammad Ali, black Jazz musicians, Albert Einstein, and the Marx Brothers often mocked the culture of respectability and ‘dignity’ as disingenuous justification for white power and privilege, they couldn’t have made their mark without the support, even if grudging, of a white society that was serious, sober, and civilized — and defined by standards of conscience, fairness, honor, and objectivity(however imperfectly it was practiced). Jews in Germany were able to achieve so much because most Germans worked hard at maintaining a clean, orderly, and efficient society. What would Einstein been able to do in black-run Zimbabwe or Detroit? He would have had a hard time just getting someone to come and fix his toilet. Jews may mock and beat up on Wasps, but Jewish success in America owed everything to the laws, social order, organization, and sober attitudes instilled in all areas of life by the Wasp elites. Suppose all the Jewish immigrants had gone to places like Mexico and Venezuela than to Anglo-American dominated United States. How would Jews have fared under a social system and cultural order(or disorder) as established by the reactionary Hispanic elites and with a population made up mostly of mestizos or mulattos who toss garbage all over the place and cling to superstitions. A people whose concept of economics is little more than exploitation, expropriation, bribery, and kickbacks?
Anglo-America had its share of corruption too(scandalous at times), but the idea was nevertheless to create real wealth and then steal some of it, whereas the prevailing idea in Latin America was to steal the wealth even before it was created, which is why Latin America did such a poor job of creating any wealth. It’s like you gotta let the cow grow big and fat before you milk it; you don’t milk it before it’s able to produce milk. Of course, the African way is kill it and eat it right away and expect other nations, especially rich white ones, to provide the free milk. Anyway, Jews have been milking America of much of its milk. The fact is there never would have been such bountiful milk if not for the pasturing groundwork of sober and hardworking Wasps, but all Jews ever do is hiss, bitch, and whine about white America. (And of course, some white goyim do likewise to satisfy their radical narcissism of playing edgy armchair bohemian revolutionaries.) Even though Jews preferred to immigrate to Anglo-America than to Latin America — incidentally, weren’t Jews ‘racist’ in favoring whiter America than racially more diverse Latin America for immigration destination? — and reaped great rewards by building successes upon the foundations of Anglo-America, Jews exploit the resentments of Latin Americans against the ‘yanqui’ and ‘gringo’ to subvert and weaken White America.
Just think, Anglo-America provided far more opportunities for Jews(to gain wealth, influence, and power) than Latin-America ever did, but American Jews, with their great leverage, are now trying to Latin-Americanize North America to undermine White American Power that is perceived as a potential challenge to the permanence of Jewish supremacist power. Gratitude simply doesn’t exist in the Jewish vocabulary. (Also, Jews are like a vampire parasite that goes into frenzied delirium when sucking on the blood of the goy host that they can’t stop even if they wanted to. It’d be like expecting a mosquito to take a sip of the blood. A mosquito will suck as much blood as it can, indeed to the point where it’s nearly bursting with blood. Jews are no different. They are so ecstatic about sucking so much wealth and grabbing so much power in the world that they can’t stop. They will even risk war with Iran and Russia to have more. They will even risk rousing the ire of right-wing patriotic parties in EU and US by pushing for more Diversity Supremacism in order to expand Jewish power.)
Jews are like a blood-sucking mosquito. A mosquito will not and cannot stop until it's about to burst with the blood of the host. Same with Jews. Jews are so ecstatic about sucking on the blood of the gentile world that they will go on and on and on, even if it threatens their well-being and maybe leads to another kind of Holocaust situation. Look at Jewish behavior in Wall Street, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, State Department, Law Firms, and etc. Jews will even bring the world to brink of war with Russia and China in order to stay on top and suck more blood from rest of humanity.
A people whose mental habits formed over thousands of years in the conviction that they are the Chosen People of the one and only God(and with the pride that they can outwit and fleece dimwit goyim) aren’t going to change overnight and become ‘nice’ and ‘tame’ like so many white gentiles are. The difference between Jewish Progs(‘progressives’) and White Progs is the former are nasty, aggressive, judgmental, accusatory, and self-righteous whereas the latter are self-critical, redemptive, apologetic, and sympathetic. For Jews, ‘progressivism’ is the hand to slap whites with. For whites, ‘progressivism’ is the cheek to be slapped upon(usually by Jews and Negroes). But how many white gentiles know that so many Jews are just like Rachel Abrams and Jennifer Rubin, vile hypocritical creatures who holler ‘racism’ at whites but virulently support the Zionist mass oppression of Palestinians with hideous glee and cackling viciousness?

