Thursday, December 31, 2009

Lessons to Learn from the Frankfurt School.

Though the Frankfurt School is justifiably attacked by the White Right, there are certain lessons to be learned from its development and influence. It could be said that the Frankfurt School saved(or salvaged) Marxism–and leftism in general–and carried it one step further. Paradoxically enough, Frankfurters did this not by building on Marxist dogma but going back to the origins of Marxism. They focused on the writings of Marx before Marx became a Marxist–a thinker so satisfied with his theories that he abandoned criticality and devoted his energy toward an all-purpose theory purporting to connect all the dots of history. Prior to the rise of Marxism as an iron-fisted–and soon to be totalitarian–ideology, Marx had been more of a critical thinker than an all-knowing prophet. Before Marx developed a purely Manichean view of society and morality, he had sought to study and analyze society. Before he embarked to ‘change’ history and society, he sought to understand them. Eventually, all inquiries, studies, and theories develop a tendency to develop into iron truths or dogma. If they remain theories forever, they can’t be turned into a tool or weapon of practice. But, the danger of dogma is it shuts off further thought, dissension and opposition, and critical thought.
Whenever an idea or theory turns into dogma, it assumes that the End of Thought has been reached; all that remains is to implement those thoughts as practice so as to change society for the better for all eternity. This is also true of Visions. All religious visions are harbingers of the new. Visionaries open up new windows of opportunity where spirituality comes alive as a creative and original force. Thus, Jesus offered a new ways of understanding and serving God. Muhammad did the same for the Arab peoples. But eventually, visions harden into dogma, and the followers of the new religion claim the FINAL TRUTH has been revealed and everyone must conform to it. Perhaps, dogmatization or mainstream-ization is, to an extent, necessary. If all of humanity existed in a constant state of flux where thousands of POVs and ideas-as-theories contended with one another without producing a unifying truth or set of values for most people, civilization would probably fall apart. But, when a single dogma gains total domination over a people or a group, it pretty spells the end of thought and progress.
This is why the Frankfurt School was vital to the future of Marxism. The latter-day Marx, in his supreme arrogance, believed he had arrived at The Theory that explained just about everything–how history worked, what humanity desired, what justice was, how people should live, etc. He was convinced–and convinced a lot of people–that his ideas were not merely political, philosophical, or moral but also scientific and objective. Thus, Marxism came to attract and inspire a lot of people who, despite their intelligence, courage, and dedication, lacked the virtues of open-mindedness, genuine criticality, and skepticism/caution. To hardline Marxists, liberal open-mindedness was just lazy bourgeois fantasizing. Criticism of Marxism itself was attacked as heresy. Skepticism and caution were said to be signs of half-heartedness, indecisiveness, and cowardice. A true revolutionary had to fully accept the wisdom of Marx and devote himself fully to The Cause. Any hesitation meant he was really just bourgeois-chickenshit. So, it was not surprising that many intelligent people who joined the Russian Revolution often did not think very intelligently. They could only think ‘intelligently’ in their service to The Cause; of course, half-blind intelligence is not true intelligence. If evidence or developments seem to contradict or negate the theories of Marx, they blamed everything but Marx’s theories. The Russian Revolution was a great lesson in how one can be intelligent and not think intelligently at all. Much the same was true of Leninism and then later with Maoism. Never mind that the Russian Revolution contradicted what Marx had predicted, and the Chinese Revolution contradicted what Lenin had predicted. Diehard communists convinced themselves that history was more or less working out as Marx had portended, and if things didn’t turn out as they were supposed tot, the flaw must lie with reality and humanity than with Marx’s theory. Of course, the nature of Marxism being what it was, there soon developed rifts between various schools of Marxism and among national communisms, each one purporting to uphold true Marxism while the opponents were heretics or ‘bourgeois capitalist roaders’.
Anyway, the Frankfurt School came along at just the right time. In the 1930s, history was not turning out like Marx or even Lenin had predicted. Germans went with the radical rightism of National Socialism. Communist Russia could not export its revolution to any of the Eastern European nations whose elites and even masses preferred closer ties with ‘fascist’ Germany than with communist Russia. Chinese communist movement had miserably failed, and both the right-wing forces of Japanese militarism and Chinese Nationalism seemed to be on the rise. Also, it was obvious to all honest and relatively conscientious observers that Soviet communism had turned into a murderous and totalitarian enterprise. And, most Marxists in the Western world seemed either to blindly toe the Moscow line, fall behind cult figures like Leon Trotsky, or regurgitate the same radical truisms.
Of course, Hitler messed up royally in the next decade, and Soviet Union gained great power and prestige and became the second superpower after the U.S. And, with the rise of anti-colonial movements all over the world, it even seemed for awhile as though USSR would lead the bulk of humanity into the future. On the other hand, the Cold War turned the majority of the working class in the free world against communism. In 1968, it was the children of the bourgeoisie who were rioting in the streets while the members of the working class marched in support of De Gaulle. Also, with the rise of prosperity in the West, the working classes were simply not dreaming of End of History and World Revolution.
Also, it was becoming irrefutable that despite its power and size, the communist empire that arose since WWII was a moral catastrophe and an intellectual embarrassment. Though some Western European intellectuals continued to apologize for the USSR, their arguments became less and less convincing. Others like Sartre shifted their allegiance from the Soviet Union to Red China and non-white radical nations or movements, but that was bound to be discredited too as anti-intellectualism and oppressive brutality dominated all those systems.
Thus, the Frankfurters were prescient in the 1930s in dealing with the problems of Marxism. They were convinced that Marxism was NOT the iron law of history. Rather, it was a tool, an instrument or method, to be used for understanding, critiquing, and reforming society. Furthermore, the Frankfurters didn’t believe that Marxism had connected all the dots among history, economics, sociology, psychology, etc. No, Marxism offered some key methods toward finding certain answers, but Marxism could not answer all questions or solve all problems. Thus, Marxism had to be integrated with other ideas–such as ones developed by Max Weber and Sigmund Freud. To the Frankfurters, Marxism was a critical tool, not a scientific fact.
Also, the Frankfurters ventured beyond the crude materialism of most Marxists and acknowledged the importance of human psychology and culture.
Even if the white right may detest or disagree with the goals of the Frankfurters–or Antonio Gramsci–, there is no doubt that their revisions or re-formulations revitalized Marxism into an intellectually and culturally vigorous discipline, methodology, and even a neo-movement.
Of course, critics can argue that the Frankfurters were blind to one crucial detail–Marxism is useless or dangerous even as a critical methodology because its inner logic can only nudge or lead us ever closer to a form of totalitarian statism since its goal is to subvert and undermine the institutions and values that are crucial to the maintenance of modern democratic capitalist society where people are bound together by national unity and traditional values. If the dominant intellectual ideas in society weaken the justifications for capitalism, nationalism, conservatism, individual liberty, and etc, then wouldn’t society eventually decay and fall apart? From the rubble, wouldn’t a non-democratic tyrannical order arise?
Indeed, it is this aspect that has rightfully angered many white right critics of the Frankfurt School. The White Right may grudgingly respect the old-time communists who openly stated their goals and confronted their enemies face-to-face. They shook their fists at the capitalists, and capitalists shook their fists back.
The Frankfurters were more dangerous in the long run because of their insidious and stealthy nature. They permeated into our institutions not as hardline radicals but as respectable ‘open-minded’ intellectual. Thus, they came to wield influence on the ‘bourgeois’ elites of this country, and in time, the elites became more leftist and anti-nationalist than the masses. Since the elites control the means of representation and communication, it was only a matter of time before the masses to become more leftist or anti-conservative. We can clearly see this in the acceptance of ‘gay marriage’ among young people hooked to pop culture and indoctrinated by public education. How else can we explain the dire fact that the most educated members of the US voted overwhelmingly for that scumbag Barack Obama the jiveass mofo?
We cannot deny the fact that the Frankfurters were radical leftist Jewish weasels, rats, or termites who penetrated some of the most core intellectual institutions of this country and gnawed away the foundations from within. There is no doubt that they were our enemies.
(But, the sheepishness of the masses must also be blamed on conservatism to some extent. Conservatives tend to stress respect for authority figures, flag-waving, getting with the program, with-us-or-against-us, allegiance to symbolism, appeal to emotionalism, populism, etc. When conservatives controlled or had great sway over culture and values, sheepishness of the masses may have favored conservatism, but when the culture and media fell into the hands of the left, the sheepish masses–who’d long been conditioned by conservative values–simply came under the thumb of new authority figures of the left. If the core of conservatism is to fall in line behind those in power, then it made sense for many Americans to fall in behind the New Boss–Jewish, black, gay, and Latino. Thus, white women who had once sang, ‘Stand by Your Man’ were suddenly singing, ‘I wanna suck a big black cock’. White boys who had worshiped white athletes were suddenly awestruck by black athletes. White kids who had mindlessly deified white rock stars were grinding their groins to rap music. Whites who had hero-worshiped men like John Wayne and Ronald Reagan raised children who were gaga over Oprah and Obama. In other words, most sheepish people worship and admire that which is promoted, disseminated, approved, and/or marketed by the powers-that-be. Thus, the teenyboppers who had once swooned to Tom Cruise now get their thrills by dreaming of Will Smith.)
