Monday, March 30, 2009

The Socio-Politics of Planet of the Apes and Sequels

Planet of the Apes has always been one of my favorite films. I loved it as a kid though the first viewing freaked me out; I had screaming fits and turned it off after the first 30 min–I must have been 5 yrs old. So, I really saw the entire film when I was around nine. I loved every minute of it, and I like it even today. Of course, reasons for liking it changed over time.

I saw Planet of the Apes again some months ago and couldn’t help noticing certain parallels with the 10 Commandments, not least because Charlton Heston played both Moses and Taylor. I’m not sure if the makers of POTA consciously thought of 10 Commandments, but the two films make for interesting comparisons. Both are stories of alien minorities, oppression, liberation, and uncertainty. But, if Ten Commandments reflected the moral certitudes of the Cold War 50s, POTA reflects the anarchic skepticism of the late 60s. Moses leads his people out of bondage to an uncertain but promised land. There will be many obstacles and tragedies, but God is on their side. Taylor flees Apeland toward freedom, but he’s practically alone, with only a horse and mute bimbo. He rides toward the future only to re-discover humanity as a past-tense. Triumphant miracles aid the Hebrews on their path to freedom; tragic catastrophe awaits Taylor on his journey. Moses condemns the Golden Calf worshipers and saves the good members of his flock. Taylor condemns all of mankind, but deep down realizes and knows that he too is part of cursed humanity.

Another movie that comes to mind in relation to POTA is Bridge on the River Kwai, hardly surprising since both stories were written by the French author Pierre Boulle. I haven’t read Bridge on the River Kwai and don’t know what changes were made for David Lean’s film, but both stories share common themes. When the books were written, France still had an empire stretching all over Asia and Africa. For a couple of centuries, the French, along with the British, assumed that the dominance of white man would practically be permanent. The West was great and powerful; white man was advanced and well-organized. Whether one called it the white man’s burden or white man’s destiny, it seemed like the world was meant to be ruled by white people.
The first crack in this assumption happened with the rapid rise of Japan. An isolated feudal-state, Japan catapulted to world power status in a few decades after its gates were crashed open by Brits and Americans. In 1905, the Japanese, deemed a newcomer to world power politics, defeated the Russian Bear. Japanese power grew in Asia to the point where it became the premier imperialist player in northern China. But, that was not enough for Japan. Japan wanted dominance over all of Asia. This brought Japan face to face with European powers in Southeast Asia. Japan’s victory over British, French, and Dutch forces in Southeast Asia was shocking to both Westerners and Asians. It was as if the world was turned upside down. This was something new. Yes, Japan had defeated Russia in 1905 but that didn’t lead to rule over white folks. Yes, Japan had competed with Western powers in China and elsewhere, but Japan didn’t gain dominance over white-ruled areas. This all changed in 1941 when Japan charged into Western Imperialist holdings in Asia. This was all the more shocking because Japanese victory was so swift and resounding. There were deeper implications in this victory for all Asians–most living under colonialism–could now see that white folks could be defeated by non-whites. Though most Asians resented and hated Japanese imperialism–even more than Western Imperialism–, Japan’s victory inspired anti-Western-Imperialist movements(both Rightist and Leftist)all over Asia, Middle East, and elsewhere.
Of course, Japan was finally defeated by white powers. US smashed Japan in the seas and from the sky. Russians charged into northern China and totally whupped Japanese ass. But, the West–especially Europe–never recovered from the shock of defeat at the hands of Japan in Southeast Asia. (And, Russians later came to fear the 800 million Chinese communists that turned into enemies.) Indeed, when the Europeans returned to take control of Southeast Asia, it was hopeless. Even Southeast Asians who hated the Japanese took inspiration from the Japanese example and fought against the re-imposition of Western imperialism. Dutch had to abandon Indonesia. French gave up Indochina. British realized its days were numbered in Malaysia. Americans, though not an imperialist power, inherited the French mess, tried to make the best of it(create an anti-communist South Vietnam), but was eventually pushed out by crazed communist Vietnamese in the North.
Of course, victory over the white race by non-whites is nothing new if we look at all of history. The ancient Huns whupped the Europeans over a long period. The Mongol armies reached as far as Paris at one time, and the heirs of the great Khans ruled over Russia for centuries.
But, since the time of Western advances in science, technology, and industry, it seemed to Western Europeans and Americans that there was nothing to turn the tide of history; white folks would rule and rule for good. Of course, many white folks saw this as a good thing since they were supposedly good Christians bringing the light of progress to all those crazy, backward, poor, and benighted darkies. There was some truth to this as much of the world was ruled by oppressive tyrants or systems, steeped in superstition and idiotic customs, and such. The concept of universal human rights, modern medicine, democracy, and other good stuff all originated and came from the West. The West ended slavery all over the world. Japan and Turkey gained much by opening up to Western powers(or being forcibly opened up by them). But, there was also an element of arrogance and high-falutin-ness on the part of many Westerners. Some white folks just couldn’t resist going around calling colored folks ‘niggers’, ‘ragheads’, ‘dotheads’, ‘chinks’, ‘injuns’, and the like. And, many white folks came to rest on their laurels. And, there was also an assumption among non-whites(who were steeped in superstitious thinking)that white folks were god-like, all-powerful, invincible, magical, and such. This was one of the reason why small numbers of white folks could rule over so many darkie folks. After shooting a bunch of people with their terrifyingly loud guns and cannons, the locals and natives thought white man was not to mess around with but to respect and worship. (Darkies had a might-is-right moral system and willingly submitted to white power... before the concept of Western universal human rights influenced the minds of European-educated darkie elites and intellectuals.) Also, many natives didn’t mind having white folks rule over them in many cases because whites were, in many cases, preferable to the far crueler and more exploitative local chieftains. But, once the magic of white invincibility wore off, white folks were in deep doo doo all over Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. The world was turning upside down. The white man was forced to consider a scenario that had seemed utterly ludicrous in the past: the idea that non-whites would gain dominance over the whites.

In the novel of POTA, two space apes come upon a message written by a human(which forms the bulk of the story). Never mind the story itself; the space apes are besides themselves in laughter over the notion of a human being able to write anything, let alone a long complex story such as the one they came upon; they finally conclude it must some practical joke written by a clever ape. Similarly, the idea of Western dominance crumbling overnight and non-white rising in the world have seemed pretty outlandish to most white folks prior to the end of WWII. There is some of this feeling even today as much of the non-white world is still pretty backward and depressing. Africa is worse off now than during the Age of Imperialism. Much of the Middle East is pitiful and piss poor. Latin America, where most people are non-white, is still mired in poverty. Though Latin American whites are losing power in relative terms, there’s no indication that Latin America will be world-leaders in the 21st century.

But, Asia is another story. In the latter half of the 20th century, the rise of Asia meant Japan and the so-called tigers(S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc). As impressive as this has been, those nations could pose no real threat to the Western dominated world order(though there was much anxiety over Japan). For starters, most of them were military colonial posts for American power. But, China and India, politically and militarily sovereign powers, entered the picture in a major way since the 1990s, and these two giants(with combined population of 2.3 billion) are making a real difference in the world. Personally, I think the Indians are too messy and divisive and the Chinese are too unoriginal and corrupt to become dominant world players, but the future is always uncertain.

Anyway, China and India have many people worried. Russians are worried that they may lose Siberia to the Chinese who are entering legally and illegally in huge numbers to cut down trees and work in(and take over)various industries. The biggest problem for the West is not so much the rise of the non-West but the legal and illegal massive entry of non-white folks into EU and US. For EU, Muslims pose a cultural threat while black Africans pose a physical threat. US, already in big trouble with its 40 million blacks, is being invaded by more and more illegal poor Mexicans who want to reconquer the entire SW territory. Also, the arrival of more immigrants from Africa, Carribean, and other places means more crazy blacks in America to mess things up. Non-white folks have little chance of taking control of the brain centers of the Western World as they don’t happen to be the brightest nor economically most successful people. But, neither are the brain centers in white hands due to the fact that Jews are smarter than (gentile)white folks. So, rich and intellectual Jews have gained control of the brain centers of the West. Even goy whites come under the influence of these Jews–Karl Max, Eric Hobsbawm, Noam Chomsky, Betty Friedan, Naomi Klein, Ayn Rand, or Milton Friedman. Right or Left, the Jew is out to destroy white power. Whether it’s diversity-obsessed multi-culturalist collectivism or individual-obsessed libertarianism, Jewish influence wages war on the concept of white identity, white unity, white pride, and white survival.

Anyway, the world appeared to be turning upside down in the mid century of the 20th century. Europeans, who had enjoyed dominance around the world for a couple of centuries, not only seemed to be losing their empire but in the process of being taken over by the barbarians or alien civilizations(or ideologies). Japan posed the first real threat but was soundly defeated by 1945. But, the Third World was rumbling. Chinese communists triumphed by 1949. Communism was a special case because it was both European and anti-Western. It was essentially a radical Jewish ideology that had taken hold of Russians, whose European-ness(cultural or racial) was doubted by many in the West and even by Russians themselves(as many Russians took national/cultural pride in their distinctness). In time, a major branch of communism came to be associated with the Third World, as an empowering ideology and weapon of non-white folks. Communism inspired Asians, Latin Americans, Africans, Arabs, etc. Many feared that communism would sweep across the world, one of the reasons why the Vietnam War was deemed crucial to both US and the communist bloc. Both sides saw it as the crucial piece of domino. When US pulled out of Vietnam, many people in the West were convinced that other dominoes would fall... and people in China and Russia were eagerly rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of world revolution. Of course, it didn’t happen that way which goes to show how worthless and unpopular communism is in the long run.

Anyway, it wasn’t just the rise of USSR, Red China, and communist movements which upset Western European assumptions of the dominance of the White Man. It was also the rise of the Americans(despite America’s status as a Western power). This may seem strange given the fact that the majority of Americans have always been white. Even so, Europeans saw American culture, manners, assumptions, values, and ideology as a threat to the European World Order. America was seen as an upstart nation, a culture-less civilization, society lacking in soul and manners, and such. Americans were seen as immature barbarians. Many Europeans saw America as the continent where all their undesirables emigrated to(though, to be sure, many Europeans had great admiration for America as well); in contrast, of course, and despite what Emma Lazarus wrote, Americans saw themselves as people with enough brains to have left the stinking Old World. At any rate, even though America had, by the end of WWI, become the mightiest nation on Earth, most Europeans held onto the view that they, not Americans, were the true masters of the world, with Brits and French leading the way. Of course, Germans were pissed at the notion of being left out of the world order. Regarding themselves as a great people, Germans wondered why they had to be hemmed in by the British Navy and by the armies of France and Russia. In a way, the rise of Fascism and Nazism are strange developments in Europe for both were, at once, as European as red wine and as alien as a Martian’s teat. On the one hand, Fascism and National Socialism claimed to protect and preserve the best of Europe; on the other hand, they were radical futurist ideologies which aimed to replace the genteel bourgeois order with a militant corporatist order. It was almost as if Europe had to be radically altered to be saved; it had to lose itself to find itself.