Anyway, few people are ever consistent and prefer to mold reality like a ‘playdoh’ clay toy, which is why Jews, who were at the forefront of free speech movement in the 1950s and 1960s, are today at the forefront of speech control movement. (It’s often been said that the Left went from free speech rights to hate speech policing. There is some truth to this in the sense that the 60s college radicals invoked free speech rights in order to do as they pleased on campuses. But this overlooks one crucial fact. The radicals were in fact pushing for a kind of Speech of Intimidation or Free Screech that would shut down civil discourse/debate and enforce only their own views. The seeds of PC were there in the beginning of the so-called Free Speech Movement. Free Speech works like traffic. It needs rules and regulations in institutional settings. When it comes to Free Speech, there shouldn’t be any limits in what is said or conveyed. But there should be rules in HOW it is said. Likewise, when it comes to traffic and travel, there shouldn’t be limits on where we want to go. But there has to be rules on how we get there. We must obey traffic signals. We must travel at certain speeds in certain places. We must obey the rules; that goes for each and every driver. Free Travel doesn’t mean everyone gets to ride like a maniac as in ROAD WARRIOR or STAGECOACH. That be like post-apocalyptic scenario or like cowboys and Indians chasing/shooting one another. A person who breaks all traffic rules in the name of Free Travel is messing up the true meaning and process of Free Travel for everyone else. Free Speech works the same way. We should be able to express any view, but there has to be rules of discourse, of agreed-upon manners, rational methodology, shared principles of logic and honesty, and etc. Academia must uphold these standards. Academia should allow the pursuit of any truth or idea, but it has to uphold the proper processes of research, debate, discourse, and discussion. The Free Speech Movement threw a monkey wrench into academic and intellectual standards. It was about the freedom of students to be obnoxious, disruptive, intimidating, thuggish, and impatient without any regard to proper process of discourse whatsoever. Their idea of speech was taking over spaces and screaming and demanding stuff right away OR ELSE. These students on occasion even occupied buildings and even held deans hostage. It was less about Free Speech than about Fright Shout. They were unwilling to sit down and argue their points with mutual respect shown to the other side that disagreed. They simply wanted to scream and shout until the other side backed down out of fear. It was Mob Radicalism. And it is this mentality that has taken over today's American campuses. Just look at today’s debating styles. Blacks need not play by agreed-upon methodologies. They merely need to shout, dance, strut, rap, holler, and act like loony apes. It’s like sports. It would be pure barbarism UNLESS there are agreed-upon rules and do’s and don’ts. Otherwise, boxing matches will turn into kick-in-groin and gouge-out-eyes contests. Everyone will be biting, kicking, and tearing off limbs in football. There has to be sportsmanship. A boxer is free to do as he pleases WITHIN established rules that goes for both boxers. A boxer who kicks the opponent in the groin in the name of ‘free sports’ is missing the point. Jews and blacks are not big on sportsmanship, a sense of honor rooted in aristocraticism of Europeans. Jews love to transgress and subvert, and blacks love to jive and ugabuga holler.) When Wasps were the elites, Jews demanded total free speech protection to say whatever they wanted, but now that Jews are the elites, they want to use Speech Control Laws(aka Hate Speech Laws) to suppress criticism of Jewish power, of course in the name of protecting ‘vulnerable’ minorities. But then, on the issue of Israel and Palestinians, Jews want Zionist-imperialist ‘hate speech’ to be protected while they do their best to suppress criticism of Zionism as ‘hate speech’, even if the criticism comes from Palestinian-Americans whose families have been crushed and/or murdered by Zionist occupiers. Every group except white gentiles seems to favor self-pitying & self-righteous speech over the self-critical and self-abnegating kind. Chinese bitch endlessly about the history of Western and Japanese imperialist encroachment upon China but get incensed about critical speech about China’s treatment of Tibet. In this they are like the great majority of Jews who get all hissy about criticism of Zionist treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Negroes are utterly silent about the high levels of black-on-white violence and crime in America but bitch and holler about Trayvon Martin as some innocent victim of ‘white supremacism’ even though George Zimmerman is a Hispanic-American and even though blacks themselves have voted for the Democratic Party that did most to open the floodgates to Hispanic immigration. The nature of ‘free speech’ changes from group to group, situation to situation, with each side saying "We believe in free speech but not hate speech", which really means "Free speech for me, but not for thee." After all, ‘hate speech’ is a subjective concept. What is ‘hate’ to one group is justice to another. Zionism may be historical justice for Jews, but it is imperialist hatred to Palestinians. And who should decide which groups should be especially protected and on what criteria? Would Jews support ‘hate speech’ laws IF they could be formulated by Palestinian-Americans? Would Jews support ‘hate speech’ laws IF they could be formulated by Christian Conservatives or White Nationalists? No, Jews will only support ‘hate speech’ laws of their own devising that favors and protects. their own interests. So, just as Moses’s staff could turn into a deadly Cobra, a sword can become a crutch, a crutch can become a snake, a snake can become a gun, and so on. In a perfect world, people would be consistent, but in the real world, the Name of the Game in America is invoking ‘justice’ to essentially further special group interests, and any group that fails to understand this will lose power. Whites having lost sight of this truth, is it any wonder that white gentiles have lost the most power in the past several decades, especially as they’re the only ones who are incessantly held accountable for moral/ethical consistency?
Indeed, whites used to have the most power when they understood the malleability of ideals and principles. Jews and their parasitic allies say whites were hypocritical in the past, but all powerful peoples have been hypocritical because the very nature of power is hypocritical. The Hypocrisy of Power is evident in the Affluent White Liberal Community. It doesn’t serve White Power as a whole, but it sure safeguards and even increases status and privilege for those fortunate white gentiles who’ve mastered the Rules of the Game. For instance, privileged white Liberals rail against the ‘evil’ of ‘white privilege’, but such posturing only increases their own personal privilege as ‘good whites’ deserving of position and influence. While they don’t care about the power and interests of the white race as whole, the likes of Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews sure love their own individual privilege — justified by their own protestation against ‘white privilege’, which made them the favorite darlings of Jews who own the media. In a world where group-white-power isn’t allowed, individual-white-privilege is still availed to those who play by the Rules of the Game. So, if you’re a white goy and want to rise in the Jewish-controlled elite world, be sure to pontificate about the ‘evils’ of ‘white privilege’. It signals a collaborationist willingness to play fetch with the Jewish Globalist Supremacist Master. It’s just a variation on the rules of Old Imperialism. (Globalism is, after all, worldwide Jewish Supremacist Imperialism. The mass migrations happening all over the world are the product of Jewish Globo-Imperialist machinations, and white people are helpless to resist since they are under Jewish Globalist domination. Jewish Masters use white gentiles to destroy the Middle East & North Africa and then force Western Nations to take in those ‘refugees’ displaced by Jewish-Globalist Foreign Policy. White people may think white ‘leaders’ are looking out for them, but in fact, most prominent whites are collaborationists of the Jewish Globo-Empire than courageous representatives of their own people. They are so gutless that they don’t even stand up to the homo agenda because it happens to be the pet project of the Jewish Globalists.) If you were an Asian-Indian in the British Empire, of course, you praised the British Imperialists for spreading and sharing light of progress and civilization. Thus, certain collaborationist Asian-Indians were promoted and showered with wealth and privilege by the British overlords. Today, collaborationist white gentiles play the same game at the feet of their Jewish and homo masters, but most whites are blind to this truth because they are accustomed to America being ruled by whites for whites. As long as the myth of eternal ‘white privilege’ is sustained(despite the fact that whites have been reduced to servants of Jewish, homo, and mulatto elites), many people will carry on with the impression that ‘decent progressive whites’ are working with ‘oppressed and marginalized minorities’ to end the unfair system of ‘white privilege’ when, in fact, the two biggest privileges and powers in America today are found in the Jewish community and the homo community as the mini-me partner of the Jewish community.