Even so, there is much to be learned from the Frankfurt School because its members were indeed critical and creative enough to redeem and save a moribund ideology fated to be discredited. No idea or dogma can last forever by claiming to be the one-and-only truth. For it to survive, it must evolve into another idea. Thus, Christianity had to change and reformulate itself in a changing world. There is less and less appeal for a dogmatic Christianity that says the Earth is 6,000 yrs old. New Christianity must interpret the Bible historically or metaphorically–or poetically–than literally in order for it be relevant in the modern world. Otherwise, it will be the religion of dummies and ignoramuses. Similarly, hardline Marxist theories prophesying the fall of capitalism and rise of the proletariat– Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism–are now useless. Che Guevara is still popular but as an icon and sex symbol–or rock star–than anything else. If Marxism still has a hold on the intellectual classes around the world, it’s thanks to people like the Frankfurters who understood the limitations of Marxism as a science and recognized its usefulness as a critical tool–to be used in tandem with other tools. Thus, the Frankfurters turned Marxism from an ideology at war with the capitalist West to one that could be employed usefully within the capitalist West.
So, it was only natural that the Frankfurters were more interested in Marx’s earlier writings than the works he came to be famous for. They were more interested in the critical Marx and the process through which he arrived at his ideas than in the infallible Marx possessed of perfect wisdom.
Another crucial importance of the Frankfurt School was it didn’t only critique ideological and class ‘enemies’ but also many of the assumptions of hardline Marxism and dogmatic Left. It was as if the Frankfurters had laid Karl Marx on a couch to be psycho-analyzed by Freud.
This is a crucial lesson for the White Right for it suffered the same fate as communism. If Marxism turned into the monstrosity of Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism, the modern right turned into the horrors of Japanese Imperialism and National Socialism–and to a lesser degree, the stupidities of Italian Fascism. This is all the more unfortunate because the modern rightist ideology of fascism was developed by disenchanted Marxists and leftists. If Mussolini had been more thoughtful and less enamored with his ego, he might have developed a kind of pre-Frankfurt School for the modern right.
After all, the whole point of early fascism was that there was no single truth or ideology that can be an answer to all problems. If fascism wasn’t exactly critical, it was certainly creative. Instead of seeing the world and history in stark Manichean or purely dialectical terms as outlined in Marxism, fascists saw history and society as being organisms where various forces eternally contended, competed, fused, and sought harmony. There was no need to create a wholly classless society, no need for a totally new society.
Fascists rejected hardline conservatives and reactionaries too. There was no going back, no stopping change and progress–as change was organic and necessary–, and no clinging to old dogmas.
On the other hand, man was not a purely rational creature who could plot out and execute perfect progress based on purely ‘objective’ understanding of himself and history. Thus, fascism and other forms of modern rightism had been creative and critical. There were many schools and many possibilities. They even attracted or forged alliances with numerous intellectual giants of the time in various fields. So, what went wrong? The same thing happened to the modern right that happened with the modern left. Dogmatism, regimentation, and a dulling of the mind took over as Mussolini and Hitler took total power and began to regard themselves as neo-gods.
To be sure, one could argue that the fate of both the modern left and modern right was pre-ordained by the nature of their ideologies. One could argue that the inner logic of Marxism could only have led to Stalinism; in other words, totalitarianism wasn’t a perversion of Marxism but it’s inevitable outcome. If indeed capitalism must be destroyed and an avant-garde intellectual class must rule in the name of the proletariat, it’s only logical that the bourgeoisie, liberal democracy, and pluralism will have to go. Thus, even as alternative Marxists denounced the brutality and oppressiveness of Leninism or Stalinism, they were blind to the fact that Marxism or radical leftism would have turned out much the same even if Trotsky or Chomsky assumed the mantle of power. This isn’t to suggest that all ideas or trends on the left is necessarily totalitarian. There has been a moderate, skeptical, libertarian, and/or cautious Left on the side of individual liberty and pluralism. And, it’s true that even radical ideologies like Marxism can be mined for useful or insightful ideas.
As for the modern right, one could argue that it too could only have given rise to men such as Mussolini and Hitler–that they were not deformities of the modern right but the consequences of its inner logic. After all, what did the modern right stress? Unmoored from traditional spiritual values of Christianity, the modern right was heavily pagan and obsessed with visionary greatness. Friedrich Nietzsche laid the ground for the wold-be ‘superman’ types. Since the modern right often–if not always–rejected the notion of the all-embracing and loving God of the New Testament, it gave rise to an idea that man himself could be god-like and direct the fate of the world. And since the modern right upheld the idea of natural hierarchy, it meant the superior individuals should rule over the inferior masses–and inferior masses should blindly follow and worship the ‘great men’–and that superior races, cultures, or nations should rule over the inferior races, cultures, or nations.
To be sure, the idea of superiority of one people over others was nothing new. But, if Christianity has at least reminded the ruling class that all humans are the same children of God, the modern right tended to have a much harsher view not only because of lack of faith in Christianity but because of its adherence to Social Darwinism.
There were some elements on the modern right which embraced spirituality, but it tended to be of the dark and disturbing occult kind, sometimes even a perverse distortion or misinterpretation of ancient artifacts or alien cultures, reaching the apotheosis of ludicrousness in the mind of Heinrich Himmler.
And, there were modern rightists defined more by what they were against than what they were for–especially in occupied France where many French Rightists tolerated the German Occupation if only because it crushed the communists, socialists, liberals, and the Jews. They tended to be against modernity, industrial society, Jewish finance, the ‘slave’ religion of the Christian Church, Bolshevism, materialism, decadence, and/or black music. But, what were they really for? It was hard to say, and these kinds of ‘rightists’ tended to fall into a rut of nihilism and opportunism. One wonders if Ezra Pound’s support of Italian Fascism was really genuine or just a means to play the Bad Boy against what he perceived to the soulless modern West.
To be sure, there was a strong contingency of the Christian Right in or at least allied with the modern right. For some of these people, Christianity was more a symbol of Western tradition, glory, and power–National Christianity–than a set of moral or spiritual principles, and they should not be confused with genuine Christians who allied with the modern right in fear of the radical left or out of hatred for decadent modernity.
The modern right, though accepting of science and technology, was also marked by an ideology rooted in ‘blood and soil’. As such, it tended to consecrate and enshrine all that was dear to one’s own people while too often disdaining or holding in contempt the cultures and even the racial makeup of other peoples. The modern right was a strange mix of rational ideas and irrational impulses and visions. It developed a talismanic version of Darwinism, half science, half blood religion. Thus, the modern right produced a strange ideology where cold-hearted automatons, who claimed to have gone ‘beyond good and evil’ and gained a clear view of the world without the obfuscation of sentimentality, also claimed to be ‘spiritual’ than ‘materialistic’.
Their brand of spirituality claimed to be unfettered by pitying compassion for the weak, diseased, and the mediocre and espouse a true pagan spirituality which valued the strong, beautiful, healthy, and superior. It was meant to be a kind of spiritual Darwinism. It was supposed to be a fusion of beauty, intelligence, and strength, the very best qualities of man.
It’s no wonder that the Nazis were obsessed with neo-classicism and harkened back to the world of the Ancient Greeks where the gods and heroes represented strength and beauty. Of course, this was a terrible caricature of Ancient Greece just as heavy metal and punk are stupid caricatures of the rich and diverse idiom of rock music. The Nazis only amplified one aspect of the classical world at the expense of all others. Obviously, they had no use for something like the anti-war play ‘Trojan Women’ nor for the many schools of thought which pondered the tragic fate of man and warned against the vice of arrogance and hubris. Also, the existence of many city-states prevented the rise of one mindset uber alles.
Alexander the Great later unified Greece and expanded the empire, but he had a certain respect for other cultures and the bravery of his enemies. Nazism, on the other hand, was psychotically arrogant, contemptuous, and/or hateful of all things non-Aryan. Many Nazis were men with small brains with even smaller hearts who mistook their lack of thought as vigor and their lack of sympathy as an higher form of ‘spirituality’.
At any rate, it never seemed to occur to many on the modern right why the great spiritual faiths took the form they did. There are two forms of spirituality: one that idealizes and magnifies things of this world and one that seeks to escape or rise above this world. On some level, both of them are related, but there are important differences. It’s easy to understand why people have always been obsessed with power, wealth, beauty, and etc. Those are things we want in THIS world. They mean survival, glory, power, and pleasure to those who have them. Thus, many cultures worshiped gods and spirits that were said to embody these qualities. Take Thor(power) in the Germanic mythology or Aphrodite(beauty) in the Greek.
And, one of the appeal of the Old Testament was that Jehovah was supposed to be most powerful being in the universe; if you were on his good side, he would help you to defeat the enemies.
Even so, the Judeo-Christian faith eventually came to favor–at least morally–the loser over the winner, or at least the virtuous and poor over vicious and powerful(or poor). (It can’t be emphasized enough that Christianity is, foremost, a religion for the good and kind, not necessarily of the poor. To Jesus, a good heart was more important than poverty and weakness. Thus, a wicked poor man had no more chance of going to heaven than a wicked rich man. Indeed, Jesus preferred a conscientious and redemptive rich man over a vile and wicked poor man. It’s only the modern leftist variation of Christianity that, via Marxist materialism, equates poverty = virtue. On the other hand, the liberal global elite seems to have no problem promoting themselves as the best of the best for their combination of riches, power, and social conscience. Thus, the attraction of ‘climate change’ faith to a lot of rich globalist elitists. Such movements not only justify their riches–since they support or are associated with ‘good’ social causes–but suggest the global rich are better than all of us.) Christian morality was partly based on the truthful observation that people–as individuals and collectives–lose far more often than they win. For every victory, there were bound to be many defeats. Also, even the strong eventually grow feeble. Even riches don’t last forever and cannot be taken to the next world when one dies. Even the beautiful grow wrinkly and old. Even the healthy grow diseased.
The Jews lost time and time again, many more times than they won. Yet, unlike most cultures which vanished from the face of the Earth upon defeat, the Jews formulated a new kind of religion where they could never be spiritually defeated even if physically defeated. Since their god was not tied down to one place or time, the Jews came to believe that their God was with them and see them through–if they kept the faith.