So, Bridge on the River Kwai has multiple meanings and implications. It can be read as white vs yellow, Anglo vs. America, traditionalism vs fascism, upper class vs. lower class, idealism vs humanism, etc. There are many levels of hierarchy, varying degrees of opposing dynamics. William Holden is the practical and individualistic American who wants to look out for #1, himself. Yet, as he becomes involved in the mission, he gradually becomes more heroic and self-sacrificing than others. The Japanese are the new overlords, but their authority–regarding both natives and white prisoners–is unceertain. Anglos are there to help the natives overthrow the Japanese occupiers, but Anglos themselves are imperialists. Though Holden is supposedly a member of a civilization that safeguards freedom and liberty(The West), he is deviously coerced to join the mission. The most complex figure in the movie is, of course, Alec Guinness’s character. He’s an odd blend of heroism, toughness, patriotic duty, and honor... which perversely and unwittingly turns him into the biggest fool in the movie. He’s the best and the worst. He cares about his men, his national honor, and such and such. But, he becomes so wrapped up in ideals and high falutin notions and rationalizations that he fails to see his betrayal.

In a way, the Guinness character stands for the hubris of virtue, honor, and noble cause. People built empires with big ideas about spreading civilization and the true faith. Communists killed millions in the name of progress. So in love with the Idea of Progress, they became blind to of millions of victims. Hitler thought he would save Western Civilization, yet his obsession with the highest achievements of the West led him to commit horrible acts. We can go on and on. Man is a beast without ideas and ideals, without virtues such as honor, nobility, heroism, and dignity. But, such ideas and values can also make man intolerant of peoples and things that fall short of the higher or nobler ideals; man can be barbaric in the fight against barbarism–even true of Allies in WWII with the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo. To be sure, context does matter. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though horrible, were still different than Nazi killing of the Jews. In actual deed, both involved mass slaughter, but Americans wanted to end the war and bring freedom to the Japanese while the Nazis wanted to kill most Jews. Though it makes hypocrites out of all of us, context and agenda do matter. For this reason, Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai is not an evil nor treacherous man; he’s a man whose best qualities oddly enough lead him to the worst judgment of his life. If he has one major failing, it is hubris and class snobbery which leads him to think he knows what’s best for his men and that’s that(and most of his men go along because they too were raised in a class-based society where blokes are supposed to do as the gentleman says; in this regard, William Holden is a bigger threat to Alec Guinness(European values) in some way than the Japanese are. Japanese may challenge the British Empire, but both civilizations believe in hierarchy and form(and proper place for each individual). William Holden represents the free, self-centered, and self-willed individual; he’s like the Charlton Heston character in POTA.

Anyway, let’s discuss POTA, its meaning, and its significance. In retrospect, it seems less impressive today as we’ve been bombarded with out-of-this-world special effects and CGI for the past 30 yrs. Film tricks and techniques have advanced far beyond anything even dreamt possible back in 1968. But, this doesn’t necessarily make POTA worse; the original POTA relied more on story, character, and script than most of today’s sci-fi or action movies which are all about speed, explosions, and such.
And, there was a certain advantage in the fact that the director Franklin Schaffner was a workman-like director than an auteur. While I have no doubt that Orson Welles or Stanley Kubrick could have made a more interesting version of POTA, an unpretentious skilled director is preferable to some pain-in-the-ass auteur wanna-be who turns promising material into self-deluded aesthetic gimcrackery–just think of the crimes of Ken Russell or Tim Burton. Schaffner did no more and no less than what he was hired to do. POTA is not great filmmaking but is solid filmmaking. And, because Schaffner’s directorship doesn’t intrude upon other aspects of the movie and hog all the attention, we can enjoy all of POTA’s parts.

POTA is less sci-fi than satire. Though a film can have trappings of both satire and sci-fi, there’s a key difference. Satire uses technological or scientific themes to make a point about humanity whereas conventional science fiction is primarily interested in the speculative technology itself. Considered from a scientific angle, POTA makes no sense and has no plausibility whatsoever. But, it works wonderfully as satire, as a consideration of our world through a warped looking glass. POTA is, after all, not about the future or the dangers/promises of science/technology but about us here and now. It should be regarded as something like Animal Farm, and indeed could well have been called Ape House. The pigs in Orwell’s story represented communists in the Soviet Union, and the apes in POTA are us today(or at least in the 60s). So, people who complain about POTA’s bad science are nincompoops.

So, what does POTA say about us, humanity, or whatever? First, we have to distinguish the book from the novel. The original novel was in French and the iconic image at the end of the film is not the Statue of Liberty but the Eiffel Tower. From the French or Old European perspective, Planet of the Apes is an allegory about Empire and domination. For two centuries, white Europeans had dominated the world; they had been the masters where ever they went. But, when the book was written, much had changed. The shoe was on the other foot. So, the novel could be interpreted as white man experiencing imperialist domination–getting a taste of his own medicine–, or as a white man’s fear(and fascination) of a new order where non-whites rule the world. 10 yrs prior to the book’s release French got whupped by monkey-like Vietnamese in Dien Bien Phu, and at the time of its release French were about to lose in Algeria. So, the themes of POTA the novel is much like the themes in Bridge on the River Kwai. It’s about role reversal of the races. The apes could represent the Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabs, Africans, Muslims, etc. Interestingly enough, the apes of the novel are far more advanced than those in the movie(perhaps for budget reasons?). Apes in the novel have even mastered space travel; indeed, the story begins with two astronaut apes out in space.
The movie is considerably different. The first movie isn’t really about role reversal of the races. The element of race enters in parts 2, 4, and 5(Beneath the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, and Battle of the Planet of the Apes; Escape of the Planet of the Apes is like the second half of the novel except that the apes are celebrities on Earth instead of the human being a celebrity on the Ape Planet).

The first Planet of the Apes movie is essentially a liberal film on the dangers of conservatism and reaction. There is no indication that the apes are supposed to be ‘niggers’, little suggestion of ‘this is what it would be like if the blacks took over.’ Actually, Tim Burton’s remake was much along those lines as the apes in that movie did act black-ish and their world was ugabuga jungle-ish. The ape world in the original POTA is actually very orderly, and the apes are very civilized and disciplined, not ugabuga-ish. To be sure, one could argue that the three different species of apes in the movie represent different races, with chimpanzees representing the rational Western whites, orangutans representing the spiritual Eastern Orientals, and gorillas representing the big and powerful Negroes. But, maybe not. Though the gorillas in the movie are the blackest and limited to menial jobs or military duties, they don’t seem to be jive-ass-ish in any way. Indeed, they seem to be very much the law-and-order types, kinda like the Roman or Prussian guards. They could be seen as the fascist defenders of the Ape Order. The orangutans are oriental-ish in some way but also could be seen as representing Western spiritual conservatism as well. They would be the Robert Borks, C. S. Lewises, the Jerry Falwells, or the Thomas Flemings of our society. They are distrustful of ideas or change that might upset the sacred order of things. They are like Moses in 10 Commandments holding up the tabernacle and saying, ‘you better believe this stuff or get your ass whupped’.
The chimpanzees can be seen as rationalists, scientists, progressives, liberals, or do-gooders. One may say it was bigoted for the movie makers to designate spiritual and cultural qualities according to racial or species differences among the apes, but it has to be seen as satire–just like different animals in Animal Farm represent different social groups and their abilities.

Of course, it could be argued that original POTA the movie is indeed about race because, even though the apes don’t represent blacks-on-top, Heston plays a kind of a ‘white-nigger-ish’ role. He’s treated as less-than-human(or less-than-ape as the case may be), and the ape-supremacist orangutans insist on the inferiority of humans. So, the white audience might have wondered, ‘how would it have been like if we were treated like blacks–shipped across the oceans and sold as slaves?). But, POTA works as a better critique of how humans treat animals than how humans treat humans of other races. After all, humans in POTA are not captured to be used as slaves or second class citizens. They are either killed right away as pests, locked up in zoos, or used for biological research. Indeed, before Taylor came along and demonstrated his superior intelligence, even the ‘progressive’ chimps felt no hesitation about using humans for all sorts of scientific–presumably grisly–experiments. And indeed, this is how we treat animals today. As long as we believe that dogs, pigs, apes, and monkeys are less intelligent than us, we think it’s okay to kill them by the bushel for food or experimentation. Despite PETA, most of us treat animals like in POTA.

Anyway, the main moral conflict in POTA is between the liberal, progressive, and rational chimps and the conservative, reactionary, and religious orangutans. Gorillas don’t enter into the equation until Beneath the Planet of Apes where they start acting kinda ugabuga-ish(black-ish) or nazi-esque, or a bit of both. The chimps are like Clarence Darrow and orangutans are like William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes Monkey-Ass Trial. Chimps are for open-mindedness, rational research, and factual understanding. The orangutans are for moral order even if society must rely on the Noble Lie. Because we humans identify with Charlton Heston as Taylor, we cheer for the chimps and howl at the Orangutans. But, what makes POTA interesting is that Taylor isn’t really a saint. Though not an evil person, he is brash, arrogant, swaggering, and self-centered. Indeed, it doesn’t seem to bother him that he left his family and friends behind for his space trip. He’s always searching for the New, the Undiscovered Territory, for the Next Adventure. He’s All-American but not necessarily in the best way. He has a heroic pioneering spirit but also a steely heart. And, we are not really sure if he’s searching for new lands for the sake of humanity or running from humanity(in which case he got his ultimate wish). He’s libertarian. Taylor is restless, like Odysseus. The difference is Odysseus, for all his wanderlust, wanted to go back to wife and sonny boy. Taylor just seems to want to travel to new worlds forever and ever(like some men in America in the 19th century just wanted to keep going Westward instead of settling and building). He doesn’t seem to have much feeling for man or nation. He laughs when one of his mates plants a miniature US flag in the soil of the ‘new’ planet. And, when Taylor comes upon primitive human folks, he looks forward to ruling over them. Taylor is like a futuristic cowboy Nietzschean.

He becomes a victim of the apes, but he’s not a saint by any measure. We identify with him because he’s human like us and because he’s Charlton Heston(tall, handsome movie star). We sympathize with him because he’s brutalized by the apes. But, Taylor is the kind of person who would not hesitate to shoot animals for food or for sport. He’s not a man of great conscience. One could say he’s even a narcissist. And, this is what makes the film more interesting than if Taylor had been merely a good guy victim(like Mark Wahlberg in Burton’s remake). He’s kinda like a bad guy victim. The chimps sympathize with him out of pity and decency, but would Taylor have cared if the shoe had been other foot?

So, even though POTA is essentially a liberal film, it has enough ambiguity and irony to be auto-subversive. At the end, we can’t help but agree, to some extent, that maybe the orangutan is partly right and not the complete villain he seemed earlier. Dr. Zaius the orangutan is a virulent anti-humanite, but what if what Zaius says about humans is true? What if there is something about humans or something in human nature which predisposes man to war, mayhem, and self-destruction(and making films like Jeanne Dielmann)? This is where the relative technological underdevelopment of ape society in the movie as opposed to advanced ape world in the book becomes significant. In the books, apes are technological masters who rule Earth and space, but the movie has a kind of environmental message. The apes, though civilized, seem to live in a certain harmony with nature. They have houses, towns, places of worship, agriculture, ride horses, and have guns, but they don’t seem to be dominant over Earth like we humans are today. It’s as though the apes still in their Garden of Eden; they have not eaten the forbidden banana. Indeed, primitive humans seem a bigger threat to the natural order than the apes. Though the apes first appear goonish and horrifying as they descend on humans in the cornfield, we later see that humans on this planet are indeed a rather lowly, grubby, ugly, and wretched lot.