George W. Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham: Privileged White Gentile Cuckservatives of Jewish Globalist Supremacists
Joe Biden and Andrew Cuomo: Privileged White Gentile Cuckerals of Jewish Globalist Supremacists
Though Jews defeated white gentiles by exploiting various forms of mental gymnastics and athleticism — Jews used sports to promote black pride and destroy white male pride, and Jews used superior wits to take over entire fields of science, law, finance, and media — , there has always been a mystical and elliptical side to Jewish consciousness that made them hunger for something more than victory in the obvious fields. This is where Jews are different from the Negroes, who are primarily concerned with direct, obvious, and immediate results. Though Jazz can get fancy and arty, most blacks weren’t into that stuff, and you’re likely to find many more white than black admirers of ‘Jazz as art form’. The reason for the rise of Rap and Hip Hop owes to their commanding volume and sheer athleticism. Muscular blacks with powerful voices could chant and rhyme thug music with da groove. Unlike clunky and clumsy Punk and Metal, Rap and Hip Hop have a sense of mastery. Listen to Punk or Metal, and you get this image of some drunken doped out fool who can barely stand or walk straight. It’s like the performer losing self-control along with the crazy music. But listen to Rap & Hip Hop, and you get this image of a gorilla warrior that is ready to pounce on your ass. Much of the violence in Punk and Metal seem self-directed. Only a Metal guy would bite off the necks of bats. Rappers would rather fight and win, shoot and win, hump and win. Rap may be repulsive but it’s also propulsive. Like it or not, it has an infectious energy and power, which is why it’s popular all around the world, from Europe to Asia to Middle East to Latin America to Africa. It’s not about art or meaning but about effectively stirring up responses in people. So, like victory in sports, the triumph of rap is something of an objective fact. The likes of Alex Kurtagic, in the manner of the ‘dignified’ white leader in the film DEAR WENDY, can intellectually pontificate about Black Metal all he wants, but the fact is that most people — not even white rightists — will be won over to music that is so awkward and in such disarray. Rap makes listeners feel like they’re the king of the jungle whereas Black Metal makes listeners feel lost in a trash heap. Rap culture is among the ugliest and most repulsive created by man, BUT there is a badassness and masterfulness at the core. Similarly, the popularity(though passed) of AMERICAN IDOL owed to its athleticism, i.e. who can sing loudest like a Negro or a Negress. Indeed, what passes for the standard of ‘great singing’ in America is now Afro-centric. Almost no Negro tries to sing like a white person, but so many white singers try to sing and sound black. The appeal of black-style singing, whether one likes it or not, is that it can be measured ‘athletically’. One can agree or disagree about various singing styles, but the power of a Negress hollering and wailing like a lascivious gorilla whore in heat cannot be denied, just like the power of Mike Tyson’s punches even if one loathes Tyson as a person. In the distant past, white folks tried to appreciate black powerfulness in voice by taming it via association with noble themes. Thus, Mahalia Jackson sang "Go Tell It on the Mountain" than something like "Mount My Big Nigga Bitch Ass!", and Paul Robeson sang something like "Ole Man River" than something like "Suck My Big Black Dick, Skanky Bitchass Ho". And of course, MLK understood the fears and hopes of the white race. He knew that the slow white boys were afraid of the stronger and more muscular Negroes, and he knew that white women were anxious about feeling Jungle Feverish feelings, and he knew what Jack Johnson’s stunt had come too early and had set back the black cause, just like Nat Turner’s rebellion. Since whites far outnumbered blacks and controlled most of the wealth and power, it simply wouldn’t do for blacks to act like they want to beat up, rob, and rape whites. MLK, especially under the tutelage of clever Jews, could see that the likes of Joe Louis the ‘Brown Bomber’ and Jackie Robinson had actually done more to fool the ‘honkey’ into believing that the Negro meant no harm and wasn’t burning with rage and lust. Thus, MLK, like Mahalia Jackson and Paul Robeson, decided to present black powerfulness in a spiritual and moral manner. A Negro trying to act totally white would have been unconvincing(and even boring), and besides, part of the white fascination and admiration of the Negro had to do with the powerful soulfulness of the Negro. Thus, MLK hollered like a gorilla BUT with the message of peace and forgiveness copped from Jesus and Gandhi. And of course, the Jewish-controlled media aided MLK, the do-goody liberal white suckers fell for it, and the white southerners made it easy for Jews and Negroes by acting like bigoted louts than by rationally admitting and explaining their fear of the stronger, more muscular, and more aggressive Negro. It was as if black pitbulls marched quietly behind MLK while white beagles viciously barked at them. Not surprisingly, the world got the impression that all-powerful & nasty beagles were threatening and harming helpless & peace-loving pitbulls. Of course, it was all a Trojan Horse trick, and since the 1960s, there’s been massive black violence against whites all over the South as your average Negro can whup and destroy a ‘white boy’ in a heartbeat. And with all the football sports mania in the South, most southern colleges are hotbeds of black muscle worship where even white conservative boys line up to get autographs from Negro athletes while white southern girls line up to be humped by them. It’s an utterly pathetic spectacle of how a once-proud people dug their own grave with vain pride(in white manhood standing tall against black manhood) and stupid worship(of black athletes who kick white male ass and take white girls). Yet, what’s come out of the South recently? Trashy novels like HELP that still harks back to the old Segregation days(while turning a blind eye to all the unpleasant violent reality since) and idiot fools like Paula Deen who endorsed Obama twice in the false hope that she would be immune from Jewish condemnation, witch-hunting, and media lynching. Or, how about Newt Gingrich who hasn’t said a word about white victims of black crime in the South but declared in 2012 that the first thing he would as president is recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. His ilk are controlled by the kind of ilk that sings hosannas to the likes of Rachel Abrams. And people wonder why American conservatism is so dumb and worthless.