This didn’t mean that God favored the weak over the strong–or that God especially loved the Jews because they were so often the losers. It meant God favored the faithful of heart over the strong of body. If His people remained faithful to Him, then vengeance would be His, and he would, in time, smite the peoples who had done harm to His people.
There was a strong moral code in the Old Testament and some stuff about the importance of compassion, but it too was a religion of power–or power-lust. The difference between the Jews and the ancient pagans was really in a matter of degrees. Pagans expected their gods to deliver victory and greatness HERE AND NOW. If such weren’t forthcoming, they lost faith in their god, the social order broke down, and the culture was lost. In contrast, the Jews developed a culture of patience. Even if things turned out bad for the Jews HERE AND NOW, there was still a sense that God was plotting for their eventual triumph. Thus, the Jews needed to remain faithful and true to the One and Only God.
Indeed, many a prophet explained the downfall or suffering of the Jews as a consequence of their sinfulness. As a result, the Jewish religion became ever more moralized. Eventually, the Jewish religion went from a delayed or patient expectation of eventual power toward a tendency to favor the weak(and virtuous) over the strong as its main principle. Though this idea never became the core of Jewish beliefs, it spawned an innovator in Jesus.
Jews had innovated their religion to the point where defeat, loss, or weakness was not necessarily fatal or even something to be ashamed of. As long as they kept the faith, they could expect good things in the future. A great messiah would arrive and save the Jews and defeat the enemies. But, Jesus went the extra step and said defeat, loss, and weakness in THIS world was not something one should struggle against with the aid of faith but something one should willfully and happily embrace with faith.
According to Jesus, the Jews should not expect better times in THIS world. The world was sinful and it will be as it always has been. Since the world is sinful and filthy, wealth and power could only be attained through sin and filth. Thus, it was better to be poor and weak and unstained by the temptations and abuses of wealth and power.
It should not surprise us why Jesus’s message eventually spread like wildfire. We tend to remember the past through its kings, warriors, art, and monuments, but the fact remains that power, wealth, beauty, and good times were really enjoyed by maybe 1% of the population if that. Everyone else lived like shit. Of course, there were slave rebellions and creations of new orders, but they all turned out to be the same in the long run–‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’. So, the idea of making peace with one’s unhappy lot and knowing that the Son-of-God loved you despite your weakness, poverty, or illness were no doubt appealing to many people. (It also became popular among the ruling classes because wealth and power often make one feel spiritually empty and compromised. And, there was the usefulness of Christianity in controlling the masses with a value system that stressed accepting one’s meager lot in this world.)
Also, death rates were quite high until relatively recent times, and most people lost many dear ones. Thus, there was an emotional need to believe in some kind of afterlife where you might meet your dear ones again. Many on the modern right tend to laugh at the ‘slave religion’ of Christianity, but they forget that most of their ancestors were slaves or serfs than great warriors or kings. Because even an average Joe today lives better and enjoys more goodies than kings or noblemen of yesteryear, there is a tendency to identify with men of power than with men without power.
To be sure, the modern mind is kind of schizo because it is, at once, more power-and-wealth-obsessed than ever AND more egalitarian than ever. Everyone watches and fantasize about grand historical epics about the Great Men of Power, but we are also taught in schools that history must teach about The People and not just about Great Men.
As for Jesus, there was a contradiction between his worldly message and his promise of a new beginning. Though his worldly message seemed to be ‘accept your lot as a poor and virtuous weakling’, his prophesy forebode that He shall return one day and cleanse the world of all the bad elements and establish a kingdom of heaven on Earth. This is proof that there is some connection between pagan and Judeo-Christian religions. All said and done, whether the gratification is immediate or delayed, it all comes down to POWER.
But, there is another deeper connection between paganism and Judeo-Christian beliefs–wisdom.
All religions have required some kind of magic man, medicine man, sorcerer, witch, shaman, priest, soothsayer, etc. Though a primitive or warrior pagan culture may stress power and gory glory, the custodians of the religion need something other than brute strength and power. They need to tap into the dream world or the OTHER world; they need to go on mind journeys or meditate; they need to develop complex rituals based on mystical cosmology; they need to reflect on experience and understand reality not only in terms of its outward–or superficial–appearance but its deeper and hidden dynamics. Thus, even as Thor is the strongest of the gods in German mythology, Odin is considered the top god because of his possession of wisdom. Odin’s wisdom may pale next to that of Yahweh, but he’s a real thinker compared to the dimbulbs or pretty tarts who are his companions. Similarly, though Ares is the god of war and Aphrodite is the goddess of beauty in the Greek pantheon, they get less respect than Apollo and Athena who are associated with wisdom.
Insofar as all religions strive for some kind of wisdom, and to the extent that wisdom goes beyond fixation with beauty, power, and wealth, all religions have something deep in common. The tragic and evil aspect of Nazism was the only ‘wisdom’ it derived from pagan religions was Odin’s cunning, Thor’s muscle-headedness, Aphodite’s pornographic narcissism, and Ares’s brutish recklessness. Stupidity is bound to fail and fall, and so fell Nazism. To be sure, the good guys can sometimes lose too, but they leave behind a legend of the lost noble cause, which may later inspire generations to come. But, the defeat of the Nazi Germany left the world with nothing more than relief. Win or lose, evil forces don’t inspire us, which is why the Mongols and the Nazis have never captured the positive imagination of the world.
Though it is true that there were certain tendencies in the ideas and assumptions of the modern right that led to the disasters of Italian Fascism and National Socialism, it could be argued that this was less INEVITABLE with the Right than with the Left. For one thing, there was no universal or rational logic that purported to unite all rightist ideas. Indeed, rightist ideas were notable for having primary relevance to their place or nation of their origin than for all of humanity. Also, the Right was far more comfortable with concepts such as ‘culture’, ‘blood and soil’, ‘the irrational’, and ‘sacredness’ whereas such ideas were either suspect or anathema to the Left. If one could argue that there was only universal truth for all leftists around the world–and a logic governing such truth–, no such claim could be made for the right. There were as many rightist ‘truths’ as there were rightist entities. For the right, the truth wasn’t merely material or objective but what an individual or a people felt or held sacred.
In this sense, the right could be less dangerous and aggressive than the Left OR more dangerous and aggressive. If the Right in any nation argued only for national power and sovereignty, it only minded its own business. But, if the Right in any country plotted to conquer other nations, the result could be a total bloodbath.
The Left was more meddlesome as it called for World revolution, but it regarded–theoretically anyway–all people as being equal and deserving of ‘universal justice’–as defined by the left of course. Thus, even as the USSR killed countless people in the regions it occupied, its stated official goal was to spread the brotherhood-of-man. Nazi Germans, on the other hand, could very likely treat conquered peoples as less-than-human–depending on how the subject races measured on the Nazi scale of racial hierarchy.
Even so, Nazism was only one possible outcome of modern rightist ideas then coursing through Europe, and there was never a unified right-wing support of Mussolini’s Italy or Nazi Germany–or Franco’s Spain–comparable to the united leftist support of Marxist dogma or the Moscow line.
This was only natural as some modern rights were romantics, some were scientific or materialist, some were occultist, some preferred the past, some welcomed the future, some were pro-industry, some were anti-industry, some were business-oriented, some were socialist-oriented. Because of the crazy-quilt realities of the modern right, it’s understandable why Mussolini harked back to the distant glory of ancient Rome in order to find SOMETHING that might unite all Italian rightists. All the better to find the unifying symbols in the long lost past since no one agreed on anything in the present. If Roman glory was the unifying symbol for Italian modern rightists, German National Socialism settled on racial nationalism. Thus, National Socialism had a room for pro-science people, pro-religion people, pro-capitalists, pro-socialists, pro-paganites, pro-Christianites, and so forth and so on. How do you maintain unity among such plurality? Hitler presented the idea of German national pride and greatness.
For most Germans, the appeal of Nazism was German nationalism, not theories about the ‘Aryan’ race. ‘Aryanism’ became the central animating force of National Socialism ONLY AFTER Hitler consolidated total power. German nationalism meant revival of German power, German economic recovery, and regaining of some German lands. It didn’t mean igniting another world war.
Hitler deviously used German nationalism to gain power, but his main goal was ‘Aryanism’, a kind of demented ideology rooted in a false reading of history and calibrated as an imperialist plan to create an ‘Aryan’ empire. ‘Aryanism’ went beyond German borders in scope and policy. After all, Germanness was limited to German lands. But, Aryanism interpreted all of history as a battle between the noble, beautiful, and healthy blonde-and-blue-eyed Aryan peoples vs the mongrel or dark races. Thus, Hitler believed that nearly all great civilizations had initially been created by the Aryans but had come to ruin because Aryan founders had grown weak by mixing their blood with the lesser humans. (Hitler saw the rootless and venal Jews as facilitating this racial decay all throughout history by settling in Aryan-created civilizations and using their deviousness to undermine the rightful power of the Aryan elites. Simply put, Hitler and his cohorts projected or grafted what they observed in the modern West on ALL of history.) Aryanist view implied that much of the world been dominated by the great Aryan peoples. Himmler even argued that the original Aryans of Central Asia had been the first blonde and blue-eyed people. Of course, much of this was pure unadulterated nonsense. But, as long as Hitler, Himmler, and other lunatics were obsessed about some long lost blonde-and-blue-eyed Aryan paradise, they hungered to create a neo-Aryan empire in the modern world, and their targeted real estate was the vast lands of Russia. The insane ideology of Aryanism rode in through the Trojan Horse of German nationalism. Many Germans supported Hitler to revive Germany, not to build a utopian ‘Aryan’ empire.