Zaius has a stone heart when it comes to humans and a nasty vitriolic contempt for chimpanzee rationalism and skepticism, but he’s not completely inhuman or un-simian as the case may be. He has a profound love of ape society and its values, sacred symbols, and moral order. He really wants what is best for ape society. He’s not out to become dictator or become the richest ape in town or some such. He wants to preserve the sacred values that safeguard the apes from the temptation of ‘progress’. Zaius, who turns out to know more about humans that he lets on, came to the conclusion that humans are innately unstable and that mankind destroyed itself through hubris, arrogance, and aggression. Of course, he also fears humans because, whether humans are good or bad, there’s a possibility that the existence of more humans like Taylor–via offsprings or from other parts of the planet–may lead to apes being ruled under a human order(like non-whites came to be ruled by white imperialists). (Suppose alien beings from another planet came here, and they had IQ of 1,000. Suppose they keep coming and coming and having lots of offsprings. Would we be ready to accept the dominance of the new species? Whether these alien newcomers are good or bad, we wouldn’t want a different species to rule over us.) Anyway, the ending leaves us with skepticism, and we are not so sure about the liberal pieties dominant throughout the film. The implications are as conservative as liberal, or neither–just plain nihilist and despairing. The ruins of Statue of Liberty can be read in many ways. It can be a cautionary warning about science and technology or about man’s tribal or ideological tendency toward aggression, war, and (self)destruction–especially alarming in a world with nuclear weapons. If the ‘rational’ or ‘scientific’ hubris for Truth leads to such, isn’t it better to cling to the Noble Lie? POTA isn’t sure and neither are we.

Some may argue that Heston-as-Taylor stands for the Jewish-and-or-Negro threat on the white order. Gentile folks have long feared the Jews and the Negroes. The Egyptians killed the sons of Hebrews because of the fear of smart cunning Jews taking over Egypt. In the Demille’s Ten Commandments, baby Moses is saved by a sympathetic and childless Egyptian niece of the Pharaoh. Moses grows up an Egyptian but discovers his Jewish roots and brings mayhem and destruction to the Egyptians. Europeans have long feared the Jews. In the 19th century, Jews were emancipated and used their superior intellect to take over much of European society. The intellectual hubris of Karl Marx led to the deaths of tens of millions of Europeans. Jews also came to America, and though no more than 2% of the population, took over most institutions of power and wealth in record time, and today, USA is JewSA.
As for the Negroes, Arabs looked upon them as a bunch of wild savages. Arab travelers and writers in Africa felt mostly contempt for the ‘ugabuga’ half-naked blacks with big muscles shaking their butts and chucking their spears. And, even though whites folks saw blacks as intellectual and spiritual inferiors, they could readily see that blacks were tougher, stronger, and wilder. In a way, Taylor represents both the Jewishy and Negro-ish threat to the civilized apes in the POTA. Taylor is relatively strong(possibly stronger than even gorillas), and it takes a whole bunch of apes to capture and quell him when he runs loose. Also, Taylor is comparatively strong willed, impulsive, and such when compared to the apes who are restrained, disciplined, and cautious. Taylor is full of self-assurance and cockiness, like Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali in a society of ‘faggoty-ass’ white boys. Why were white boys, especially Jews, were more likely take up radical or leftwing politics than negroes were? Perhaps, Negroes didn’t need no high-faluting ideology to feel tough, proud, and confident. White intellectuals, on the other hand, were physically a bunch of dorks compared to the Negroes, so they could only be tough with an aggressiveideology. Even in the arts, Negroes tended toward music, a direct and expressive form, whereas white boys, lacking the same kind of intense energy, hid behind intellectual-ish avant garde-ism and the like. This is why blacks would never sit through something as lame as Jeanne Dielmann, Cook Thief Wife’s Lover, or Salo. Since dweeby white intellectuals cannot stake their manhood or toughness on charisma and natural masterfulness, they must seek their special radical-rebel status through cutting edge or high concepts. This was one of the themes of the movie "Dear Wendy" where a white guy wraps himself with ideas, symbols, and values to maintain his authority in relation to the Naturally badass black guy. Of course, another way white boys try to attain toughness and respect is by slavishly worshiping everything black, hoping that some black coolness will rub off on lame white boyness. This explains the pants wetting faggotyness of white boys who think blues singers are gods and that Barack Obama is their main god-homey. What a bunch of faggotyass dorks.
These white boys are even more despicable than Nazis. Nazis were evil but had a sense of their own culture, pride, heritage, and power. White liberal and leftist boys are a bunch of gimpass dweebs hiding behind bogus intellectualist ideologies or sucking up to blacks. Among whites, Jews actually get something big out of intellectualism because they are smarter, make more money, set the agenda, and control our minds(by ownership of expensive media), even those of Negroes. But, gentile white boys have been relegated to kissing the Jew’s ass and sucking the Negro’s dick. Though white liberal and leftist boys know that they are losing their land, their women, and their pride, it doesn’t bother them because they’ve been raised from cradle to worship Martin Luther King and worship Jewish power. White liberal and leftist boys take sick pleasure in the demise of their own people. Though Jews killed millions through communism and though Negroes practiced slavery much worse than white men ever did, the Liberal/Leftist Jews who control the academia and media have brainwashed white gentile boys to carry the burden of all the evils of the world. What a bunch of faggotyass white boys. Of course, conservative white boys are no better for they think their asses can be saved by reading the greed-is-good fantasy novels of Ayn Rand the odious Jewess.

Dr. Zaius pontificates Biblically about the man’s tendency toward destruction and/or subversion, and certainly the Jew and the Negro represent, respectively the most subversive and destructive tendencies of man. The Jew, at least the modern Jew, embodies the hubris of intellect, science, technology, and ideology. The Negro exemplifies wildness, anarchy, jiveassness, and craziness. Look at what Jewish intellect wrought in the 20th century. Marx’s so-called science of history and economics led to the deaths of maybe 100 million people. Wherever Negroes have been allowed to run wild and free, societies ended up like Detroit, Haiti, Jamaica, Watts, Chicago South Side, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Congo, and South Africa after apartheid. Jews represent the arrogance of brains-out-of-control and Negroes represent the dangers of booties-out-of-control. Jews, brimming with intellectual arrogance, think their genius and brilliance can fix all problem. It was not just Karl Marx but Jewish finance capitalists who have wreaked so much havoc. Study the recent financial crisis, and guess who came up with all those fanciful financial tools for the New Economy? The Jews. Look at the global New World Order, and guess who control its brains and heart? The Jews. Look at the rise of turdboy Obama, and guess who engineered it? The Jews. (Of course, I’m talking of key Jews in power, not all Jews, most of whom are decent folks.) Of course, it’s doubtful that the Jews who wrote the screenplay and directed POTA had these ideas in mind, but implications are there nevertheless.

Taylor has both positives and negatives. His counterpart in Bridge on the River Kwai is the William Holden character. I haven’t read the novel of the Bridge, so I don’t know how faithful David Lean’s movie is to the source. I don’t know if the novel had an American character. Maybe Lean’s movie took liberties with the book just as POTA the movie did with its source novel. But, both movies could be seen as praise and condemnation of the American spirit. Holden in Bridge on River Kwai is the most likable character. He looks out for #1, isn’t an ideologue, isn’t dogmatic, and has a free spirit. That’s all good. But, he’s also cynical, self-interested, and hustling. Same could be said for Taylor in POTA. His independent spirit is admirable but often prickly–even asshole-ish–at times.
During the Cold War, there was liberal/leftist and European fear of the American cowboy spirit, most hilariously illustrated by Sergeant Kong missile rodeo at the end of Dr. Strangelove. There was a liberal and progressive Keynesian/Galbraithian conviction that the modern world was too complex to be left up to the wiles of unruly individuals. (The film Right Stuff is interesting for exploring how rugged American individualism was both utilized and tamed by modern corporatism.)
The age of collectivism or the welfare state had arrived. Whether in business or government, whether liberal or conservative, a new corporate spirit had taken hold, and the ‘organizational man’ was the new ideal. Goldwater, the champion of cowboy values, lost by a landslide in 1964, and movies like Dr. Strangelove, Seven Days in May, and Fail Safe warned us the dangers posed by individuals unwilling to be cogs in the machine; mavericks in high places were seen as the greatest threat to mankind. The system was favored over individuals, and it was imperative that people within the system be team-players than individualists with personal agendas. (This perhaps explains the central tension in liberalism/leftism there & then, and even here & now. On the one hand, liberalism stood for the collective system where the Best and Brightest ‘organizational men’ devised the ideas, imposed them from the top, and expected the lower members of the welfare or bureaucratic state to implement them accordingly. There was a sense that liberal intellectual ideas were the best, the most scientific, the most just, the most effective, the most rational, and most effective. These ideas would be shaped into policies which would then be carried out by a vast state apparatus and through a corporate capitalist system allied with the government. Individuals and mavericks were not supposed to ‘do their own thing’ or disobey orders–like the crazy military mavericks in the paranoid doomsday movies of the 60s. But, there was another brand of liberalism/leftism founded on youth culture, rebellion, counter-culture, rock music, drugs, and radicalism that rejected the notion of the mega-corporate state as envisioned by men like John Kenneth Galbraith. The social tensions–especially related to race–and the Vietnam War made many people lose faith in Liberal Utopia. The very liberals who had warned people of crazy rightwing Cold War mavericks got mired in the Vietnam War. Liberal Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey got tagged with the maverick warmonger label. Worse, some people assumed that the mega-modern-liberal state was just another form of corporate state fascism. The organizational liberal men found themselves at odds with disorganizational leftist kids who were ideologically more totalitarian–far left– yet behaviorally downright anarchist and looney tunes. Today, Obama is trying to synthesize elements of both liberal corporate statism founded on Ivy League Organizational Man-ism and maverick leftism founded on radical neo-Marxist ideology or brash anarchism. He’s trying to be everything to everybody–fellow egghead intellectual to Best & Brightest Ivy Leaguers and fellow revolutionary to clueless, naive, or downright stupid idiots who get their ideas from Chomsky or Emma Goldman. Since the two sides cannot be intellectually harmonized, Obama relies on pomp, imagery, ritualism, ceremony, and hype to pave over the differences. Needless to say, the leftist maverick was different from the rightist maverick. The rightist maverick believed in law and order and embraced tradition and honor; what he did want was know-it-all eggheads pushing big government and social engineering down his throat and up his ass. Leftist mavericks, in contrast, challenged the order of Organizational Man and Bureautopia to destroy the entire fabric of traditional society; they were utopian in their politics and grubby in everything they did. Patton was a different kind of maverick than Charles Manson.)
In Dr. Strangelove, General Ripper is a cowboy maverick with his own agenda. In Seven Days in May, Burt Lancaster acts like a triggerhappy rancher in a Western. Europeans greatly feared Maverick Americans–and this fear has been echoed with the presidency of George W. Bush, perceived to be a crazy out-of-control cowboy(though, in fact, he’s been nothing than a robot of the Neocons and Big Business).
Anyway, the 60s was a strange time because the counter-culture, though ostensibly of the Left, was at war with not only the Right but with much of the Left and Liberalism(of Old School kind). The leftism that grew out of the 30s was of the collectivist communist kind; Peter Seeger couldn’t stand mavericks like Dylan-gone-electric and Negroes acting all uppity. Seeger wanted Negroes to be like Paul Robeson singing the Internationale in dignified way. And, the liberalism that grew out of FDR’s New Deal was corporatist, bureaucratic, and to a certain extent, even hierarchical. Counter-culture of the 60s waged a war not only on Goldwater conservatism but on the ideal of the Affluent Society as posited by Kenneth Galbraith. The rise of Nixon would not have been possible without this great schism within the liberal/leftist ranks. Just as Dylan’s fan base split into pro-acoustic folkies and pro-electric rockers, liberalism/leftism split into the New Deal/Great Society supporters and the radical/anarchic/maverick/nutty forces. Some of the young radicals were Third World totalitarians worshiping Castro, Mao, Che, and Ho, others were Identity Politics folks–Black Panthers, Red Power, etc–, others were perverts and degenerates, others were hippies and junkies, and etc. The rabble that made the counter-culture was so varied, contradictory, and nutty that the coalition couldn’t be held together. The crazy quilt of liberalism and leftism was in tatters, and the conservative coalition–also diverse and varied but less outlandish and more polite with one another–grew to prominence. Anyway, that’s the not the issue that concern us. The issue is how Americanism was perceived by Europeans and many on the Left. It was both admired and despised, both looked up to as the postwar ideal(since Europeans had proven their own destructiveness, cowardice, and craziness in both WWI and WWII) and feared as the arrival of uncouth/uncultured barbarism. The American was both attractive and ‘ugly’. (Things have gotten much worse since the first decades after WWII. The American cowboy or Ugly American of yesteryear could be unruly and aggressive but also imbued with certain values and code of honor. Since then, the new American cultural icon has become the Negro Thug Gangsta Rapper, especially since blacks whupped the white boy so convincingly in sports, music, and in the bedroom. This is why the American Right should not be offended by Europeans, Asians, and Arabs despising much of American culture. We should share their loathing of ‘American’ culture now dominated by disgustingly wild & savage blacks and cunning & devious Jews who market that garbage all over the world.)