Anyway, if blacks generally like things that are obvious and immediate — like rap music that makes them wanna hump-pump-thump to the music — and not least because they are more primed than other races for fuc*ing, fighting, and hollering, Jews not only want to win ‘athletically’ in the world of wit, humor, and technology(mental gymnastics) but gain prominence in areas where matters of quality and worth are open to interpretation and intellectualization, ranging from genuinely penetrating discourse to the worst kind of fabulist sophistry. There is a mystical side to everyone, and of course, there is some of this among blacks too, though it tends to be sensual than intellectual. For example, Negroes love stuff like voodoo and have turned even Christianity into a kind of voodoo disco circus. Needless to say, Jewish mysticism was far more intellectual and cerebral. Even though Jews came to value their achievements in areas with obvious winners like science, math, high-tech, humor, and the business, victories in such fields weren’t fully satisfying to Jews who aspired for meaning beyond what could be rationally measured and objectively quantified. (Jews who aspired for truth and meaning beyond the rational and objective could be in genuine pursuit of profundity or disingenuously rationalizing their objective failure in life with quasi-mystical mumbo-jumbo.) As demanding as the hard sciences are, there are empirical facts and logic that connects everything that has been verified as true. And even though business and economics are not hard sciences, winners can be quantified in terms of sales, volume, and efficiency. Though success in business is no easy task, making money is still making money and nothing more. In contrast, when the Rabbis ponder the meaning of God, there are always truths beyond truths beyond truths ad infinitum; the subject is inexhaustible and could never be quantified by human reason and calculation.
In this sense, Jews were different from the Ancient Greeks. Even though both people were highly competitive, the Greeks, who invented logic, thought they could determine winners and losers in every endeavor, even in the arts, which is why there were annual competitions in drama. Though film industries today dole out awards like Oscars and Emmys, we don’t believe that artists should create primarily to compete with other artists in cultural olympics. Ancient Jews were not competitive in that sense, with clear winners declared over losers. On the other hand, those who studied to be a Rabbi weren’t merely acquiring skills for fixed duties but to become scholar-thinkers who pondered and possibly accessed the deeper meanings of God. Thus, if most pagan priests basically carried out ritual sacrifices with animals — and sometimes even with humans — and didn’t think much about the what there doing and why, Jewish Rabbis were expected to think endlessly about the truth of God. But since there was no clear or obvious way to quantify the true essence of God, there was lots of room for mysticism and spiritual philosophizing, and this tradition was carried through into the modern era by writers like Franz Kafka and musicians like Bob Dylan whose BLONDE ON BLONDE has an allurement of both totality and impenetrability. A song like "Visions of Johanna" allows for full immersion into its space, but you aren’t sure of the brew swirling all around. The feeling is total, but the sense is uncertain(as with David Lynch’s ERASERHEAD). It’s overwhelming yet also disassociating, thus disturbed than euphoric. You can’t surrender to the music and let yourself go, as with many powerful Rock songs. It has enough of the power of Rock to wash over you(unlike Modern Art that generally allows mental space in favor of careful poring over the details for purpose of intellectualization), but instead of rapturous waves you get a lot of flotsam and debris of a mind teetering over the edge. The effect is paralyzing than pleasurable, resulting in moody paranoia, a feeling of intoxication and drowning albeit in a lucid state of one’s dissolution.

Maybe, it’s not surprising that so many modern Jews took to modernist/abstract art. Though representational art could be impressive, one could easily tell what it’s about. In contrast, the meaning of modernist/abstract art had to be pondered intellectually. The pondering, thinking process, mattered as much as the image on the canvas. And in this ‘game’, one could never tell the sure winner from the sure loser. Though lots of mental lifting could be applied to theory, analysis, and speculation, one couldn’t really quantify that one was ‘better’ than the other except in the most opaque and quasi-mystical terms. If it’s a matter of judging representational art, one could say that the painting that is closer to reality is the better painting or the winner. If it’s a matter of impressionist art, one could say the ‘better’ painting is the one that best stirs up beatific responses. I suppose we could apply some degree of ‘athletics’ with Picasso also, as his art was filled with wit and ingenuity. But what is one to say about someone like Mark Rothko, whose paintings mostly looked like soiled diapers?
It’s almost impossible for most people to look at stuff and feel any kind of joy or wonder. It’s difficult to imagine anyone declaring it to be the ‘winner’ or something ‘better’. It defies and even defiles all previous criteria of art, but then, the neo-mystical modern Jewish intellectual may ‘ponder’ its deeper meanings and declare it to be some kind of great work. Most Negroes have no patience for such thing. If you made a bunch of Negroes — even college-educated ones — sit through an Akerman film, they would start hollering like apes and riot. But a whole bunch of neurotic and intellectual-oriented Jews might ‘appreciate’ such a work and praise it as uniquely ‘profound’, ‘meaningful’, ‘radical’, ‘twenty years or two hundred or maybe even two thousands years ahead of its time’, or et. Personally, I don’t know what is so great about the soiled-diaper-paintings of Rothko, but famous Jewish art critics like Clement Greenberg saw something special in them, and I’m sure he concocted brilliant and penetrating theories as to why.