Because of the crazy-quilt nature of the modern right, it’s perhaps true that the right should focus more on culture and ideas than on politics. It is unfortunate that the left has gotten a leg up in the area of culture since culture is essentially ‘irrational’ and the product of creative forces. The rational left is understandably more critical–deriving from Marx’s scientism–, but the modern right should have had the creative edge–inspired by Nietzsche. (Alas, it was the modern left which creatively appropriated Nietzsche and even Heidegger in the post-WWII era whereas much of the ‘far right’ turned to stupid Holocaust Denial, skinheadism, Neo-Nazism, and other childish lunacies.) Indeed, it is not surprising that many of the great artists in the first half of the 20th century were modern rightists–as opposed to the old school rightists who stuck to the dogma of God and Country. Somehow, the creative juices on the modern right were stomped out by the rise of Italian Fascism and especially National Socialism. For all their talk of art and culture, the severity of censorship and officialism did much to stifle and suppress individual eccentricity so crucial to art, vision, and culture. One could argue that Mussolini and Hitler were visionary artists in their own right, and surely no one can deny the grandeur, power, and even a degree of brilliance in what they managed to pull off before they shot everything to hell with reckless upmanship and warmongering.
Anyway, if there is something the Right can learn from the Frankfurt School, it is this: Like the Frankfurters, the Right must go back to the origins. The Frankfurters went back to Marx before he hardened into a Marxist. Similarly, the modern right must go back to the ideas and visions of the modern right before they were perversely distorted or simplified into something like Italian Fascism or National Socialism. And, the modern right must study the manner in which many modern rightists in the first half of the 20th century rejected or resisted the rise of corporate fascism which replaced an organic rightism or proto-fascism. Also, the modern right must study why some original thinkers on the modern right surrendered or lent their support to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler, thus abandoning their critical faculty and creative spirit for the sake of brute power and domineering glory.
It would have been sheer foolishness for the Neo-Left to build on Leninism, Stalinism, or Maoism–or even dogmatic Marxism. History never turns out like ‘great men’ prophesy nor is heaven ever possible on earth–Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China certainly weren’t it. Thus, the Frankfurters wisely went back to what might be called proto-Marxism when Marx was still a thinking and searching man than an all-knowing wiseman.
Similarly, it is ludicrous for the modern right to build on great political and moral failures of Mussolini and Hitler. (This doesn’t mean we should reject everything they did as some of their ideas had the ring of truth and some of their accomplishments were admirable and great.) We need to go back to the beginning when nothing had yet been carved in stone, when all things were possible for the modern right, when many different schools and individuals offered their own vision of the world and critique of modernity. Of course, eventually and for the purposes of action, we must arrive at some set of ideas that may constitute a new dogma, but this process must take time and great effort. The problem with the modern right in the 20th century was it took power too quickly before it matured into deeper and vaster pool of thought. Also, the modern right came to power in a state of panic when the bourgeoisie supported the radical rightist in order to stave off the radical left. In this state of Manichean panic and power struggle, the ideas became polarized and starkly us-vs-them.
There may not be much time for the White Right since we are faced with dire cultural and demographic problems. Nevertheless, unless the white right reforms and re-formulates itself–and expunges the sickness of Nazism–, it will never develop into an ideology or movement that will win over the majority of people or inspire the most intelligent and talented to take up the nationalist flag.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Two Kinds of People: Tribal/Selfless vs Universal/Selfish.

We loosely associate tribalism with selfishness and universalism with selflessness. It is said that a tribal–or particularist–person only cares about himself and his community whereas the universalist person cares about others and all of humanity. This may indeed be true in some respects, but selfless particularism and selfish universalism also seem to be quite commonplace. We only need to look at innumerable obvious examples from history.
Consider the Germans who obediently served Hitler. Consider the Japanese samurai who lived and died by their allegiance and oath to their lords. These were all highly particularist folks. They lived, fought, and died for their tribal, clan-centered, or national community. They were willing to sacrifice everything for their master or masters, to defend or expand a world of their own. They may have lacked great sympathy or feelings for people outside their community, but they were not selfish or self-centered individuals. Their life meaning was wholly invested in the community to which they belonged. If Hitler told his soldiers to go fight and die, millions of dutiful German soldiers did so. They considered it a great honor to fight and die for their Fuhrer, nation, and race. One could argue that they were selfish and greedy in a collective, communal, or tribal sense against other peoples, but they were not selfish in the individual sense.
Or, consider the family. There are many parents willing to do everything for their children. These parents can be said to be selflessly sacrificing for their children. And, some children are devoted practitioners of filial piety. But, these self-sacrificing parents or devoted children may not have much sympathy for people outside blood kinship.
Consider the movie GODFATHER where the Corleones will go to hell and back–at the very least, Michael went to Sicily and back–for the sake of the family but don’t much give a damn about those outside the family. Vito Corleone had tried to get Michael deferred from military service, and at one point, Sonny says only suckers fight and die for strangers. The young and idealistic Michael disagrees and says he signed up to serve his country. From this scene–the final one in Godfather II–, we might conclude Vito and Sonny are tribally generous but universally stingy. The Corleones established a good life in the United States, but their main loyalty is not to the US or the Constitution–nor even to NY–, but to blood. It’s all about the family. They’ll do anything for the family and closest associates(like Johnny Fontaine), but they’ll do little or nothing for the larger society. In contrast, Michael–at least initially–seems concerned about people and issues outside his immediate circle of family and friends. He appears more generous to all of humanity, less toward his own family. But, can we say that Michael is fundamentally more generous and selfless than the Corleones, or is the object of his selflessness simply different from that of Vito and Sonny’s? Furthermore, one can argue that Michael’s decision to defy the rules of the Corleone family was a kind of individualist selfishness. By embracing universalism–or a greater nationalism beyond family ties–, he was grasping for his own independence and freedom. Subconsciously, self-assertion rather than service to country may have been the main motivation.
As a member of the family, he was burdened with certain family obligations and expectations.
But, being a member of humanity–a patriotic American–enables him to lose himself among strangers to whom he owes NO SPECIFIC obligation. (One can only be truly free in the modern sense if one is a stranger among others bound by impersonal material contracts and abstract ideals. In this sense, it’s not surprising that even an oppressive ideology/system like communism had initially seemed liberating to many young people in poor countries who had previously been bound to family, clan, and custom.) One can also argue that an individual making a claim for the larger community or humanity is implying that he has the right to lead/rule/control/dominate other people or has the right to certain entitlements paid for by rest of humanity–welfare, free housing, free medicine, etc. Thus, universalism can also serve the interests of selfishness. Indeed, universalist selfishness can be more dangerous and destabilizing than particularist selfishiness. A would-be universalist leader seeks control and power over entire nations, even the entire world. A would-be universalist activist expects all the world to feed, clothe, and house him. Most radical universalists want either power or freebies. Rarely do they want to work hard and share the wealth they’ve created with rest of humanity. There are many ‘progressive’ rich capitalists, but they either tend to be naively stupid about world outside business, hungry for political power to bought with money, or simply afraid of ‘leftist’ activism and willing to dole out money to trendy causes so as to be left alone.
Let us consider some examples of universalist selfishness. Take Karl Marx. It’s often been said that Marx, for all his faults, was a man of great compassion. He wanted to ‘change the world’ so that man would not exploit fellow man. But, let us look at what Marx did for those closest to him? He had a devoted wife and children. His choice of lifestyle and career meant that his family would have to suffer, but Marx didn’t do much for their well-being. He was so busy caring about humanity that he let his family nearly starve to death. Now, it wouldn’t haven been so bad if Marx worked to feed his family, but he didn’t even do that. For all his professed compassion for the working class, he refused to stoop to its level and do manual labor. He only chose to do intellectual or ideological work, and he expected to be supported by rich capitalists who admired his genius. Indeed, one can argue that compassion conceals power-lust. Poor or weak people don’t feel compassion for rich or strong people. Feeling compassion for others means you’re in a position of superiority. Compassion is a form of luxury. A rich man dropping a few coins into a beggar’s cup feels the luxury of compassion. The beggar receives the coins like a dog receiving a bone. Thus, Marx enjoyed the pleasure of power-lust in his professed compassion for the working class. He claimed to struggle for a world with no more exploitation, but he never wanted to be a member of the unwashed rabble. He wanted to be a member of a moral and intellectual aristocracy that would lead the masses toward the new future. Thus, love for The People was a ticket to or a justification for his lust for power.
Or, consider Che Guevara, the much romanticized heir of Marx. He has also been praised and glorified as a man who cared for The People. Thus, it’s been said he was a selfless warrior who sacrificed his life for the good of the people oppressed by exploitative capitalism and imperialism. But, was he really selfless? He didn’t care too much for his family. He dumped his first ugly wife and married a prettier woman. But, he didn’t much care for her either nor the children they had together. He was too busy chasing after other women and the Revolution. His love for the People was a rationale for him to find pussy and adventure. Even if there was some truth to the fact Che was enraged by poverty and exploitation, it seems Che’s main motivation for joining the Revolution was vanity, self-glorification, and self-adulation. He wanted to be a communist god-king or rock star, a kind of Jesus. He dreamt of a communist empire stretching all across Latin America and saw himself as the King of the new order. And, was Mao any different?
Though universalism is often associated with collectivism, it is just as much a blood relative of individualism. After all, true individualism is only possible in true universalism. This is why there will always be a clash between nationalists and libertarians. Libertarianism understands that true individualism must be universalist. For an individual to be totally free and unconstrained by tradition, customs, culture, family, tribe, and nation, he must be a member of the universal or cosmopolitan community. Cultures compromise individualism because all cultures define and place moral/social demands on the individual. For example, a Jew is expected to uphold certain traditions and cling to certain loyalties. As long as he remains a Jew, he cannot be a totally free individual who makes his OWN choices on all matters. As a Jew, he is expected to remember the Holocaust and support Israel. To be a total individual, a Jew has to abandon his Jewishness and join the world community as a free-thinking individual who makes his own decisions every step of the way outside of social or cultural pressure.