Of course, released in 1968, POTA couldn’t help but attract the young crowd. Many young people probably identified with Charlton Heston for his cynicism and anti-authoritarianism. Young people may have seen Taylor in the same way as Benjamin Braddock in The Graduate. We often see Taylor half-naked(back to nature child), with the girl(free love), and with a gun(radical revolution). If more traditional liberals may have identified most with Zera and Cornelius, the two conscientious chimps, young people probably identified with the resourceful and independent Taylor. (Of course, conservatives and right wingers probably saw Taylor as the All-American rugged cowboy.) Not that Taylor was some kind of peacenik hippie but within story’s context, he was a rebel and outsider. This kind of fascination was common within the liberal-left coalition of the 60s. Rich white liberals were into radical chic, rubbing shoulders with violent and dangerous mavericks of The Revolution. Liberal lawyers formed alliances and relationships with black criminals or radicals in jail. Consider the story of Fay Stender and other white liberals who championed the causes of ‘revolutionaries’–often black–in prison. White liberals were naive because they grew up in safe privilege, had only seen the world through the prism of books, and had been conditioned to feel white guilt. Do-gooders may mean well, but their naivete can be deadly to the community as a whole; do-gooders are the types to allow the Trojan Horse through the gates. They are easily manipulated and used by radicals and ideologues. This coalition of radicals and naive liberal do-gooders uses its power in the media and academia to brainwash and browbeat those who disagree into acquiescence.

Anyway, there was nothing blatant about race relations or race dynamics in POTA the movie. But, this cannot be said for most of the sequels. The exception is Escape from the Planet of the Apes, which is kinda like POTA reversed. Instead of man in a world of apes, it’s about apes in a world of men. Actually, much of what happens in EFPOTA is taken from the original novel, where, at one point, the human character becomes a famous celebrity in the ape world. In the POTA novel, it dawns on the apes that the human they’ve come to embrace may breed with other humans and create an intelligent race of man who shall inherit the world. In EFPOTA, humans at first greet the amazing, intelligent, and talking apes. But, it dawns on the humans that if they allow the apes to live and breed freely, the future will be like the one where the apes came from–a world where apes rule over man.

One could argue that there is a theme of racial fear in this plot, and we hear such warnings from people like Le Pen and Pat Buchanan today. Demography Is Destiny, and those who outbreed other groups shall inherit the Earth. This is true enough, but it’s the sort of truth we are not comfortable with because we’ve been raised with Christian morality and have been castrated by the liberal and left-wing Jews from cradle. It’s okay for Jews or non-whites to worry about their own survival, but white folks are supposed to face their doom by beating their own heads with pangs of guilt. Supposedly, the only way whites can redeem themselves is by white men turning into faggotyass liberal white boys kissing Obama’s ass and traitorous/treacherous white bitches turning into slutty ho’s of black men. So, there is an element of race fear in EFPOTA. But, it’s not blatantly about whites and blacks. Indeed, in some ways, Zera and Cornelius are like escaped Nazi doctors. They are medical professionals and decent enough apes, but they plied their expertise on humans deemed less-than-ape. Zera and Cornelius didn’t think they were doing anything evil since apekind considered humans as animals or animal-like. Similarly, many Nazi scientists and doctors were not evil in the conventional sense. In their belief that certain races were less-than-human, they didn’t feel moral pangs in carrying out experiments. One can say that the ideologies governing the worlds of Zera/Cornelius and Nazi doctors were evil, but it doesn’t follow that they were evil as individuals. One can be part of an evil ideology and system but still believe in morality and goodness. We only need to look at Gorbachev, a man born and raised in an evil system; even so, there was something fundamentally decent within him that tried to humanize the system as much as possible(even if Gorbachev never quite realized that the system itself was evil). Until Taylor arrived, Zera and Cornelius weren’t too bothered by experimenting on humans because, as far as they were taught and could see with their own eyes, humans were mere animals or animal-like. Similarly, horrible experiments are carried out on animals today, but most of us look the other way because we figure, ‘well, they are merely animals’ This why the hogocaust–mass murder of pigs–continues to this day all over the world and why the dogocaust goes on in China, Korea, and Vietnam.
In POTA, we sympathize with Taylor and the chimps against the conservative/reactionary orangutans, and in EFPOTA, we sympathize with Zera, Cornelius, and her liberal human friends against alarmist humans who fear an ape-dominated future. But, both films are thoughtful enough to make us wonder if the ‘bad guys’ have been right all along. They may be cold and ruthless, but they have no illusions. Dr. Zaius in POTA is cold-blooded toward humans, but he’s trying to save civilization for the apes; and the man who shoots Zera and her baby is a killer but also a defender of human civilization. And, precisely because we saw POTA, we too fear what will become of man if Zera’s baby is not killed. For its irony and complexity, POTA and EFPOTA are the two best films in the ape series. Their main focus is on ideas surrounding civilization and barbarism, time as an element in history, the conflict between tradition and progress, the sacred and the scientific.

Beneath the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of Apes, and Battle of the Planet of the Apes, in contrast, are blatantly about racial tensions. Beneath the Planet of the Apes continues the story of POTA, but the main conflict is between mole-like human survivors who worship the nuclear bomb–a parody of Dr. Strangelove?–the ape order which has become overrun by angry and aggressive gorillas. The war between underground humans and the apes in the film isn’t necessarily racial in nature; indeed, it could be seen as a childish, simple-minded, and perverse allegory of Cold War mentality. The real racial element in BTPOTA is found in the rise of the gorillas vis-a-vis chimpanzees and orangutans. In POTA, the gorillas were not particularly black-ish in the way they talked, walked, or acted. They were more like Roman centurions or the Prussian Guard. In BTPOTA, the gorillas are somewhat more jiveass-like. We see one gorilla giving a demagogic speech which stirs up a whole bunch of other gorillas. It’s like Idi Amin or the Black Panthers coming to power. The gorillas seizure of power can be seen as the rise of fascism, but there is a black element here because the gorillas seem to be so unruly and wild–unlike in POTA where they dutifully submitted to the superior intellect and knowledge of chimpanzees and orangutans. In BTPOTA, both chimps and orangutans are increasingly threatened by gorilla power. There is a sense that reason and spirituality are losing out to wild passion, mob mentality, and jiveassness. In a way, BTPOTA reflects the disillusionment of liberals in the late 60s and early 70s. White liberals thought that whites and blacks would have a future together like in Lilies of the Field or Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner. But, blacks got wilder and crazier in the 60s and 70s. White liberals thought blacks could easily be accommodated and socially engineered in the new progressive order. Blacks saw things differently and made it clear that they were not interested in listening to or following the advice of do-goody ‘progressive’ liberal whites. Some white radicals joined with crazy blacks to start revolution, but both whites and blacks expended most of their energy on drugs, orgies, internecine battles, ego trips, moronic ideological fantasies, and self-destructiveness. The coalition of white liberal do-gooders, the progressive religious community, and blacks was broken. Just as the chimps and orangutans are shunted aside in the new gorilla dominated order in BTPOTA, white liberals were left confused and puzzled by the late 60s and early 70s. How did things go so wrong with blacks and unruly young people? The rise of the gorilla order in BTPOTA is prescient in the rise of black order in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Even South African Jews who did so much to help blacks end apartheid are now wondering what went wrong. The blacks who took over South Africa have been acting more and more like gorillas in BTPOTA. Of course, no amount of sobering data will convince pussified liberal white boys and dumb white girls trained to kiss Jewish ass and suck black dick even when their own future is doomed; indeed, white liberals think it is evil to even insist on the idea of a white race, white tradition and identity, white power, or the right of whites to survive as a people. Pussified white liberal/leftist boys think their main role in life is to wank off to black males taking white girls, and idiot white liberal/leftist girls think no virtue is greater than having sex with Negroes and giving birth to their own Obama-babies. The liberal and leftist Jews, through control of media and academia, have played an essential role in creating and implanting this kind of suicidal mind set among white folks.

BTPOTA presents two camps as equally dangerous. On the one hand, there is the ‘racist’ human survivors who worship the bomb, no doubt representing right-wing Cold Warriors of the white right in America. On the other side, you have the gorillas who represent rise of fascism/militarism or far leftist communism, black panthers, or street mobs. In between are the few good chimps–liberals–and a couple of humans(who arrived from the past via spaceships). BTPOTA is a vision of the future where extremists on both sides take over and bring apocalypse upon all of humanity.

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes can only be read as the rise of blacks or the Third World against the white, western, colonialist, or imperialist order. It is prescient because what we are now seeing in Europe and America is along the lines presented in the film. Humans naively think they can peacefully coexist with chimpanzees trained to play secondary roles and serve humanity–like how European expected non-white immigrants to come and do all the dirty work and not complain OR like how Americans expected Mexican Illegals to cut the grass, work in restaurants, and not make too much fuss–or like South African whites thought blacks would forever accept apartheid or like Israelis think Arabs in Israel and West Bank/Gaza could forever be pacified. Violence is breaking out all over Europe, and we’ve seen massive Illegal rallies in America. But, this already happened on a larger scale with grave consequences with the importation of black slaves in North and South America. Whites thought they could use black slaves indefinitely as a servile caste. But, blacks were eventually freed. Then, whites thought blacks would be happy with second class status. But, that too was challenged. Then, whites thought blacks would be happy and grateful to be given equal chance in society. But, many blacks went crazy and violent(especially as they came to regard whites as pussy and faggoty and began to smell the blood), and we are facing huge problems related to the black race. Many blacks have become like the apes in COTPOTA. They say demography and iron will are destiny, and the apes in COTPOTA have the numbers and the will. They take over society just like North Vietnamese eventually took over the South, like the communist guerillas prevailed in Cuba, like blacks took over many major cities–only to drive them into the ground of course.