Robert Motherwell
Or consider the works of Robert Motherwell that to most sane people will just look like giant ink stains, but he too became a ‘great’ modernist artist because certain leading art critics — very often Jewish — came up with grandiose sounding claims about them. Of course, entire generations of art students followed in their footsteps because, despite all their posturing as ‘radical’ and ‘subversive’, most wanna-be artists desire nothing more than entry into the inner circle of the art world whose rules and value judgements are defined by a handful of people with incestuous connections. Personally, my rule of thumb for art & creativity is, "If I can do it, it isn’t special". Anyone can paint like Rothko or Motherwell. Great works tend to be works of technical mastery. In cases of remarkable works where technique isn’t particularly inimitable, originality becomes the main issue. Anyone can learn to draw Peanuts comic characters, but how many people could have come up with them? There lay Charles Schulz’s genius. Originality and uniqueness of vision. Of course, the truly great artists have a mastery that is inseparable from the originality. When I look something by Botticelli, I know I couldn’t do anything like it if I lived a million years and practiced art everyday. When I listen to a song like "Visions of Johanna" or "Stairway to Heaven", I know I won’t be able to compose such a song if I lived to be a 1000 yrs old and spent endless days and nights studying music. But when I look at a Rothko or Motherwell, I can’t help but feel, "anyone can do this crap, even me." When I watch a film by Chantal Akerman, I think any nitwit feminist twit could have made something like that. If most woman directors don’t make such films, it’s not for lack of talent but too much sense.
Granted, a work can have value and meaning even without ‘acrobatics’ or ‘athletic’ qualities — Jean Renoir was not a showy director like Hitchcock, Kurosawa, or Welles, but he made his share of masterpieces — , but when a film offers precious little but then pretends to impart profound truths that can only be discerned by those-in-the-know of the Emperor-Has-No-Clothes variety, it’s time to throw the towel. It just so happens that many Jews, what with their intellectual vanity, often fall for stuff like this, and not because they are dumb — many highly intelligent Jews fall for it as well — but because they hanker for mystery and profundity. (One of the appeals of snail-paced ‘art films’ among intellectual Jews is it allows their minds work on the film than the other way around. With so little happening and so slowly, the viewer can interpose his or her own ‘profound’ thoughts on the material. They get to appreciate the film as a mirror or mind-screen of their own thought process. It serves the intellectual vanity of the viewer. But then, I suspect there are some Jews who encourage such ‘art cinema’[with zero box-office prospects] as a model for other nations because, on a subconscious level, they don’t want other national cinemas to compete with Jewish-dominated Hollywood. Jews are experts at giving bogus advice to others. Surely, Jews are trolling when they advise Republicans to welcome immigrants as ‘natural conservatives’. And Noam Chomsky, for all his criticism of Zionism, diverts attention of the pressing issue of Jewish power. So, the last person any national cinema should look to for advice is someone like Jonathan Rosenbaum who will urge them to make more films like those of Chantal Akerman and Hou Hsiao-hsien.)
SLEEPER - Woody Allen with Celery and Bananas. Funny but not deep.
JEANNE DIELMAN - Woman peeling potatoes for three hours. Very very 'profound'.
Woody Allen’s comedy movies are of very high quality in wit and inventiveness, but they hold no mysteries and no secrets to unlock because his kind of humor is governed by a kind of logic, physical or emotional. Jokes can be brilliant, but the punchlines offer resolutions. In contrast, there is no end to the permutations of meaning in the works of Franz Kafka. Now, Kafka was a truly great artist, but it appears some Jews project their own Kafka-ness onto things of very little value and end up confusing their own elaboration of thought with the thin and tawdry thing itself, which is almost surely the case with the cult around Chantal Akerman, whose idea of making a film was to mope around a room naked while eating sugar from a brown bag. I mean ANYONE can make a film like that, and any intellectual can project pseudo-profundity onto such a work for whatever highfalutin ‘radical’ fetish. There is a tendency for anything to become radicalized, to go from a thing-in-service-of-something to a thing-in-service-of-itself. As every human idea or habit is the product of the egocentric nature of man, it has its own will to eventually serve itself than other things. Thus, if theorizing arose to better serve the real world, the power of theory took on a life of its own and favored abstraction over reality or insisted abstraction as the reality. Some schools of Greek Thought believed numbers were the essence of core reality. Gospel according to John says the Word preceded the World. Plato’s philosophy became exceeding abstract. This tendency could be seen in the development of the idea of God and gods. Initially, the idea of gods arose in the minds of man to make sense of the surrounding reality, e.g. certain gods were associated with specific phenomena so as to explain the workings of nature, but eventually, especially among the Ancient Hebrews and Hindus, God or gods became disassociated from forces of nature and became an idea unto Himself or themselves. Consider the disconnect between the Jewish God and the real world. The essence of the Jewish God goes far beyond forces of nature. In primitive pagan religions, particular deities were intricately linked to specific forces of nature. In contrast, as the Jewish God was an abstract and eventually a formless Being who existed independent of the world — despite His creation and control of it. How does this relate to art and film?