Of course, the problem with libertarianism is it’s just another radical idea that tries to create the impossible. Despite all the talk of globalism and the privileged cosmopolitan delusions of the NWO elites, the fact remains that most people will remain affixed to a culture, nation, and tradition. Weakening borders and merging the world together will only produce more chaos, violence, and tensions. We need only look at the dire history of Latin America to realize that ONE WORLD culture doesn’t work. Catholics have failed, communists have failed, and globalism–at least the radical kind–isn’t working either.
If communism or Marxism is a form of collectivist universalism, libertarianism is a form of individualist universalism. Universalism is a good and noble idea, as it’s only natural for scientists, thinkers, spiritualists, and activists to seek or champion universal truth or justice. After all, we know that the law of gravity is universal all across Earth and throughout the universe. There is no British gravity as opposed to Arab gravity. And, we know that people everywhere are fundamentally similar; they feel much the same feelings and have many common intellectual abilities. So, universalism, to a sensible degree, was never the problem. The problem has always been radicalism, a poison that destroys all ideas, causes, and movements. Attach ‘radical’ to any -ism, and it turns into a purist, utopian, intolerant, and arrogant venom.
There may be moderate libertarians, but the more famous ones tend to be the radical ones like Ayn Rand and Grover Norquist. Perhaps, we should at least give them credit for their consistency of logic, but therein lies the problem–the idea that the world and humanity can be understood and saved by only one strain of thought or one thread of logical argument. No matter how logical an argument, all human arguments are grounded in ‘what FEELS right’. Ayn Rand calling her school of thought ‘Objectivism’ was just pure arrogance.
At any rate, libertarianism is valuable if only for exposing the moral defects of communism, and vice versa. Consider that both consider themselves to be universal truths, yet they’ve arrived at totally different conclusions. History had made it plain as day that communism was less about equality of man than about the Nietzschean power-lust on the part of some individuals to gain god-like wisdom, authority, and power. Communism may not take or maintain power without masses of selfless suckers willing to serve the Great Cause, the State, or the Great Helmsman, but it would never have come into existence or triumphed in certain countries without the cult of ‘great man’. So much for universal selflessness. Furthermore, the majority of the people came to tolerate or even support communism in communist nations out of selfishness than selflessness. Once Stalinist forced labor camps were shut down, communism for most Soviet citizens meant getting something for doing the least amount of work. A Polish friend once told me that despite communist Poland having been an unhappy place, the workers sure enjoyed their 2 hr lunch breaks. And, what does the passage of universal healthcare in America really mean? It means POWER for those who will control the system, and it means free healthcare for the masses who don’t want to pay for it themselves. There’s much here that has to do with selfishness.
Of course, other values and ideas are also rife with contradictions. Take heroism, for instance. Since heroes take on the toughest and most dangerous work, you’d think people on the ground or in the front line are most obsessed with heroism–and indeed this is true of some individuals. But, this isn’t so in most cases. Generally, those who make the most noise about heroism are the ones who are safely removed from the front lines. So, Patton talked big about heroism, but he was the one giving orders, not the one getting his guts blown apart. For soldiers on the ground or in the battle, heroism is an afterthought, if that. Their only thought is to survive and live another day. Men who lie wounded in army hospitals don’t think about heroism. Generally, chickenhawks and privileged men far removed from the battleground expound about big and grandiose ideals. There’s a scene in the German film DAS BOOT where the submarine crew comes up for air but then are lectured about duty and service by commanding officers who are enjoying champagne and gourmet food.
And today, there are many fools on the left who romanticize violent revolution and many idiots on the right who romanticize Nazi ‘heroism’ in WWII. Such people are poisoned by ideas and have little use for reality. They’ve forgotten the tyranny and murderousness of communism. They’ve forgotten the fate of the Germans in the war. Many German soldiers may have gone into battle feeling like great heroes, but they soon came face to face with the real nature of war–that heroism is a myth in war, especially in a modern war where whether one lives or dies is a matter of luck.
Hitler was the most frightening kind of tyrant for Nazism was a perverted synthesis of both particularism and universalism. It was what one might call a universalist particularism. Generally, particularists throughout history sought isolation. Thus, feudal Japan shut itself off from the rest of the world. Thus, Franco’s Spain was inward looking and wanted no great involvement in world affairs. The particularist right believed in a world of its own, wanted to be left alone, and wanted to leave others alone.
The universalists, on the other hand, sought to unify and reorder the world with their ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. They were not necessarily for a military conquest of the entire world. Their main objective was to spread their values and ideas all over the world. Thus, Christians sought to Christianize the world. It didn’t matter whether it happened by force, persuasion, diplomacy, missionary work, etc. This was also true of Islam.
And communists similarly wanted to turn the entire world communist by any means necessary. Universalism posited that people all around the world were fundamentally the same, therefore capable of understanding the same basic truths and attaining the same basic justice. Whatever delusions or hypocrisies were rife in all its forms, universalism was supposed to advance, liberate, and/or unite all of mankind.
The virtue of particularism was it wanted to leave others alone and wanted to be left alone. Its vice was its dogmatic clinging to much that was static and/or oppressive–in the name of sacred tradition–and its often petty or even contemptuous lack of curiosity for other peoples and cultures. (Thus, Japan stagnated over the centuries in virtual isolation precisely when the West was growing richer and stronger.) The virtue of universalism is it seeks to change society by overturning privileges of the few and ensuring rights to the many–all of us. It also has a very human and idealistic urge to share certain ideas, values, and truths will the rest of mankind. The vice of universalism is it can be intrusive, morally arrogant, aggressive, and blind to its own hypocrisies. Thus, Christian universalists were blind to the fact that other cultures had their own sacred faiths and even their own versions of universalism. After all, Buddhism and Islam are also universalist. Also, in its zeal and impatience to change the world, radical universalists have committed their own great crimes. The culmination of radical universalist folly was communism in the 20th century. Totally committed to their secular-faith-as-objective-science, communists were blind to their own blood-stained hands. It was more important to validate their sacred dogma, even if it meant enslaving or killing all the ‘wrong’ people.
Anyway, even more dangerous than communism was Nazism. If communism was radical universalism, Nazism was universalist particularism. Though it’s true enough that Hitler didn’t want to ‘conquer the world’, he did want to dominate of Europe and Eurasia and dominate world affairs. Hitler was not a traditional particularist whose motto was, ‘leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone.’ Hitler was a particularist on race but a universalist when it came to territorial vision. He wanted to universalize ‘Aryanism’. Since his ideology was based on blood–‘Aryanism’ was a biological truth than a moral or cultural idea–the only way to universalize it was by exterminating non-Aryans from the lands coveted by the ‘Aryans’. For a man who rejected universalism as an idea, he sure embraced universalism as a military and racial objective. Hitler sought to convert 1/3 of the world into an ‘Aryan’ utopia, and the only way it could be accomplished was by wiping off huge numbers of non-Aryans.
Some people on the White Right are ignorant of this and worship Hitler as a comic book hero fighting the venal Jews. Yet, other members of the White Right know this all too well but aren’t bothered by it because of (1) their obsessive fetish with the beauty, grandeur, and magnificence of the Third Reich. Priding themselves as nihilistic Nietzschean connoisseurs of higher beauty and unsentimental meta-morality inaccessible to the unwashed rabble, they turn their noses at notions such as sanctity of human life. As far as they’re concerned, most of humanity is commonplace and boring–what with 6 billion people around the world. What is truly precious and rare are deemed to be greatness, beauty, nobility, excellence, purity, etc. Since the ‘Aryans’ as formulated by Hitler were supposed to represent the highest form of natural beauty, cultural excellence, strength, and health & vigor, it is assumed that they had some natural right to dominate and even exterminate other peoples who were merely dime-a-dozen. Some white rightists admire the Japanese for the same reason. Regarding the warrior code and culture of the samurai to be cooler and more magnificent than the cultures of less martial Asians, some white rightists believe that the ‘superior’ Japanese had every right to massacre any number of commonplace ‘chinks’ to create an empire of the samurai. Most of these white right types tend to be hopeless geeks themselves. (2) There was and still is the idea on the part of some of the white right that Russians were lesser whites or no longer true whites because their blood had been tainted by Mongol invasion centuries ago and because their minds had been f***ed by the Bolshevik Jews. And other white rightists believe that the Germans had a right to rule over the Russians because Germans were simply a more advanced people while the brutish Russians were half-man/half-beasts who were only fit for taking orders. In other words, Russians are simply white ‘niggers’ or ‘spicks’, and Russia should have been a backyard for the Germans.
At any rate, it’s probably true that selfishness–or self-centeredness or self-more-ness–is a natural human trait. In this sense, if you repress one form of selfishness, it merely morphs into another kind. Similarly, if one suppresses or denies one’s sexual drives, it doesn’t really go away but surfaces in another form. Thus, if you lock up a lot of men together and don’t provide them with access to women, they turn to buggering one another. If you prohibit priests from marrying, some of them turn to child molestation. A lonely shepherd in the middle of nowhere may start mounting his own sheep. Or, if no kind of sexual outlet is allowed at all, sexual emotions can turn to violent emotions. To be sure, a few individuals do manage to overcome their natural animal drives, but it’s terribly difficult and not even desirable for most people.