Battle of the Planet of the Apes presents a world where the apes now rule. It is like freaking South Africa after the end of apartheid. Humans have been allowed to survive but must serve the apes. But, there is division among the apes. There are the relatively broad-minded and conciliatory light-skinned chimpanzees and the blacker, uglier, and more violent gorillas. The fate of both apes and humanity rests on which side shall gain dominance–the light-skinned chimps or the black-faced gorillas.
Finally, there is a big battle between the apes and remnants of humans, and the apes triumph. Apes gain total power to do as they please. Will the future turn out like in the original POTA, with apes running everything and humans relegated to animal status and banished into the wilderness? BOTPOTA defies the iron law of determinism. Future is what we make of it through free will. So, Caesar the noble chimp–like Tom Cruise at the crucial point in Minority Report–chooses to establish a society where apes and humans co-exist equally. (Actually, I wouldn’t mind a society where humans and intelligent apes co-exist as equals. At least, there won’t be any ‘interracial’ mating between the two groups. The problem with white-black integration is black males take white females while white males are reduced to becoming pussyboy beta-males sucking up to black males and fooling themselves that their pitiful submission to black dominance is a kind of ‘progressive’ attitude when, in fact, it is just the natural result of the weaker pussy boy bowing down before the tougher male.)

Anyway, BOTPOTA is also prescient due to the rise of Obama. Many whites are afraid of blacks and worried about the racial future of this country. Most whites don’t hate blacks but fear them. Most whites are well-intentioned when it comes to blacks but feel helpless to do anything about it because white good will is distrusted, unreciprocated, exploited, and mocked by many blacks. Most black leaders have been like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Marion Barry, David Dinkins, and worse. White liberals–many of them Jewish–are allied with such men but feel frustrated and privately bitter. It’s like dealing with ugly, stupid, brutish, black-faced gorillas in BOTPOTA. So, white liberals and even some conservatives look upon Barack Obama as a Caesar-like figure(in BOTPOTA). Caesar is an angry ape–for what the humans had done to his fellow apes–, but he’s also a forgiving ape, an intellectual and smart ape, a reasonably humane ape, etc. Whites look upon Obama like South African whites looked upon Nelson Mandela. Whites are too guilt-ridden or afraid to honestly expound on what they hate about the black community, so they can only make indirect criticism by profusely overpraising what they deem as the virtues of black society. Whites are too afraid or guilt-ridden to say, ‘many of you black women are obnoxious, trashy, hideous, and monstrous’ so, instead, they take someone like Oprah and praise her to heaven. That’s supposed to serve as an indirect or muted criticism of the kind of stuff that whites don’t like in the black community.
By profusely rewarding ‘good blacks’, whites hope to subtly punish bad blacks. The white message is, ‘look at all the goodies and riches that will come your way if you act nice like Oprah; if you act trashy, you’ll end up with nothing’. Problem is too many white people do reward crazy blacks as well. Just consider the amount of money made by rappers and other jiveass artists. Mixed signals are sent all the time. Anyway, there is this hope that by overpraising Bill Cosby, Oprah, and Obama, the gorillian blacks will take the cue from the smarter, saner, and more reasonable chimpish blacks. So, Barack Obama is useful and valuable to whites in the way that Caesar–the son of Zera and Cornelius–is beneficial to humans in BOTPOTA. In a world where whites are going to lose power regardless vis-a-vis the ‘people of color’, it’s better to elevate the saner than the insaner among the colored kind. But, look at where South Africa is going, and it’s not working, is it? Chimpish black Mandela was purely symoblic and Mbeki failed to connect with the masses of gorillian blacks. So, the end result is the rise of the gorillian and disgusting Jacob Zuma. Only hard truths are useful in history in the long run, not soft-headed liberal fantasies. Only fascists dare know and speak the truth.

Anyway, that’s my summation of the Planet of the Apes and thoughts on whatever it may mean to the world of politics and social reality.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

What Makes a Good Society? What Makes us Worship the Great Man?

In this period of economic turmoil, War on Terror stress syndrome, and mood of general uncertainty, people are understandably worried about their society, present and future. Many people feel something is wrong with America and something BIG needs to be done. What is that something? Who can do it?
Due to the scale of the problems it’s understandable that many people feel helpless and look to people with Big Power(big government) to pull us out of the crisis. It seems people lost faith in people with Big Money(big business). We’ve borrowed and spent ourselves into national bankruptcy at the behest of ‘free market’ capitalism. We’ve driven ourselves off a cliff. We feel maxed out economically and spiritually. No wonder that the Obama phenom isn’t just political or economic but spiritual; he’s The One to fill the hole in our soul. Supposedly a man of ‘impressive’ or ‘staggering’ intellect, he’s also to fill the hole in our head. He even made a promise to provide free college tuition so more of us can be educated... or indoctrinated.

Something seems to be wrong here. Yes, the scale of the problem is HUGE, but we should realize that a Good Society begins in your neighborhood and community, not in Washington. Of course, those with more money and political power have greater means to do good or evil, but they cannot do it without the cooperation or collaboration of the people–countless individuals and families.
If anything, we should be wary of Big Money or Big Power for this very reason. Take Iceland for instance. It was a decent and prosperous nation whose economy had been soundly built on production and trade. But, it caught the finance capitalist bug peddled by Big Money. Finance is supposed to work with, not usurp, the economy. But, the decent people of Iceland lost their heads and followed the Pied Piper of Big Finance. They weren’t coerced but they did so anyway. They were misled and misinformed; people abandoned their common sense and put their faith in the Big Money folks who seemed to have all the answers. If a nation of educated people can fall for stuff like that, think of political and economic problems elsewhere. We all need to sober up. We must first trust and gain control over ourselves, not people with Big Money or Big Power. Icelanders stopped practicing capitalism and started worshiping capitalism as preached and led by the Big Church of Funny Finance. And, much the same happened in America. This happened with the New Economy shenanigans of the Dot Com Bubble in the late 90s and then with Easy Loans & the Housing Bubble. Never mind that Americans were shipping jobs overseas or running up huge trade deficits in a New World Order designed to favor the global elite over everyone else. We lost our sense because we knelt and prayed at the altar of Big Money. Actually, it was more like a pagan bacchanalia, with human sacrifice and orgies and all. Our society has become addicted to excess, pushed by liberals, libertarians, and even conservatives. America lost its hardworking and thrifty fascist soul that had been at the core of TRUE Americanness.

From Big Money, now we look to Big Power. From the Cocky Cowboy to the Dark Knight. Bush to Obama. Of course, Bush too was about Big Power and Obama too is about Big Money. But, the focus of Bush’s administration was ‘money is good’ and the focus of Obama administration is ‘power is good’.

We have lost sight of what makes a good society. Unless we regain our vision, we shall not found our way back. We shall no longer be Americans in the historico-spiritual sense. The national spirit of America has always been about individuals, families, and communities than Big Money and Big Government. America of course always had Big Money and Big Power, but Americans had a strong sense of personal and communal values. But, even as our individual freedom has expanded greatly over the years–especially since the 50s with rise of youth culture and rising wealth–, we’ve lost our sense of individual and communal worth, power, and responsibility. The Reagan Era, with its undercurrents of Ayn Randism, made us mindlessly worship the Donald Trumps of the world. The corporate and business giants were seen as new heroes, worshiped as new gods. This reached its apogee during the New Economy hightech bubble of the late 90s. Supposedly all those Silicon Valley geeks were the new supermen. They were going to remake our society and make us all millionaires in the bargain. Americans invested in the stock market like never before. Experts and commentators said old economic rules no longer applied. A new era was dawning. But, the bust happened. And, then companies like Enron and others turned out to be massive frauds. People lost faith. But, the economy had not totally sunk. Then came 9/11 and a feeling of new patriotism. And then, with low interest rates it was cheap to borrow money. With new financial instruments, new lending policies, and the promotion of the ‘ownership society’, it didn’t matter if you lost your job or if your income wasn’t much nor guaranteed. Anyone could get loans and buy homes and watch the value rise and expect to live off an endless boom. Well, that finally came crashing down. So, here we are, finally at a point where we lost faith in Big Money. So, what do people do? In panic and despair, they turn to Big Power. After worshiping capitalism, now they worship socialism. We turn men into gods, gods into scapegoats, and then find another bunch of men to worship as gods, then turn them into scapegoats. I suppose that is easier than taking a good hard and honest look at ourselves, what we can and can’t do, how we can succeed, how we can fail.

But, taking a good hard look at ourselves is the only step that can really do us any good. And, only such undertaking can teach us what makes a good society and what makes a bad society. By ‘we’, I mean all of us or at least most of us. We can’t do it alone. If only a relatively few people act smart or decent while the majority act stupid, ridiculous, or destructive, the tide of idiocy will overwhelm the pool of decency and sense. But, if most people gain good sense, think and act honest, and have a firm grasp of reality, we would live in a much stabler and better society.

What makes a good society? Before looking at or to the Big Man, Big Money, or Big Government, we need look closer to home. Everything big starts from everything small. Before asking what makes a good nation, ask what makes a good state. Or, what makes a good city. Or, what makes a good town. Or, what makes a good village. Or, what makes a good neighborhood. Or, what makes a good street. Or, what makes a good family. Or, what makes a good person. Bigger the entity, less power we have within it. Smaller it is, more power we have. So, before we raise questions about what goes on in Wall Street or Washington, we must ask what goes on nearer to us–where we have greater power.
How are we acting? What are we thinking? What kind of values do we support? What kind of things we do purchase? How much do we borrow? What kind of culture do we promote or consume? What kind of ideas and values do we cherish? What do we teach our kids? How do we raise our kids? How do we treat our parents and grandparents? What kind of relationships do we have with friends, lovers, spouses, relatives? How do we treat our neighbors? What do we expect from our neighbors? These are all things we have power over. These are the things that really define us. We must not hide behind or between Bush or Obama, or blame it all on Bush or Obama; Bush or Obama certainly deserve more blame–because they have more power–but not all the blame.
Notice that too many blacks have crazy sexual relationships and do a terrible job of raising their kids, but they never blame themselves; they only blame government or rich people for ‘not caring’ about the problems in their community caused by themselves; and they only look to government or handouts from the rich or do-gooders to solve all the problems. (Because so many blacks have been so pathetic at minding their own affairs, it has become unfashionable and even ‘racist’ to blame the individual for his problems. Blaming the individual would imply that individual blacks are to blame for their problems. That simply won’t do in our politically correct society. Because we are discouraged from blaming black individuals, this mind set bleeds into society as a whole; as a result, we are less likely to blame any individual for his failings. If the failures of black individuals are not their fault, why should the failure of any individual be his fault? Also, even conservative philosophy and policies stressing individualism have failed in the black community. Since the rise of Reagan, many people have succeeded in various fields through individual ambition and accomplishment. Blacks have seen many fellow blacks succeed in sports, hollywood, music, politics, and various other fields. And yet, many blacks are still social failures.
The problem is not the lack of individualism or self-interest in the black community as such is indeed more than abundant; the problem is lack of individual responsibility and sobriety to buttress the freedom and desire. It’s a truism that black failure is due to socialist mentality in the black mentality, but this isn’t really true. Welfare mentality certainly contributed to black decay, but welfare-ism isn’t socialism. If socialist policies lead to same problems everywhere, every corner of Sweden should be like Detroit, but it’s not. Indeed, black failure is, in some ways, due more to ultra-individualism, rampant greed, and self-interest than anything else. Black teens don’t turn to crime, drugs, pregnancy, and welfare out of socialist principles but out of hunger for lust, easy money, instant power, and etc. The welfare system may support and thereby indirectly encourage such kind of behavior, but the root of such behavior has nothing to do with altruism or socialist ideology on the part of blacks. Blacks fail because they are a primitive bunch of Donald Trumps who want instant pussy and money to boogie woogie with all night long.)