When film theory is sensitive to the actual art of cinema, criticism and judgement are dependent on genuine artistic worth of what’s on screen, certainly true with the works of Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, and Stanley Kubrick. Even when the works are less showy, grand, or spectacular, as in the films of Bresson and Rohmer, one’s personal theory addresses emotional responses, uniqueness of vision, or the quality of acting. Thus, theory is in service of what can be discerned and admired as unmistakable talent on screen. But when a naked woman walks back and forth in a room eating from a bag full of sugar(as Akerman does in JE TU IL EL, the ONLY way to justify such rot is by theory-detached-from-actuality-on-screen). The appeal of such highfalutin theorizing to critics of certain disposition is that it makes them feel like gods who, like the extraterrestrials in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, are beyond the ‘conventional’ norms of discourse and understanding. Their ‘wisdom’ as critics is independent of evidence on screen. Whatever pops into their minds trumps whatever is on the screen. So, if someone showed a blank screen for two hours and if these critics ‘saw’ profundity within the fields of their elevated consciousness, the work would have ‘value’. (How else did Andy Warhol get away with his atrocities with certain critics?) When critics watch the films of Welles or Mizoguchi, they are writing in service of great artists whose vision and genius are evident to even novice lovers of cinema. Critics can offer insights on the great works of real masters, but they are always at a disadvantage since they, as reverential critics, are in service of artistic genius. But even as critics seek out great art to defend and promote, they feel a certain resentment as the critic must play a secondary role to the artist. After all, master directors don’t make films about critics; instead, critics write papers about film. However, when critics watch a film by Akerman, they gain the advantage because only the game of theoretics can justify such drek. Akermania cannot exist without critics. (The culture of ‘art film’ suffered a setback when Abstract Criticism took hold in certain quarters. Criticism independent of actual evidence of artistic merit meant that critics could turn anything into ‘art’ by the way of theoretic Midas Touch. Like the value of money became divorced from gold standard, art theory was severed from demonstrable artistic merit. Artistic value became a matter of what certain well-positioned critics said. So, if these critics said Akerman is a truly great artist, the evidence or lack thereof on the screen no longer mattered. If the critics said so, it must be so. And in time, no-talent asses in film schools decided to imitate the styles of these films favored by the critics, and Art Cinema became ever drearier in both US and Europe[and even in parts of the Third World]. Thankfully, much of the film community appears to have emerged from this cultural rut, but one of the alternatives, the rise of Tarantino-ism, has been hardly better. Abstract Criticism may have won over many acolytes in the academia and ‘experimental’ circle, but most audiences, even in the Film Community, didn’t care to see another Akerman, late Godard, or Hou Hsiao-hsien despite all the critical bleating in their favor. There was a polite and obligatory assent to such boredom in the cultured/intellectual community, but people were privately muttering under their breath how bored they really were. So, when Tarantino came along with a new or revamped kind of Indie film-making, the film community was ecstatic with its spirit of fun. It’s like Camille Paglia was like a breath of fresh air after the likes of Susan Sontag became overly abstract and arcane. But the New Vulgarity, though initially liberating, substituted hype and hysterics over real meaning and substance.) No matter how intelligently a critic or scholar may write about a work like CITIZEN KANE, SANSHO THE BAILIFF, or BARRY LYNDON, he knows he is the bitch and the film-maker is the master. But when a film critic or scholar turns an anthill like JEANNE DIELMAN into mountain, he knows he’s in command since a film like that would be NOTHING without the critical baloney cooked up by the likes of him. The illusory or make-believe profundity has to be concocted in the mind of the critic. Furthermore, the relationship between a film critic and someone like Akerman is almost incestuous because Akerman wasn’t foremost an artist but an intellectual theorist herself who merely used cinema as a platform for precious radical posturing. Thus, it becomes a case of a critic with a pen admiring a critic with a camera, and of course, this trend took off especially with Jean-Luc Godard(and Jacques Rivette) who started out as a film critic and made films in the manner of a thinker and intellectual. Still, Godard up to around 1967 was still interested in the artistic and expressive aspects of cinema, and there was a balance of the poetic, philosophic, personal, and political, but his radical purism eventually got the better of him and, beginning in the late 60s, he began to make movies devoted only to ideas and agendas, leading many of his former admirers to wonder why he doesn’t just quit cinema and go back to being a critic. While cinema can represent ideas, the means must be poetic, expressive, and/or sensual. Chris Marker’s SANS SOLEIL is stimulating and tantalizing — regardless of whether one ‘gets’ it or not — , whereas most of Godard’s films beginning in the late 60s are chores to sit through. Medieval torture couldn’t have been much worse. (It takes a beardo-weirdo like Richard Brody to actually enjoy something like DETECTIVE.) When a film is so utterly dependent on critics and intellectuals to justify and explain its greatness, the critic or intellectual has been made equal — or even higher — in status than the artist. Thus, theory, instead of serving the practice of art, comes mainly to serve itself. It goes from the view that critics and intellectuals exist to revolve around artists & art to the view that artists & art exists to revolve around critics and intellectuals. When discussion of art is focused on genius( readily demonstrable in the works), the critic or intellectual is the junior partner, but when the discussion focuses on ideology and/or theory, the critic becomes as or even more important than the artist. (This partly explains why the Art World has become so utterly corrupt. Since artistic worth is measured by fanciful theory or conceits of critics and insiders, success is less about making great work than gaining the attention and approval of the right kind of people. It used to be that commercial culture was seen as corrupt, whereas the Art World was seen as an oasis of truth, vision, integrity, and originality despite lack of material reward. The romantic cult of the Starving Artist or Writer sticking to his vision. But then, precisely because there is so little material reward for most in the Art World, the only hope of any success is to be noticed by certain critics, curators, promoters, and/or academics. So, artists will go to any length to gain an inch of favoritism with the insiders and well-connected. This means sucking up to Jews, homosexuals, feminist harpies, PC, and intellectual poseurs whose position in the culture scene owes more to connections than merit. As corrupt as commercial culture may be, success is measured by popularity. Commercial popularity is often be vulgar, but it still offers a more objective standard of value than what goes in the Art World where value is decided upon by some quasi-conspiratorial committee of neo-Warholites.) Though critics were instrumental in bringing to attention the works of real artists like Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, and Kubrick, serious film lovers could readily appreciate them without excessive elaboration on the part of the ‘cinerati’(the literati of cinema). In contrast, the only way most individuals are going to appreciate stuff like JEANNE DIELMAN or dull films of Hou Hsiao-Hsien is by relying on film intellectuals who make lavish claims for them(that can hardly be substantiated). Of course, such claims(to be taken on faith premised on the brilliance and profundity of certain critics who are objects of cultist devotion) favor theory over what is being theorized. I mean what is there to appreciate in a film where a woman shines shoes, grinds coffee, and peels potato for 3 ½ hrs before she finally stumbles upon liberation by getting an orgasm and stabbing a man to death? (Besides, the message was trite many-times-over by the time the film came out. The idea that bourgeois life consists of orderly and systematized repression of natural instinct where even sensuality has been rendered into commerce, a kind of institutionalized prostitution, was oft-repeated old hat. For Bunuel, it was the stuff of throwaway gags. For Godard at his most piquant, it was a way of teasing out certain factoids about modern capitalism. But for Akerman, it is the Greatest Discovery Since the Invention of the Wheel or Potato Peeler. Eros + Massacre. But then, according to Nagisa Oshima’s IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES and Bernado Bertolucci’s LAST TANGO IN PARIS, the end-result of total immersion into sensuality isn’t all it’s cracked up to be either. One guy gets strangled and has his penis cut off and the other guy ends up shot dead.) It’s clearly the product of a sick demented Jewish lesbian-feminist-Marxist-decadent-bohemian mind.