Like sexuality, selfishness–perhaps it’s better to call it ‘selfness’–is natural. We see the world through our eyes. Even when a person sympathizes with others, he does it through his own private heart; all forms of sympathy is to an extent a form of projection, which is why some people are regarded and pitied as ‘victims’ even when they don’t see themselves that way. In other cases, sympathy is very selective and essentially self-serving. Thus, during WWII, Americans sympathized with those noble Russians and Chinese fighting the evil Russians and Chinese. During the Cold War, Americans sympathized with Afghanis fighting a ‘heroic’ war against communist imperialism. Oftentimes, we sympathize with other peoples–or fuel such sympathy among the masses–in order to serve our own interests in the matter. This self-serving sympathy can be political, economic, or essentially a form of vanity. After all, why do Americans care so much more for Tibetans than for the Uighurs who are also oppressed by the Han Chinese? Because Tibetan religion and culture invoke visions of spiritual Shangri-La so dear to narcissistic Westerners steeped in fashionable Eastern Mysticism. And, why are so many celebrities passionate about poverty among black Africans but show little interest for poor Bolivian Indians or Sri Lankans? Because the White West is obsessed with black athleticism and popular music, and thus feel more sympathy for suffering blacks than for suffering Bolivians or other ‘uncool’ peoples.
And of course, the sympathies of the some members of the White Right are just as suspect. They will bitch and whine about those innocent Germans killed in the Dresden bombing or raped by Russian soldiers but ignore, remain mum, or try to deny the much worse atrocities committed by Germans in the East.
In a way, one could argue that universalism can take the form of a megalomaniacal projection of one’s own ego–one’s own view of how the world should be. For the world to embrace universalism, there has had to be a person who projects his own idea of universal values and justice on everyone else. In other words, universalism isn’t possible without the prior existence of an individual with a huge ego who considers it a moral, philosophical, and/or political imperative for all of mankind to agree with HIS view of how the world should be. There can be no law unless there is a law-giver to begin with. Similarly, there can be no universalism without a man who lays down the universalist principles.
Great men who laid down universal laws must have been aware of the contradiction within their outlook. On the one hand, a GREAT MAN claims to be doing something for mankind–or the larger community–, yet he is imposing HIS own idea of how things should be. How can one convince the people–and oneself–that one is not merely forcing the people to follow ONE’S OWN idea of how things should be? Who is he to say HIS IDEAS are right for all people? Thus, the GREAT MAN often came to rely on God. He would say these universal or higher truths are not his own but were given to him by God to pass down to all the people. So, Moses went off to Mount Sinai to return with the tablets with the Ten Commandments. In the modern secular world, the creators of the new universal order invoke science, freedom, liberty, human rights, social justice, or The People.
This isn’t to suggest that all universal ideas are merely the eccentric inventions of individuals who seek to force their view of reality and justice on everyone else. Everyone is an inheritor of past traditions, wisdom, and experiences. With the power of reason, individuals may arrive at a set of values or principles that may indeed appear sound and useful to most people. Since people want to live in a ‘better’ world, there is a desire to learn, improve, and reform society. Some individuals are indeed more capable of connecting the dots, arriving at a higher truth, advancing rational arguments for the common good, and/or attaining an higher spiritual truth.
But, there are radical universalists who claim to be utterly selfless or other-istic and to speak and work purely for mankind. Yet, such radical suppression of the natural emotions of selfness leads to a monstrous selfness in the guise of utopian idealism. Consider Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Che. Each claimed to be utterly selfless agents of human progress. They claimed to desire no wealth, no privilege, no fancy jewelry and the like. They only wanted to save or help humanity. But, were they really selfless or other-istic? Did they really care more for other people than for themselves? No, they used the idea of revolution to gain obtain power for themselves. They may not have been greedy in the materialistic sense but they were greedy for power and for ‘truth’. They wanted to own and control the truth, which is why communists took over entire media networks, all schools, and all other institutions of information and learning. They always said it was all for The People–and they may have been sincere in their conviction–, but they were, at heart, very selfish or self-istic men. In the end, all that power and privilege–in the name of The People, of course–whet their appetite for other things as well, and it was only a matter of time before communist leaders lived like king and barons.
The best option for most of us would be finding a balance between particularism and universalism, between selfness and otherness. This idea may be old as the hills, but that’s why hills last so long.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Finance and High-Tech and the Rise of Jewtopia.

If anything is well-suited for Jewish power and influence, it is finance. Jews are to the West what the British Imperialists were to India–a small but powerful minority occupying the role of the POWER ELITE. Since a minority elite lacks power-by-numbers, they must rely on the strategy of divide-and-rule. Thus, over the centuries in Europe, Jews served the gentile aristocracy in oppressing the gentile masses, played the role of the ascendant bourgeoisie sidelining the aristocracy, or agitated the masses against the traditional elite. To be sure, Jews weren’t the only ones playing dirty and venal. The mostly corrupt, parasitic, and lazy European aristocratic elites depended on the Jews to collect taxes and to serve as middlemen. When the masses got angry and rose up, the gentile aristocrats conveniently dumped all the blame on the Jew-the-Christ-killer and sat back while the masses vented their anger on the Jews. (Today, Jews similarly channel the rage and frustration of Americans against the Chinese and the Muslims, even though the rise of China is the product of globalism commandeered by Jews and the ‘Muslim Problem’ is the result of Jewish-controlled US policy toward the Middle East.)
Since Jews were not allowed to own much or any land and/or were forced to live in ghettos, finance became important to their power and survival. Financial wealth is portable and could take on many forms. Even a Jew forced to live in a ghetto could gain much wealth through finance and contracts based upon it. Even a Jew without landed property could own paper wealth or relatively portable(or conceal-able)gold. A Jew expelled from one region to another couldn’t take his house or land with him, but he could take his wealth writ on paper. It’s no wonder that Jews became the masters of finance. Though their high intelligence suited them well for this profession, it was historical and social pressures which forced Jews to hone their financial skills further and further. Jews learned how to transform real wealth into paper wealth, how to hide wealth through a myriad of contracts and laws, and transfer wealth from one place to another. There is no doubt that this played a great role in the rise of the West. Non-Western peoples didn’t have comparable Jewish community with as much skill or innovative spirit. Chinese have been called the "Jews of Asia", but the Chinese never developed techniques and systems as intricate and brilliant as those of the Jews.
In a way, finance was to Jewish economics what monotheism was to Jewish spirituality. Throughout the ages, Jews were a talented and smart people without a home of their own. Forced to be nomads going from one place to another, they didn’t have the luxury of attaching their sacredness to a particular place or time. Since Jews were almost permanently in exile, their God had to be abstracted, intellectualized, and made portable. Thus, it could be said that if Greek gods ruled Greece, Egyptian gods ruled over the Egyptian world, and Germanic gods ruled over the Germanic lands, the Jewish God, in contrast, ruled over everything and everyone and was everywhere at all times. This was the great spiritual innovation of the Jews, a first kind of spiritual universalism which would eventually spawn Christianity and Islam.
It is paradoxical but true. The Almighty Jewish God was formulated out of Jewish weakness–their exile and lack of home–, and He became more powerful than all the myriad non-Hebraic gods put together. Jews learned, both spiritually and economically, how to turn disadvantage into an advantage. If you can’t have a permanent home and sanctify it as the sacred ground of your god or gods, then create a god that rules the heavens over all the lands, a kind of god who will always be with you no matter where you are. If you can’t own land or much physical property, find a way to own wealth through financial contracts and middleman professions. Jewish spiritualism was so enticing and profound that it eventually converted much of the pagan world. Today, nearly half the world is Christian or Muslim. And Jewish economic instruments and skills became so awesome that powerful gentiles came to depend on the Jews. Many kings and aristocrats came to rely on Jewish financial backing to expand their empires, build new palaces, and throw lavish parties. In a country like Hungary in the late 19th and early 20th century, the gentile monarchy and aristocracy almost entirely depended on the talented Jewish business and intellectual community to do all the modernizing.
As powerful and influential as the Jews became in the West by the 19th century, it could not be said that they were the power elite overlords of any nation until after WWII. True, Otto von Bismarck depended on Jewish money to wage the wars of German unification. True, finance came to dominate much of the British economy by the early 20th century. True, Winston Churchill had powerful Jewish backers. True, Jews gained a lot of power and influence in the United States of the 40s and 50s. Even so, the gentile power elite to had the final say. The majority of Jews, whatever their ideology or agenda, knew well not to ‘rock the boat’ too much.
Until the end of WWII and the revelations about the Holocaust–and the moral discrediting of the Right–, anti-Jewish sentiments were quite common and popular all over Europe. Respectable newspapers, scholars, intellectuals, and famous people expounded on the dangers of the Jews at great length to large audiences. There was little shame attached to ‘antisemitism’ since it wasn’t associated with any great modern crime. As far as the masses could tell, there were two kinds of prominent Jews: the rich finance capitalist Jews who grew richer while the masses got poorer during the Depression AND the radical leftist Jew who threw bombs & called for bloody revolution, such as the ones in Russia. There was also a third kind of Jews, also disliked by many: the decadent Jew spreading the filth of pornography, obscenity, and cultural degeneracy. It may well be that the majority of Jews were normal middle class people who wanted to get along with majority society; even so, an higher percentage of Jews was ‘subversive’ and ‘radical’ than among other groups. To be sure, this wasn’t necessarily a bad thing as good things can come out of crisis, curiosity, boldness, innovation, and experimentation. Even so, the Depression made many people feel sour, and there was a lot of resentment among the masses and nationalists at the Jews for representing (1) financial exploitation (2) bolshevism (3) cultural decadence. Indeed, there rose a powerful anti-Jewish right even in America during the 1930s. And, there were many on the Left who were also openly critical of Jewish power.
Because Jews were under so much moral pressure, social distrust, and ostracization, many Jews–especially powerful and respectable ones–decided not to make too much trouble and, instead, seek approval from mainstream society and from the gentile elites. Thus, it could be said that no matter how rich and powerful they became, Jews deferred to goy power until relatively recently.