We should not worship Wall Street as the Golden Goose nor scapegoat it as the Golden Calf. Of course, Big Power and Big Money do have great power over our lives, but their power–often abused–would be less if we had better sense and took better care of ourselves. We need not have fallen into the traps of recent history. The Bush trap was one where the economy fell into debt, and the Obama trap is where the economy falls into government hands.
It could be argued that most of us were duped by both Bush and Obama, but we wanted to be duped because we wanted it easy. And, we looked to Big Money and Big Power because we just don’t want to deal with problems near to us. Especially in our non-judgmental, overly sensitive, hedonistic, and self-obsessed age, we don’t want to get into other people’s faces and speak the truth or look straight into the mirror and face the music. To some extent, tolerance is a good thing, but excessive ideology of tolerance has created a climate of fear, anxiety, and intimidation. It has made us afraid to judge what needs to be judged. Indeed, the only people who are JUDGED are those deemed to be insensitive, intolerant, and bigoted(‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘xenophobic’, and the like). A society where we cannot criticize the dangers posed by crazy blacks, denial of obvious sexual differences, the idiocy of ‘gay marriage’, the dangers of liberal & leftist Jewish power, and the recklessness of illegal ‘immigration’ is a world that is dishonest, incapable of hard truths, evasive, delusional, and self-deceiving.
In our age of rampant hedonism and lunacy, we are not supposed to judge men who act like pimps, women who act like skanks, boys who act like thugs, filthy TV shows, slutty fashions, and extreme-excessive-moronic behavior of all kinds.
In a way, political correctness and excessive hedonism go together. Since we feel repressed about uncomfortable truths regarding race, sex, gayness, illegal immigration, and liberal Jewish power which are having such negative effect on our lives, we seek to drown our fears and apprehensions through wild partying, drugs, drink, stupid tv shows, and the like. In a way, the rise of PC and Howard Stern go together. PC stifles us, so people turn to Stern. Stern is acceptable despite his political incorrectness since he’s Jewish and a total pervert degenerate. Since he degrades, denounces, mocks, and attacks EVERYTHING and EVERYONE(including himself), his kind of excessive hedonistic lunacy is deemed acceptable. Sarah Silverman gets the pass for the same reasons. But, neither PC nor hedonistic lunacy(despite its anti-PC-ness) promotes truth. Political Correctness is puritanical and censorious; hedonistic lunacy is degenerate and degrading. One is repressive, the other is excessive(it throws out the baby–moral values–with the bathwater–pc sermons). The sensible Middle is not allowed in this equation. Stern is allowed to attack PC because he attacks civilization itself. The Left tolerates Stern because what he is far more damaging to solid conservative values than to Hollywood celebrities and liberal politicians. Suppose someone with a bucket of shit enters a Church and slings it all around while badmouthing Rosie O’Donnell and Barney Frank. Only an idiot Christian would applaud him because the shit slinger has some nasty things to say about Rosie and Barney. But, just look at what shit slinger is doing to the church itself. This is why conservatives who embrace stuff like Southpark and Family Guy are retards. They think those shows are cool because they go after liberal sacred cows but fail to see that such shows turn our culture as a whole into a pile of manure. It’s why liberals don’t really mind Southpark, Family Guy, and Howard Stern. Some liberal sacred cows are mocked but our traditional values as a whole are degraded. This is why Camille Paglia too is ultimately subversive and dangerous to the Right. She’s a pagan fart, not a pagan fascist.

Anyway, the point is we basically knows what makes a good society at the smaller level. A good person is diligent, serious, honest, reasonably disciplined and self-controlled, moderate in his appetites, considerate, judicious, and helpful but also courageous enough to criticize relatives, friends, and peers. A person who’s totally nice and wants to be liked by everyone is a fool. Everybody must judge and be judged sometimes. And, it’s not good enough to be ‘tolerant’–in the pc way–if one happens to be lazy, deceitful, nasty, trashy, bratty, infantile, and/or moronic. Sadly enough, even as our society has become politically more judgmental, it has grown laxer in the area of morals and ethics. Trashiness, ugliness, and excessiveness of every kind is tolerated or even celebrated as long as it is politically correct(though to be sure, certain groups have license to be politically less correct than others; blacks, for instance, are given greater leeway to badmouth Jews, gays, women, etc; and it’s perfectly okay for Hispanics to speak of their Race or Raza).

In a way, laxity of our morals is intertwined with the rise of PC because much trashiness comes from the black and Jewish community. The highly influential pimp-and-ho music and attitude come from black culture. Jewish wit and irreverence target the sacred cows of our civilization. Jews, once the profound originators of much of our moral values, are today busy tearing them down. Jews do it because they love to show off their wit, to make money(as crazy stuff is popular and profitable among hedonistic barbarians), and to undermine the values of white goy society they want to get even with for the Holocaust and for all the times rich white goy dads said, ‘you can’t marry my daughter’. To scrutinize, criticize, and denounce the foul aspects of our culture is essentially to target Jewish and black cultures since they are the main movers and shakers of popular taste; problem is we are not allowed to criticize anything Jewish or black. Whether it’s the writers and producers of stuff like Sex and the City or all those jive-ass pimp-and-ho rap music, it’s Jewish or black. Indeed, many other groups try their best to ape the Jews and blacks, corrupting themselves in the process. They too try to become the new Lenny Bruces, the new Rappers. It’s a pathetic sight.

Anyway, since Jews and blacks are the favored racial or ethnic groups according to PC, we are supposed to accept their cultural garbage–disgusting, skanky, worthless, trashy, and hideous–as the wonderful and liberating blessings of our culture Call it by its real name–immoral garbage–and condemn the people who produce such trash, and you’re labeled as a ‘racist’ or ‘anti-semite’ like Gregg Easterbrook was charged by the dirty liberal Jews at The New Republic(who, by the way, feel free to criticize the culture of goyim all the time. So, it’s okay for Jews to attack Zhang Yimou’s "Hero" as evidence of something foul in Chinese popular culture, but it’s not okay for Easterbrook to criticize Jewish financing of anti-human movies as proof something rotten in the Jewish business community. By the way, suppose Muslims dominated the porn industry and used Jewish women as sex meat for black men, and then donated much of the profits to Muslim causes in the Middle East. It would be pretty outrageous, right? Well, it seems to be perfectly okay for Jews who run the porn industry to use white shikse women as meat for beastly black men, and then send much of their profits to the cause of Zionism and the Obama campaign. It’s no wonder that people have had this image of the Dirty Jew all throughout history. Of course, not all Jews are like this. Many Jews are good people, but liberal and leftist Jews are the biggest lowest scums in the history of man.)

If much of our ugly and foul culture had originated or was dominated by the white gentile community, it would be a different story. Indeed, consider the feminist reactions to white heavy metal vs. their reactions to rap. Many feminists screamed ‘sexism’ and ‘male chauvanism’ when it came to stupid raunchy white heavy metal acts, but most of them stayed mum about the far worse Rap culture. When Madonna first appeared as a white slut, the feminists jumped all over her. But, when she became the inflatable doll for the NBA, she became a good role model for all the white girls in the eyes of feminism(an ideology that favors interracism).
Modern feminism was created by ugly left-wing Jewesses jealous of pretty white goy girls. (The leftwing Jewesses were also angry because Jewish men were going with prettier shikses.) So, the ugly and rabid left-wing Jewesses created an ideology–disseminated far and wide by their liberal Jewish allies who control the national media and academia–which came to influence an entire generation of white goy girls to see white goy guys as the enemy. All the hoopla over Date Rape focused only on one set of victims and one set of perpetrators–white guys attacking white girls on campuses. White girls were to see their fathers, uncles, brothers, and sons as villainous people. White girls were told that it’s better to go with black men–like Obama’s traitorous and disgusting skankass mama–because white men were the REAL rapists. White mothers were told to castrate their sons into metro-sexual, dorky, and pussyass white boys–like what Anna Quindlan did to her faggotyass sons. In this day and age, even straight white males are raised to be faggotyass dorks by liberal white mothers who’ve been influenced by radical feminism constructed by ugly left-wing Jewesses. It’s no wonder that so many liberal white boys wet their pants at the sight of Obama. They’ve been raised to think, "I’m an inherently evil and privileged faggotyass white boy. My role in life is to find and worship a noble person of color."
Anyway, much of the trashiness of our popular culture emanates from black and Jewish culture. We are not supposed to criticize or attack anything defined by blackness or Jewishness. So, we have allowed cultural sewage to flow everywhere.

Sometimes, it gets confusing. For example, black people call each other ‘niggers’. And, it’s now part of mainstream culture for non-blacks to call eachother ‘nigger’ and even act like ‘niggers’. ‘Whiggers’ are all around. Chinese-American kids act like ‘chiggers’, and Mexican-Americans act like ‘spiggers’. It’s an ugly and trashy way to act, but kids wanna imitate ‘niggaz’ because blacks are tougher in sport and in pop music, the twin pillars of our popular culture. People are animals and naturally admire, respect, and want to emulate figures of POWER. Since the top athletes and top muscle-flexing ass-shakers are black, most kids want to act black. Never mind that black behavior is destructive, worthless, trashy, and useless outside a MTV studio or football field. People wanna associate with naked power, just like primitive people wear lion or bear claws to absorb the power of those mighty beasts. Bling blings–worn by kids of all backgrounds–are the lion or bear claw necklaces in our modern culture. Though we are technologically advanced, primitive tribalism has been on the rise because blacks have come to define that which is MIGHTY and BADASS. When Rampage Jackson or Rashad Evans flattened white boy Chuck Liddell, even white boys wanna be black, and white girls wanna put out to the tougher and studlier black men. Just look at sports like Basketball or Football, and you see pretty white girls cheering for strong black men; most white boys have been relegated to bench-warming status. White boy is to the Black Dude what the Asian geek is to the white guy.

Jewish-black alliance is strange because Jews promote cosmopolitanism while blacks practice a kind of wild-ass tribalism. Black culture, style, and expression are all about ‘we blacks are badass!’. Though there is an element of Jewish pride/identity in superior Jewish wit, Jewish culture casts a wider net–as does their control of much of the economy and media. Jewish-owned music industry have disseminated rap music and black culture far and wide. So, black culture, though primitive and tribal, has become the universal model for youth culture everywhere; perhaps one could call this uni-tribalism or globo-tribalism. So, you have Palestinians and Zionists trashing one another through rap music. We have French youths–white, black, and Arab–trashing one another America through rap. Kids all over share the global culture of tribalism. They sing the same ugabuga songs that turn them against each other as the soul of rap is thuggery and bullying.