And what kind of cinematic satisfaction are we to derive from dull Taiwanese films that drag on seemingly forever with boring individuals who sit around doing nothing? (They seem to be equally clueless even when they’re running.) At least Takeshi Kitano, who often employs static moments, knows when to cut(like a manga writer) and has a deadpan sensibility that imbues scenes with oddball humor and sensibility, kinda like Jim Jarmusch in his earlier films. Hou, in contrast, seems to think he’s a pure and uncompromising artist simply because he’s mulishly sticks with something even when it has no expressive effect whatsoever. It’s like a meal consisting of nothing but white rice, a quasi-ascetic denial of anything that resembles fun and liveliness. But then, I’m sure Hou carries on with the precious knowledge that there will always be some critics and intellectuals who claim to be privy to the muted depth and profundity of his ‘vision’ that is more pigeon. The only truth his films impart is there are boring people in Taiwan. But if you’re one of those theoretic critics who claim to see beyond all others(even most serious film lovers), then you can feel equal with the artist(like Hou) since his works can only be properly appreciated through intellectual rationalization. The critic feels flattered as a co-creator since theoretics is inseparable from the aesthetics in the works of Akerman and Hou. What goes by the name of Critical Theory should really be called Uncritical Theory(or Ideological Theory) because the (self)justification relies on sidestepping the issue of actual artistic or creative evidence — signs of genius and inspiration — in favor of spinning ideologically charged discussions around it. Now, it can be of interest to discuss the ideological, political, and/or historical component(be it explicit or implicit) of art because culture, after all, doesn’t exist in a socio-economic vacuum. Also, a work of genius may be deemed harmful or deleterious to some people. This argument has certainly been made of Richard Wagner(especially by Jews, of course). And even though Liberals or Progs prefer positive portrayals and spins of black culture & creativity, one could make social, moral, and ideological criticism of Jazz, Soul, and Rap as having a dangerous and corrupting side. Just like the moon has a dark side, everything has a dark side. As art, music, and entertainment have the power to overwhelm and override our rationality and self-control, all great works of art or entertainment are dangerous. Therefore, criticism necessarily creates a rational space between art and audience in order to inspect the machinations of effects and responses for good or ill . A Rock song with an apish message about sex and drugs can even make a member of the 700 Club want to dance and shake his buttocks. A Hollywood movie promoting hedonism and greed can allure even a diehard communist into paroxysms of fame-n-fortune-fantasies. The Internationale or the Soviet anthem can uplift even the spirits of a diehard capitalist or right-winger who loathes communism. Even Jews get swept up when they listen to Wagner’s operas. And I recall watching DAS BOOT in a theater full of Jews who came to care for the Germans trapped in the damaged submarine. Art can make us empathize and sympathize with others, but this means with ‘bad’ people as well as with the ‘good’. Think of how much we’ve all come to ‘love’ the Corleones in THE GODFATHER series even though they are part of a crime organization. But the father-son bond between Vito and Michael affects us more than the fact that Michael ordered the murder of a prostitute in THE GODFATHER II, his one deed that is absolutely unforgivable. (In EYES WIDE SHUT, we don’t know what really happened to the prostitute who most likely died by overdose like Ziegler says. In THE GODFATHER PART 2, we see everything from the inside, and there is no doubt as to the nature of what the Corleones are capable of. To be sure, it is wrong to see THE GODFATHER II as about a man gaining the world and losing his soul. Except for the murder of the prostitute, Michael did everything he was supposed to. He was no better or worse than other gangsters, and even the legitimate figures are tainted in their own way. If anything, it is not Michael who betrays others but others who betray him. Of course, each person has his or her reasons. Pantangeli thought Michael double-crossed him. Fredo felt slighted as an older brother who’d been passed over and used as an errand boy. Connie is bitter about the death of Carlo. And Kay feels Michael is married to the mob than to her. But through all this, Michael did what he was supposed to do, and in his own way, he remained true to those around him. If he couldn’t fulfill his promise to Kay, it wasn’t due to lack of effort. He did all he could to go ‘legitimiate’. Michael’s soul grows cold but isn’t lost, at least not in the Faustian way by conscious decision. He didn’t betray anyone in the family for self-gain. He did it for the good of the family. Even the killing of Carlo was necessary, and it had the blessing of his father Vito. It was family members who betrayed him. Michael’s flaw is a natural lack of charm. He is too sharp, and those around him fear getting cut. He lacks his father’s glow that others could bask in. But different men have different natures. The most intriguing is the relation between Michael and Tom Hagen. Hagen is intelligent and capable. Michael respects him. But Hagen is of the family and not of the family. He’s not a Corleone by blood and no Sicilian. Also, his lawyerly mind favors business over the ‘personal’. When Michael calls Hagen a brother, it is touching but also uneasy. It’s as if Michael has to drive this point home to strengthen their bond, something that wasn’t necessary with his father or brother Sonny. Tom Hagen never betrays Michael in any blatant way. And it was Tom who first lent support to Michael’s plan to kill Sollozzo the Turk and the Irish police captain. But, despite all that, Michael can never get over the fact that Hagen favored ‘business’ over the ‘personal’ when his father was shot. It was the subtlest kind of betrayal[wrapped in loyalty]that even Hagen and others weren’t aware of. Only Michael and later Vito became aware of its meaning even though, most likely, there was no explicit discussion of the matter. It was something they surely sensed.) Given the power of Art and Entertainment over humanity, critical thinking about their social and political influence is most necessary, but it should belong mainly in the history and social studies departments. Humanities, in contrast, must primarily be about the appreciation of sublime talent of true artists, the rare gems of genius and vision. How many Botticellis, Beethovens, Kafkas, and Kubricks have there been in the entire history of man?