But, we know what happened in WWII. Hitler went totally crazy, laid all of Europe to waste, even attacked an ally in the form of the USSR, and then killed around 4-6 million Jews(even women, children, and old folks). Jews, who had universalized spirituality and finance, found a powerful and clever way to universalize the tragedy of the Holocaust into a secular religion. Initially, Jews flattered and praised white Americans for having defeated the evil Nazi Germans. Thus, American whites thought Holocaust-ism would be great for white American power and moral authority. It would signify and dignify white Americans as having been noble and brave, having possessed the guts and glory to defeat the most evil regime that ever was. White Americans thought that because they defeated Hitler and won WWII, Jews would forever be grateful and deferential to the white gentile American community. Thus, Holocaust-ism or Holocaustianity became a new religion in America.
But, white Americans hadn’t suspected that once they took Holocaustianity to heart, Jews would begin to tear out their hearts, piece by piece. If indeed the Nazis were the greatest evildoers that ever was and if the Holocaust was the greatest crime committed by man–according to the religion of Holocaustianity–, what were the central ideas behind Nazism and the Holocaust? They were ‘Aryan’ Power–a narrow form of white power–, radical racism, Western Imperialism(against Eastern Europe, especially Russia), and antisemitism. It was only a matter of time before Jews began to associate White Americanism–especially the conservative kind–with Nazism and radical racism. After all, hadn’t United States been created by Western Imperialism against the Indians? Genocide? Didn’t white Americans enslave blacks and then deny them equal rights even after Emancipation? Didn’t American immigration policy favor and discriminate against people based on race?
Unbeknownst to dimwit goyim was the danger of Holocaustianity serving as a kind of Trojan Horse against white American power. Whether White America was with or without great sins is another topic for debate. The fact is until the rise of Holocaustianity, White America had balanced universalist principles in the US Constitution with the survivalist needs of White Power. Americans were indeed idealistic and seek gradual progress toward a society fairer to all, but white Americans had no illusions about who should really dominate this country politically and demographically. The capacity for social/historical guilt–moral conscience–was one of the great hallmarks of American society and politics, thus paving the way for a more just society for all–as opposed to the stagnant, greedy, and petty cultures of Latin America or Imperial Russia. However, white Americans were also pragmatic and knew well enough about the dangers of radical idealism. In other words, survival and power came first, progress and reform came second. In other words, don’t push for ‘progress’ or ‘reform’ AT THE EXPENSE OF white power and pride. But, once Holocaustianity became the new secular religion of the land, white Americans began to embrace idealism and social conscience OVER the needs of survival and power. And post-war America–and Europe–were ideal places for this kind of psycho-spiritual transformation. With the economy booming , the future seeming bright, and good times were expected to last forever, the majority of white Americans began feel secure in their power and privilege and thought they could afford to be nice, compassionate, generous, and progressive. Indeed, white Americans tended to be far more conservative and nationalist–if not in economic policy–during the era of FDR than in the Eisenhower 50s and Nixon 60s/70s. During the days of the Great Depressions and World Crisis, most white Americans thought in terms of MY COUNTRY, MY JOB, MY RIGHTS, MY SECURITY. Most whites didn’t vote for FDR for his ‘progressive’ social policies but because they were angry with the Rich who hogged all the wealth and were out-of-touch. The 30s and 40s were, in many ways, a socially conservative period. Indeed, true liberalization of society began in the booming 50s, when white families moved to the suburbs, owned cars, and lived in houses where every child had his own bedroom. It was in such atmosphere of stability, security, and prosperity that white Americans felt they could afford to be far more socially and morally conscientious than they or their forbears had ever been.
And, it was on such an unwitting and earnest populace that the Jews pulled off a great trick with their promotion of Holocaustianity. Holocaustianity said INNOCENT JEWS were murdered by EVIL GERMANS who were defeated by COURAGEOUS AND NOBLE (and mostly white)AMERICANS. It made white Americans feel good about themselves. Even nasty white kids who picked on Jewish kids at school watched war movies and TV shows where patriotic heroes were American soldiers fighting those nasty Nazis. Thus, White America initially felt empowered by Holocaustianity.
But, once Holocaustianity became the national religion, Jews began to undermine the authority of White America itself. Jews said FDR must have been ‘antisemitic’ because he didn’t bomb railway lines transporting Jews to the death camps. Jews never tired of pointing out that the majority of Americans had opposed entry into the European war until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. In other words, Americans fought and defeated Nazi Germany because it was an ally of Japan than because Americans felt any love for the Jews or moral disgust with Nazi ideology. (Of course, Jews in the free world never pleaded with democratic governments do something about Stalin and his radical Jewish henchmen’s mass killing of millions. Indeed, many Jews in the free world aided and abetted Soviet communism though various means. But, we are supposed to forget about this because, well, Jews want us to.) So, the focus on the Holocaust initially made white Americans feel euphoric and proud, as if they’d done so much to save the world from evil, but then it made them feel depressed because the newly ascendant Jews who controlled the media and academia informed a new generation of white Americans that they hadn’t done enough in WWII to save the Jews. And, TV documentaries like LIBERATORS even used historical falsehoods–such as black soldiers liberating Nazi death camps–to argue that white Americans were really no better than Nazis. The documentary suggested Holocaust Jews = Segregated Blacks; Nazi Germans = White Americans. Though LIBERATORS was eventually exposed as a huge fraud, it was soon buried in the news and cultural memory because of liberal Jewish control of the PBS and the mass media. If Jimmy the Greek and Don Imus got fired for their silly or simple-minded remarks, the fraudsters who committed intellectual and historical vandalism with LIBERATORS all got to carry on with their careers.
The rise of Holocaustianity posed a mortal threat to White Americans since America too had been founded on white power, white expansion, and good amount of white oppression of non-whites. Of course, white Americans never committed anything on the scale of the Holocaust–except some episodes of the Civil War–, but liberal Jews persistently argued that there was no fundamental difference between what White Americans did and what Nazi Germans did. A good amount of historical literature by Jews remind us that Hitler’s dream of lebensraum had been modeled partly on White American expansion at the expense of indigenous peoples. Never mind important differences. Most of the American continent was empty, and the natives were primitive and standing in the way of civilizational progress; besides, the natives were pushed into reservations, not exterminated. Hitler, on the other hand, sought to conquer, enslave, and commit mass murder against a great civilization populated with nearly 200 million people. And, we may also point out that Jews are rather silent on the parallel between the Nazi lebensraum and what the Jewish Zionists have done–and are still doing–to the indigenous Palestinian population. Two-faced Jews resort to double-standard. Jews like Daniel Goldhagen give the game away, but as the most of the media is owned and controlled by liberal Jews, we are not allowed to harbor any negative stereotypes of the Jews–even though Jews work overtime to spread ugly and hateful stereotypes of White Americans with any racial pride and consciousness.
Initially, Holocaustianity made White Americans feel SYMPATHY for the poor helpless Jews. After WWII, the image of the Jew held by many–even those who’d been traditionally hostile to Jews–was one of pity, sadness, tragedy, and compassion. The Holocaust was just too horrible. Also, at a time when most graphic images of violence and war were censored in newsreels and movies–fiction and non-fiction–, it was a horrible shock to many to see the raw footage of dead bodies in Nazi death camps. That sort of thing had never really been shown in such manner to the larger public before. Therefore, many people came to believe that there was something especially wicked about Nazi evil. Mountains of corpses had been produced by other regimes at other times and other places, but the imagery of the Holocaust was the first time that sort of thing was shown to the larger public in uncensored form. In the 40s, one could watch a lot of war footage in newsreels and never really see the TRUE face of war. The censors were careful to focus on the heroism, the excitement, the glory, and even the fun of war. Of course, negative propaganda against the enemy was nothing new in war. In WWII, the Allies were told of the ‘Huns’ raping all the women and bayoneting babies. But, most of such propaganda were conveyed through hearsay, rumors, posters, or leaflets. But after WWII, there followed not only an extended WAR CRIMES trial but an avalanche of Holocaust imagery through newsreels and documentaries which exposed people around the world to images they’d hardly seen before–at least in films. Thus, even though much the same happened in Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China, people came to associate only the Holocaust with actual images of countless corpses bulldozed into giant pits.
Anyway, it’s not hard to understand why many White Americans were so sympathetic and pitying toward to the Jewish community. Many American Jews may have been rich, successful, and even many times better off than white Americans, but ALL Jews came to be seen as part of a Great Tragic People. Even millionaire Jews and powerful Jews were seen as part of the helpless victim group. Even communist Jews–though they’d helped Stalin kill millions or aided/abetted communism through espionage or aspirations toward cultural hegemony. In a way, this made White Americans feel both good and confident about themselves. After all, compassion goes from the rich or powerful to the poor or weak. The act of feeling sympathy toward the Jews made White Americans feel richer and more powerful than the Jews. So, even if a Jew were a millionaire and a White American were merely middle class, the latter felt a sense of power and superiority in feeling sorry for the poor poor rich Jew. In other words, even a rich Jew was a poor poor victim, thus helpless and in need of the affection and protection of White Americans. Jews must have been laughing their butts off at the dimwit stupidity of Whites Americans, but that’s how it was.
Eventually, White American compassion for the Jews turned into White American Fear of the Jews–but a fear that could not speak its name and masquerade as pure sympathy. (In a way, white American Fear and Total Devotion to the Jews is very much like the Ancient Jews’ Fear and Total Devotion to Yahweh. To what extent this is devotion fueled by fear, we can’t say. But, just as the ancient Jews were never allowed to criticize Yahweh under any circumstances and always obligated to believe that Yahweh was, is, and shall be all-knowing and all-perfect, today’s white American gentiles are never allowed to criticize Jews under any circumstances and expected to believe that Jews have been, are, and will be perfect for all time. Thus in the Bible, even when Yahweh was at fault, the Jews had to blame themselves for their misfortune and beg forgiveness from Yahweh. Thus today, even when Jews are at fault for much of our problems, we are supposed to blame ourselves for all the failures and beg for approval and advice from the Jewish community. When Jews began to disbelieve in their God, their began to take on the full arrogance of their God. We see this trait in everyone from Karl Marx to Ayn Rand. How else do you explain white conservatives sucking up to Jews even though the Jewish community turned Barack Obama into president and is promoting anti-white miscegenation in movies, music, and schools?)