Anyway, let’s return to the original point. What makes a good society? The quality of individuals and families make a good society. There are many levels of society within a good society. A village is a society, a town is a society, a city is a society. If the smaller units of society are rotten, society as a whole will be rotten(even if those at the top are good men). But, the smaller units of society are sound, it will weather even bad leadership at the top–as long as the leadership doesn’t gain totalitarian power over society. Civil society is more important than political society. All the Main Streets are more important than Wall Street. (One of the problems of globalism is that our control of our nation, city, down, village, etc weakens as our economy become more linked with the rest of the world.)
Suppose you want to build a toy tower with blocks. Most of those blocks will have to be cubes or interlocking for the tower to stand firm. The shape of the blocks matter most at the foundation or around the bottom. If blocks came in all kinds of strange shapes, the tower will not stand. In other words, a soundly built tower depends on the shape-worthiness of individual blocks. It would be foolish to see only the tower but not the blocks that make it possible; that would be like seeing the forest but not the trees. Of course, there can be some non-essential decorative stuff on the top, but we know that’s not why the tower is standing. (Remove decorative stuff from a skyscraper, and the building still stands firm. Undermine the structural integrity of the main body, especially at the bottom, and the skyscraper starts wobbling and may well collapse. Of course, it could be argued that society is more like a human body than a building. Building is all body and no brain whereas a society, like a human body, has a brain center. One could argue that the brain–the top–is the most crucial part in a person. Even so, the body has to be healthy for the brain to work properly. If the back, ass, stomach, or whatever hurts, the brain is much less able to focus and accomplish tasks; mental energy becomes focused on the ailments of the body. It could also be argue that the body is more important than the brain in this sense; life developed body before mind, mechanisms before consciousness. The brain is the outgrowth of the body, not the other way around; indeed, the brain is really just a part of the body that can function as if with ‘free will’ and imagination. But, the brain is useless if divorced from and ignores to serve the central reality of the body. A healthy society is where the body is healthy so that the mind can do things that the rest of the body cannot. When the body is unhealthy, the mind eventually collapses too, emotionally and intellectually. The ideas developed by the brain center of America–mainly liberal or leftist Jewish–in the past 50 yrs have not been healthy for the body as a whole–white gentile America. The brains have become ever more brilliant but not at facing and dealing with reality but in trying to suppress it, elude it, or go around it.)
Many people mistake the decorative stuff on the top as the essence of the tower when the real essence lies in the square cubes that making up its main body. Of course, all towers, even toy towers, need an architect, but an architect is useless unless he has many cubes to work with. This is why a national leader can only do so much. A leader working with cube people can build a mightier nation than a leader with odd shaped people. Hitler was able to do much more than Mussolini because Germans were made of more solid stuff than Italians. Hitler failed because once he erected his mighty tower, he tried to make it move. A nation takes a giant risk whenever it tries to conquer other nations.
In America no leader has had the power to disassemble the entire system and build anew. He must work with a system, a society, or a reality we all inherited. The president doesn’t have totalitarian powers to overhaul everything. Our society will essentially be as good or bad as the individual blocks composing it. This is why it’s foolish to look to the Great Leader to fix our biggest problems or save us. The greatness of Reagan wasn’t that he DID something but simply allowed the private sector–free individuals–to their own thing. He trusted in the individual blocks that made America. (Where Reagan and many conservatives failed is they over-estimated the wisdom of individualism. In an increasingly materialistic society, individualism can become synonymous with excessive hedonism and barbarism, promoting a freedom that is destructive and mindless than constructive and responsible. The overly materialistic yuppie culture that developed in the 80s was ultimately counter-productive; it was a culture based on individual hard work and success but its values were hollow–succeed to gratify yourself; the children of yuppies were raised to be spoiled brats; spiritually hollow, they either became stupid idiots or new leftists seeking meaning through the secular religion of radical ‘social justice’. Thus, Reaganism led to Obama-ism.) But, Americans, like everyone else, have been prone to fall for the Great Man or Great Men myth. That there are greater men in society is very true, but man is not god. When we look up to certain men as gods, we are making trouble for our nation. This happened with the deification of CEO’s in the 80s and especially in the internet boom yrs of the late 90s. Milton Friedman was a great economist, but many looked to him as a yoda-like sage guru. Ayn Rand fans are crazy about that crazy bitch. Wall Street and Silicon Valley were seen as bastions of all that was free, exciting, excellent, wonderful, intelligent, brilliant, and etc. The internet bust in the 1999 taught us the danger of worshiping techno geeks, and the recent financial bust taught us the dangers of blindly following Wall Street.
So, have we learned our lesson? No, because we now have people blindly worshiping Big Government led by The One, The Messiah, The Anointed One, The Prince, The King, etc, etc, Obama. Instead of looking to ourselves–and honestly at ourselves–, we are looking to the so-called Great Men to solve our problems.
The problems we face were created by all of us, though of course those with more power deserve more blame. They misled us, but many of us put them in power and/or foolishly or blindly trusted and followed. Or, we didn’t stand up to them and blow the whistle even though we sensed what they were doing was reckless or unwise. Consider the fact that the vast majority of people of Illinois re-elected Blagojevich though it was obvious that he’s a low-life crook. Not that a GOP candidate would have been any better, but the fact is both parties come up with unscrupulous leaders because of the arrogance, stupidity, naivete, or laziness of the people.

Sometimes, we do need a great bold leader to speak the truth and push forth a fundamentally new approach and system. But, that’s not easy to do in a highly developed society such as ours(where power isn’t concentrated in one place and where many people have the power to resist new ideas and policies for good or bad). It was relatively easy to establish a fundamentally new order in the Americas of the late 18th century because North America was mostly a vast empty continent. With plenty of land for everyone and following a terribly disruptive war, the Founding Fathers had a unique opportunity to try something profoundly different. Such was much harder to pull off in France because France was already a highly developed civilization with much entrenched interests; lack of radical policies would have left much of the Old Guard in power while radical policies would have led to a bloodbath and frightful dislocations. (Of course, our society has changed rapidly in the past century, but it was mostly the product of countless individuals competing with new ideas. Change in a free society is organic, unpredictable, and elusive than centrally planned and implemented. Like in sports, the real game happens on the field regardless of the game plan. Though practice and strategy are important, the real ‘plan’ develops as the game is being played, with constantly shifting realities on the ground. Communism had a different idea of progress, where central government would come up with five year plans detailing and commanding what must be done and how. There was no room for individual initiative and freedom. It was difficult to breathe change into the communist system because of its massive size and pervasive power. And, it’s difficult to radically change our system because individual resistance to government dictates and power. The real question is what kind of individuals and communities comprise America? Not all anti-government resistance or disobedience is a good thing. Arnold Schwarzeneggar tried to push saner policies some years ago but had to back down due to massive objections from the people of California. Government effort to educate blacks has been met with hostility or indifference on the part of blacks. The people of New Orleans didn’t cooperate with the government during Katrina. Indeed, the aggression and craziness of the people frustrated the rescue efforts of government at local, state, and federal levels. And, we only need to look at places like Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, etc to realize that minimal government doesn’t necessarily produce heaven on earth. If individuals of a community suck, then the community will suck.)

Only rarely do highly complex, advanced, and sizable civilizations get an opportunity to try something drastically new. It happened in Russia following the chaos of WWI. The power vacuum allowed the Bolsheviks to seize power and push forth radical policies turning society upside down. Nazi policy in Germany was less revolutionary but made possible by prolonged depression of the 20s and 30s. China was ripe for radical revolution in the late 40s and 50s because it had been worn down by a prolonged period of imperial decay, Western imperialism, warlord-ism, corruption, and Japanese invasion. But, without such giant geopolitical earthquakes, a new leader has only so many cards to play with. Even in America, presidents were able to do something truly new only following a massive crisis: Lincoln thanks to the Civil War, FDR thanks to the Depression and WWII, Johnson thanks to the Civil Rights Movement. Obama, of course, is hoping to use the current crisis to turn US into a socialist country. Even so, no American president had the kind of power to re-order society to the extent that leaders of other countries had done. America has simply been more stable than more countries, and furthermore, the strain of individualism and local autonomy has made many Americans resist the idea of government amassing power to shove its policy down all our throats. (It must be said, however, that because the freedom of the people was preserved there has been far more change in America than in nations with governments with power to do much more. Communism produced greater amount of change in a short period of time than any other system, but after the initial revolution a long period of stasis and stagnation followed since the only game in town was communism. At no point in history did America produce the kind of overnight change as happened under communism, but America kept changing year after year, with individuals infusing new ideas into the system day in and day out, year in and year out. America was not a nation of single all-encompassing revolutions but many mini-revolutions in various fields–science, business, culture, etc–happening all year round. Communism was a giant storm of change followed by a long drought whereas America was more like steady rain of new ideas.)
But, Americans tend to lose faith in themselves during times of duress and look to the Great Man. When times are good, Americans are likely to admire Great Men, the successful capitalists. When times are bad, Americans are likely to run to the Great Man, the savior who promises to protect us from the avarice of the Great Men exposed as Great Robber-Barons. In the Clinton and Bush yrs, many people looked up to CEOs and bankers. Today, those people are despised, and many people look to Messiah Obama to save them from the Greed of the Evil Rich Folks(though rich folks got Obama into office).

Perhaps, we should ask why this is so. What is it about human nature that makes us look up to and worship Great Men? The most obvious reason would be that some people are indeed great–imbued with special talent or power. But, there seems to be more at hand. It’s not just that people look up to men with great talent but that people NEED to look up to such figures–heroes, chiefs, kings, titans, gods. It’s as though there’s an innate desire within us to seek and worship great figures. Indeed, we would invent them if they didn’t exist–indeed, we do all the time. It begins with children who don’t need to be taught to admire super heroes, giant monsters, sports stars, etc. They have a natural inclination to look up to Great Figures. And, this tendency remains intact as people grow older. Even people who come to reject or distrust authority and institutions worship or, at least, highly admire figures like Hunter S. Thompson or Ayn Rand who supposedly embodied the essence of individualism. Even anti-authoritarianism has its own heroes and gods. And, of course Marxism, an ideology committed to destroying religion, had its own Holy Men.

Consider, for instance, people’s worship of movie stars. We know that movie stars are fakers. At best, they have a talent for mimicry, for putting on an act. But, we don’t admire only their acting talent; we see them as larger-than-life; we associate them with the mythic characters they play. We don’t look upon John Wayne merely as an actor who did a good job playing cowboys but as the myth of the American Cowboy itself. There’s no other way to explain the great popularity of movie stars. They satisfy the need of people to submit to something ‘higher than themselves’. And, consider comic book heroes. We all know such heroes are fake, yet kids love spiderman, superman, and the like. Even adults pay good money to watch Hollywood movies about action heroes. People spend lots of money on super hero posters, t-shirts, and such. There is an aspect of worship even as people consciously know super heroes are fake. And, athletes are admired and even worshiped by their fans way beyond their real worth. They’re seen as Hometown Heroes, National Heroes, or representative of the Noble Virtues or Great Causes. All sorts of cultural and mythic significance are draped across their shoulders. So, Muhammad Ali wasn’t merely seen as an entertaining and excellent boxer but as a god-like hero of the black community. Liberal Jews have vastly exaggerated the significance of Jesse Owens–whose only ability was to run fast–, making him into a larger-than-life hero so as to morally browbeat the white goy community and to teach blacks that Jews are their natural friends. (Jesse Owens, Joe Louis, and Jews against all those evil white goyim.)

To be sure, there is an element of hype and manipulation perpetrated by corporations that control information; therefore, it could be argued that we are conditioned to worship certain celebrities, leaders, and ‘heroes’. Still, we must ask why people are receptive to such conditioning and manipulation to begin with. People controlling the media can manipulate us because there’s something innate within us that can be(indeed wants to be)manipulated. It’s like the porn industry can manipulate the desires of men because men are horny to begin with; men’s innate sexual desires can be exploited and magnified, but it was there to be begin with, not implanted in man by the porn industry. Indeed, even before the advent of modern media and technology, the innate nature of man led him to seek out great men, worship idols, and so on.