Though social and ideological discussion do belong in the humanities, they should play second fiddle to the appreciation of beauty, power, originality, eccentricity, singularity, and individuality that are the hallmarks of great works of art. If the discussion of genius and talent become secondary in the humanities, the theory of art becomes disassociated from the practice of art.
To be sure, Critical Theorists seek connections among theory, art, and society, but the problem is Critical Theorists, as post-modernist intellectuals, don’t have a firm grasp of social reality themselves, especially they usually happen to be children of privilege whose life experience revolves around the cloistered world of academia and bohemia, or acabohemia. While there’s an advantage for creative and intellectual people to cluster around places like Greenwich Village or Austin, Texas, the downside is they coalesce around others who are just like them. When people who are ‘different’ come together, they come to be ‘same’ in their ‘differece’, which is why there’s so much cultural, stylistic, and ideological conformity among the ‘different’ persons in the ‘hipster’ communities. If to be ‘different’, you must dig Warhol and Akerman, you bet that 99% of ‘different’ people will agree with the ‘radical’ consensus, which is why the film community is almost uniform in its social, political, and cultural leanings. Since homomania is the latest big thing, everyone in the film community is required to sing hosannas to homos(and even trannies) as often as possible. Anyway, Critical Theory is mostly about theory uber art and theory uber reality. For all its critique of society and reality, the tools and lenses are theoretically fixed to the truisms of neo-Marxism, feminism, queer studies, ‘subaltern’ studies’, black studies, Jewish perspectives, victimology, and the like.
GHOST WORLD - PC art teacher who stumbles upon heroism of artistic freedom only to lose it in favor of careerism and peer pressure.
In an Asian-Indian history and culture class in college, the professor lectured that one reason why the Indian elites became so deeply immersed in spirituality was as an escapist outlet from the fact of having been conquered. (Plato’s abstract philosophy developed in the aftermath of Athens’ defeat in the Peloponnesian War. Christianity emerged at the time of Roman conquest when certain Jews looked to spiritual power as compensation for loss of worldly power. Chinese turned to opium under the rule of Manchus and invasion of Western imperialists. Critical Theorists looked to arts & culture when they lost power to the Stalinists in the East and felt overwhelmed by capitalists in the West.) Since Indian elites were losing in the material and physical world, they sought refuge in the world of the mind, and meta-consciousness became the locus of Indian view of the world. The mind wasn’t merely an instrument for observing and understanding the world but the very source and container of the world, i.e. perhaps everything that people take for reality is just an illusion, a dream created by the mind. World is of the mind than vice versa. Thus, even the defeated could believe that his power of mind can gain mastery of the world, even the cosmos. Those who conquer peoples and lands may gain physical mastery, but those who conquer the science of the mind come to control the cosmos itself, therefore even the petty conquerors of turf and slaves.
At the most extreme, there are religions or cults like Jainism. And Buddha himself advanced this idea to the point where he advised people to withdraw from emotions and desires wedded to the world that is but an illusion and instead focus on truth within the mind. Once this truth is unlocked and revealed, ego itself would unravel & vanish, and the soul would return to the perfect void of Nirvana. For a victorious people, such world-view would have been pointless. Why conquer the world and gain control if indeed everything is just an illusion of the mind? But for elites facing loss and defeat, theology-as-mind-theory was enticing as balm assuring them that defeat, like victory, is merely an illusion in world that is an illusion. So, there are no real winners and no real losers. Also, the Brahmin possessors of this wisdom might find priestly roles in the New Order. Loss of political power might be compensated with spiritual, philosophical, and cultural prestige.
So often when a people face defeat, they turn to religion, faith, or theory(or fantasy if childish). Even if they can no longer control the world, they can control ideas and beliefs. Paradoxically, Christianity was strengthened in Europe with the Fall of Rome. Though Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion, it had yet to acquire the theoretic depth and complexity until Rome was destroyed by Barbarian Invasions. With the downfall of the Western Roman Empire, Christian elites were forced into theoretic reevaluation(as their own refuge from the fallen and violent world), and this led them to formulating a deeper and more powerful kind of Christianity. In contrast, Eastern Christianity continued in the Byzantine part of the Roman Empire, and its institutional stability had no need for the creativity and intellectualism that developed in the West as counterpoints to the collapse of the old order. In the East, Christianity could go on in the mode of business-as-usual. In contrast, Western Christianity went through a prison-writing phase that lent it greater theoretical complexity. Consider all the great leaders who were humbled, regenerated, and re-emboldened by their prison experiences. Though down on their luck, the silence of the prison walls gave them opportunity to think deeper and harder about what-is-to-be-done. In this sense, whenever the Tsarist authority sent men like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin to prison or exile, it was like sending them on sabbaticals, especially as Tsarist authorities were relatively benign — they provided certain radical prisoners with their own homes, books, writing material, and time to meet with friend, family members, and colleagues — compared to Soviet communists who took no chance with their prisoners and herded them like cattle in the Gulag. Of course, not all people are creative or intellectual when they are down-and-out. Jews and Hindu elites were. So were the Bolshevik leaders in Russia. In contrast, through the long stretch of oppression under the Hispanic elites, the indigenous folks of Latin America did precious little contemplating about what-went-wrong and precious little formulating of what-is-to-be-done to crawl out of the hole. But when Jews were down on their luck over the centuries, they never stopped thinking, never stopped formulating the idea of what-is-to-be-done.