Why do people feel this need to admire or even worship great men or great power? Fear may be offered as one reason. Fearsome things/beings may be unpleasant or terrible, but they are awe-inspiring. Fear may not inspire love but can inspire respect or at least acknowledgment of its power.
There is also the element of protection and security. You feel safer if you have a big strong guy on your side. Naturally, people turn to John Wayne-like figures to save the town in Western films. Power inspires fear, fear inspires respect. And, we hope that the powerful being is on our side or on the side of good. Indeed, most action films are predicated on the hope that some fearsome guys will choose good to protect the people from fearsome bad guys; Yojimbo is a classic example.
Even so, we respect power itself, good or bad. Detroit Pistons were the bad boys of the NBA but still admired by many simply because they were the best. Jack Johnson played the bad ‘nigger’, and even though whites hated him., they still had a reluctant admiration for his tough black ass(and today, ‘faggoty ass’ white boys worship him as the great black man who taught the ‘racist’ white boy a lesson and promoted noble black pride); and white women secretly desired to submit to him, the destroyer of the ‘faggoty ass’ white men. In the film "A Bronx Tale", the son feels closer to the tough mafia boss than to his good humdrum dad. In "Shane", Joey looks up to Shane because he’s cooler and faster than his father. Lucky for us, Shane is a good guy. Jack Palance is the bad guy and we fear him... but we are fascinated by him as well. If you ask most men who would they wanna be, Shane or Palance, they would probably say Shane–as Shane is a tough good guy. But, if you ask most guys would they rather be Palance–tough bad guy–or one of the weaklings of the community, most men will say they’d rather be Palance. Power even if evil is more enticing and seductive than weakness even if good. Rap music is openly about being nasty, raw, bad, disgusting, savage, uglyass, and putrid but it’s tough, aggressive, and power-mongering. Because blacks, the main practitioners of Rap, are seen as the toughest and baddest mofos, kids around the world imitate and hope to be black-ish. Even Hispanics who fight with blacks in California listen to black music, watch black dominated sports, and all that stuff. Blacks see Mexican-Americans as short funny-looking midgets while Mexican-Americans see blacks as badass mofos. So, even though Mariachi music is a lot more pleasant than ugly stupid Rap, Mexican-American kids ape blacks and not the other way around. It’s because blackness is associated with power whereas Mexican-ness is associated with funny-looking stubbiness. Of course, there are many tough Mexicans around, but they are no match for blacks generally(except numerically).
Blacks pose a real problem to our society because people naturally look up to powerful figures. We want our heroes to be both powerful and good, but the problems is blacks are powerful and bad. There was a time when whites were fearful of black power, good or bad. White men didn’t want to lose their status as the top dog, the alpha male of society. They wanted white women to see them as the top studs. But, black males whupped white boys real good. Black males became the new alpha males admired by stupid white bitches. Since this was fait accompli–largely with the help of liberal Jews who took special delight in the humiliation of white goy males–, white males hoped that black power would be synonymous with decency and goodness. Whites were willing to accept to the studly superiority of blacks but wanted blacks to be like Sidney Poitier in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Blacks played along with this charade for awhile(Jackie Robinson-ism), but Muhammad Ali revived the ghost of Jack Johnson in the 60s. Blacks didn’t want to be nice decent good negroes approved by white folks; blacks wanted to express their own style, do their own thang, and all that. Much of this could only offend or scare the white community. Even so, it was obvious that blacks were louder, tougher, badasser, cooler, and all that jazzier. Since kids naturally gravitate to power and toughness, more and more white kids turned to black culture even though much of it was hateful, stupid, retarded, ugly, and obnoxious. Again, most men would rather be Jack Palance in "Shane" than one of the weakling good characters. Young people prefer Alex in A Clockwork Orange to his victims. White suburban teens admire and romanticize the tough gangsta thugs of the black community than the decent ‘boring’ blacks who try to make an honest living. In the past, many people romanticized gun-slinging outlaws more than decent farmers and church going folks. Though most white guys in the past wanted to look up to tough white heroes and most white girls wanted to admire white men as the white knight(saving the damsel in distress), the fact was black dragon was tougher than the white knights((and bit by bit, the star of white male-dom dropped lower; white women no longer felt satisfied or safe in the arms of white men; they turned to the black dragon). So, gradually, more and more white guys became sorryass white boys worshiping and imitating black muscle AND more and more white girls became skanky white ho’s worshiping black dick.
But, because black culture is so ugly, hideous, disgusting, and yucky, this cultural shift within mainstream America has had a terrible impact on all our racial communities. (Instead of white people
upholding solid and proud values which blacks could accept, practice, and improve their lives with, white people stooped to the level of stupid wildass black culture. White culture grew trashier while blacks no longer had any higher ideal to look up; as such, blacks just wallowed more in their own trashiness as society deemed it as the badassest and coolest thing around.)
There isn’t much good that comes of imitating stupid ‘niggaz’. They may be exciting on the basketball court or singing and dancing like sex-crazed lunatics, but blackness cannot serve as the basis of civilization or maintain a stable society. Indeed, blackness is the very anti-thesis of civilizational values. If blackness takes over a society, society will fall. Look at the hellish black parts of Brazil. Look at Zimbabwe after blacks took over. Look at what’s happening to South Africa as blacks take over more institutions. Look at the black parts of America. Compare Hispanics who emulate decent middle class whites vs Hispanics who emulate ‘niggaz’.

This is why so many white folks have invested so heavily in Barack Obama. The white community is thinking, "okay, you black guys are tougher, sexier, and more badass. You can fool around with my wife, you can f___ my daughter, you can be my president, and I will pick cotton for you. Just smile more often, do the fist bump than hit me in the face, and don’t scare me half to death. Be tough and cool but also GOOD, because, let’s face it, black culture as it now exists is bad, destructive, and corrosive." (Because black culture is both cool and bad, it is highly dangerous. If black culture was considered bad and uncool, it would be ignored by most people and wouldn’t influence society. But, because it’s considered cool and bad, people identify badness with coolness. Vice becomes the new virtue. Ugliness becomes the new beauty. Obnoxiousness becomes the new manners. In-your-face attitude becomes the new face of American behavior. We’ve seen the awful result of such behavior in the black community, so why do other races try to imitate such behavior? Because blacks are seen as the toughest, baddest, and coolest. People worship power, good or bad. People simply don’t respect weakness, even if good. This is why Passion of the Christ was so popular in our deranged culture. It showed that Jesus was the baddest dude in the world by taking all that PAIN!!! The mentality behind Passion isn’t much different than mentality behind worship of Tupac the Rapper. Of course, Jesus in Passion isn’t some trashy mofo, but his worth is proven not so much by his spirituality but by his badass ability to soak up tremendous amount of pain. He is like a pitbull dog that could take hell of a beating.)

Long ago, whites wanted blacks to keep their asses still and act like Negroes–blacks who practice middle class white values. But, the Black Ass has been popped out of pandora’s box and won’t ever go back. Blacks can no longer be Negroes since even most of white society has grown so enamored of black coolness and jiveassness. Colin Powell was much liked, but he made many blacks and whites feel uncomfortable because he was too much of a traditional Negro. He looked and sounded too white. It wasn’t realistic for whites to plausibly believe that most blacks could be like Colin Powell; that would have been tantamount to saying blacks should act and talk just like white people. It would have smacked too much of expecting blacks to be ‘a credit to their race’. On the other hand, white folks–even liberals–thought that most black leaders were disgusting jiveass buffoons and sleazebags–the Al Sharptons so prevalent in black politics and culture. This is where Obama made his entry and solved the conundrum for many gullible, stupid, dorky, and confused white people. Obama has some jiveassness, but it is restrained by some manners. Colin Powell was missing the Ass Factor crucial to genuine blackness. Problem is that most blacks with the Ass Factor be shaking their booties wildly and violently, bruising white folks both physically and emotionally. Barack Obama has the Ass Factor but he’s goodass than badass. So, Obama is to politics what Will Smith is to movies. They are goodass blacks.
Now, wouldn’t it be far better for white people to come to realization that blacks in general are dangerous and hideous? Wouldn’t it be far better for white people to unite for white power like blacks are united for black power and Mexicans are united for Mexican power–and Chinese are united for Chinese power and Jews are united for Jewish power? So, why don’t white people unite? It’s because the Liberal Jews who have taken control of the media and academia have brainwashed white folks through guilt-baiting and guilt-peddling. It’s also because US had been locked in a long Cold War with the USSR in which US had to prove to the world that it wasn’t ‘racist’ in the eyes of the world in order to win hearts and minds all over the Third World(and in Europe which had been half-destroyed by the ugly radical racist policies of Adolf Hitler). So, white people have been hopelessly castrated by the liberal Jews’ Doctor’s Plot. Despite all the evidence, white people cannot accept that blacks are a racial danger to white folks and to civilization itself. Even if such were proven true, white folks are unable to look at truth in the face because they’ve been raised since cradle to kiss the ass of Martin King, suck on the teat of Oprah, wiggle their ass to Usher, and cheer for their hometown Negro sports hero.

Anyway, the innate desire to worship the Great Power may have predated the arrival of man. Look at social animals, and one notes a strict hierarchy within a pack or pride. Though males of any pride or pack(or females among hyenas as female hyenas are stronger than the males)will fight for dominance, the losing beta-males comes to accept the leadership of the alpha-male. It isn’t just that the weaker males are beaten into submission but that they come to genuinely look up to the stronger male. It’s not mere a case of reluctant submission but a willful submission once the dust clears after the battle. This kind of feeling may exist among solitary animals, but it’s certainly an aspect of social animals. Once the alpha member is chosen, all other members–male and female–look up to it as the god of the tribe. It’s as though all the members realize that they need such a Great Heroic Figure to lead the tribe to victory, safety, dominance, and etc. The alpha male also gets the best pussy. It’s also as though beta-males and females innately understand that if the alpha member falls, there will be dissension and chaos within the tribe in which a whole new round of internecine battles will have to be fought to produce a new leader.
Perhaps, this kind of innate mentality wouldn’t have developed if not for the fact that the natural world is dangerous. In a hazardous world, there must be strict cohesion within the tribe or pack; otherwise, they fall to other packs or tribes, or it will fall apart from internal dissension. An anarchist or libertarian social order is possible in a world without external threats or problematic individuals within the group, but such has not been the case in the natural world or through human history. A community had to cohere together against other communities and to suppress the crazies within. (The farming community in Seven Samurai wouldn’t have survived if everyone just did his own thing.) Even if one community practices peace and atomized individualism, other communities could well be tight-knit, united, and aggressive. (The problem of the Greek city states was they were too divided to form a solid and stable bloc capable of repelling all enemies indefinitely. So, they all fell under Alexander the Macedon.) For a community to prevail or protect itself from others throughout human existence, it needed a leadership class that it could look up to, follow, obey, and admire. The farmers in Seven Samurai need the warrior caste to save them from bandits. Usually, we think of superiors hiring people to serve as inferiors, but in Seven Samurai, inferiors hire people to function as superiors. Farmers need Hero-like men to save them from the bandits. When the bandits are finally gone, the farmers feel less need for the samurai. Even so, respect for the great force or being that maintains justice, peace, order, and advantage to one’s side is probably something that developed since the time mammals became complex social creatures. Whether it’s a wolves happily submitting to their top wolf to lead the attack or retreat from other packs or other beasts OR Hebrews looking to Moses to lead them to the Promised Land against all sorts of obstacles, there is a natural propensity for higher social mammals to play follow-the-leader. This feeling could be one of the basis for our social, political, and religious mentalities.