Initially, it had been a sign of moral goodness and big-heartedness on the part of White Americans to express sympathy toward the Jewish community. But, as Holocaustianity went from a matter of personal faith to a mandated national religion, it became incumbent for all to bow down before the Jew and suckle his toes and kiss his ass. Anne Frank turned into Anne Frankenstein.
Immediately after WWII, a white American got extra points on the moral-social-political score sheet if he expressed warmth and sympathy toward the Jewish community. By the 1960s, one had no choice but to agree and bellow that Jews were the finest people, the greatest people, most tragic people, most wonderful people, etc, etc. Worse, it was even forbidden to criticize wicked leftist and radical Jews. Today, Richard Nixon is reviled most not for Watergate or other nefarious activities but for his private conversations on Jews. Never mind that Nixon wasn’t anti-Jewish and indeed admired the Jewish community. Nixon had only been angry with the leftist/liberal Jewish community, but he’s been tagged as a ‘rabid and virulent antisemite’ because he dared to state the obvious: a lot of Jews are stinking agents of the Left.
With Jewish power rising to new heights in the 60s, with its tentacles reaching into areas of finance, academia, law, media, and much else, Jews no longer needed to plead for sympathy. They could demand respect and mandate sympathy. (Similarly, Christians started out by preaching to pagan non-believers that Jesus was a great man deserving of our sympathy for his sacrifice for mankind, but once they gained power, they FORCED everyone to sympathize with and worship Jesus OR ELSE!! The object of sympathy became the justification for coercion. The same can be said of the cult around Michael King, aka Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was said to be a decent and humble man worthy of our sympathy. Initially, we had a choice whether to admire him or not. Today, we don’t have a choice. We must all bow down before his image, praise him as the second coming, and dare not mutter dissent from the orthodoxy where he was the greatest American and saint that ever lived. If you speak the truth–that he was a punkass fraud who only used the Trojan Horse trick to fool whitey–, you are denounced and blacklisted just like heretics had once been burned at the stake by Christians. So much for King’s lessons on humility, understanding, and forgiveness. The spirituality of the ‘weak’ morph into the ideology of power–once the champions of the weak take control of society.)
Jews gained the power to make or break the careers of politicians, professors, media personalties, movie stars, entertainers, etc. This state of affairs had resulted in a very serious crisis in America. Jews have simultaneously become the MOST POWERFUL and the MOST PITIED people in America. Because we are still supposed to see the Jews in relation to the Holocaust–through which Jews have gained a kind of PERMANENT NOBILITY no matter what are doing or may do in the future–, we are supposed to see them as forever helpless and in need of our love and protection. Thus, we have so many dimwit gung ho American soldiers willing to fight Zionist wars in order to save wonderful Israelis from those evil Muslims. Thus, we have white goy ‘conservative’ shills–hired and funded by rich Jewish institutions and individuals–encouraging small town white gentile kids to join the army and lose limbs and life fighting for essentially Jewish interests. Since Jews are forever associated with the Holocaust, we see the world through a kind of a Holokeidoscope. So, never mind all the manipulations and transgressions pulled or committed by Zionist Israelis and AIPAC. We are supposed to see a poor helpless little Israel–an oasis of sanity and peace–surrounded by neo-nazi Arab and Muslim nations, all of whom are hatching new plans to blow Israel off the map with nukes(which they don’t have). This silly madness even extends to stuff like ‘gay marriage’. If you oppose it, you must be a Nazi since Nazis not only killed Jews but also gays.
Anyway, back to the importance of finance and hightech to the modern Jewish community. As I’ve said before, finance is crucial to Jewish power since it is not fixed to any time or one place. Finance is the essence of globalism as it is portable wealth that can go from one place to another in no time. Those who control banks, investment firms, and law firms control finance. With lots of money, they buy political power and control politicians like so many nickels and dimes in their pockets. Hightech is crucial to finance because it connects the entire world and speeds up transactions to the point where they cannot be regulated nor scrutinized. Prior to hightech cyber-revolution, the world of finance still faced certain material obstacles as much of it still had to rely on people-to-people and paper-based transactions. Once the world was connected through the internet revolution, gazillions in wealth could pass back and forth in nano-seconds across borders. Entire economies could be built overnight with flush of cash–like Dubai in the 2000s–or entire nations could sink overnight–like Russia and East Asian in the financial crises of the late 90s. And in all this melee, there was one people who were always bound to win since they controlled finance itself and the power/clout that came with it: the finance capitalist Jews. Since Jews devised the world financial system, they found ways to make money when the economy was booming; they found ways to make money when the economy was tanking. They figured out ways of creating bubbles and making money by buying, burst bubbles and making money by selling. And, if all were to fail, they could pressure politicians to bail them out to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars. Though liberal and neocon Jews make some token noise about how the culture of greed on Wall Street, they are not really going to do anything that might undermine or undercut what is essentially Jewish power. Notice that when Bernie Madoff was finally exposed as a fraud, the Jewish controlled media only focused on how JEWS had been his victims. Jews pulled a dirty trick, but the Jew-run media made us feel pity with the Jew. If a Jew spits in your face, you will kiss his ass because you’ve been conditioned that way. Indeed, you will try to explain & understand why he spat on your face and hate yourself if you felt any anger toward the Jew... since such emotions would mean you are an ‘antisemite’. Indeed, the Jew-run media is a kind of Madoff scam itself. It’s peddles a pyramid morality where we are promised that our souls will grow spiritually richer and more beautiful if we invest all our love with the Jews.
Jewish academia have treated the history of communism the same way as the Jewish media have covered the Madoff story. Though Jews had been instrumental in the rise and the horrors of communism, most of the emphasis on communist evil focuses on communism may have done to Jews! So, Stalin’s main crime was not having killed 5 million Ukrainians but having had some Jewish theater director killed or some Jewish doctors sent to the gulag. And, never mind that Stalin was loyally served by most Soviet Jews.
Finance is fluid, and nothing is as fluid and creative as the Jewish mind. If the less intelligent gentiles think with solid blocks of ideas, Jews think mercurially. Their thought process is more liquid-like. If the style of fighting among white gentiles is to stand straight and face the enemy–like a lion or bear–, the style of the Jew is more like a burrowing rat, a slithering snake, or a cunning/supple weasel. It’s like the Marx Brothers vs the stiff Wasps. It’s not that white gentiles are without cunning or deceit as indeed many white gentiles are thugs or scoundrels; they are just no match for the Jews, just like whites are no match for blacks in basketball.
Finance and the so-called ‘international laws’ are also key to Jewish power and globalism–nearly identical in many cases–because both can be manipulated by lawyers, among whom the most talented and clever are the Jews.
Also crucial is the fact that finance and globalism DIVIDES production from consumption and employees from employers. Thus, Jews not only get to play divide-and-rule in terms of demographic diversity–increasing the number of non-whites so as to pit them against white Americans–, but in terms of economic diversity. Traditionally, Americans had been, more or less, economically independent. Americans consumed most of what they produced. American workers worked for firms and factories owned by American entrepreneurs and corporations. The American owner, the American worker, and the American consumer were all part of the same national family. Of course, there was a fair amount of international trade as US couldn’t produce EVERYTHING it needed. Also, exports were crucial to the well-being to the US economy, and so it made sense of Americans to buy and sell around the world. Nevertheless, when it came to things of major importance, Americans built and consumed their own products. So, there was a kind of National Capitalism. There had once been a time when one could say without an hint of irony: the business of America is business. This was not good for Jewish power for there were strong national bonds among the American owners, American workers, and American consumers, most of whom were gentiles. In this state of affairs, Jewish finance capitalists could only SERVE than COMMAND the overall economy.
Thus, it was in the interest of Jews to break up the bond between the American producer and American consumer. By creating a global new order, US companies could set up factories overseas and hire cheap foreign workers. Once this trend started, even companies that wanted to stay in the US and use American workers could no longer afford to do so since they couldn’t compete with firms using much cheaper Mexican, Chinese, or Indian labor. Thus, in order to survive, even patriotic US firms had to locate overseas to remain competitive. And so, the bond between the US manufacturers and US workers–both of them mostly white gentiles–was broken.
And since the US consumer got addicted to cheap foreign-produced goods, he lost any meaningful connection to the American worker. Following WWII, there had been a kind of a brotherly bond between the US manufacturers, workers, and consumers. It had all but eroded by the 90s. Of course, we can’t let US manufacturers and workers entirely off the hook. During the Boom years of the 50s, US auto companies, for instance, offered benefits and packages which simply could not be sustained indefinitely. Also, corrupt and bullying Unions encouraged an increasingly lethargic work force that demanded more and more. We need just to look at the big fat stupid slob named Michael Moore. Moore waxes romantic about the good old days when Detroit Auto workers had good wages, paid vacations, and etc, etc. Did it ever occur to him that one of the reasons why Detroit began to decline was because too many fat lazy slobs like him demanded more and more goodies for less and less work?
Also, if we go by the example of Japan in the late 80s, it’s obvious that a nation doesn’t need cunning Jews for finance capitalism to take over and wreck the entire economy. In Japan, there were no Jews to control the banks or other institutions. In homogeneous Japan, it was entirely a Japanese show. Japan was flush in cash in the 80s and didn’t know what to do with it. So, they wildly speculated in finance and whatever else they could buy. So, the dangers of finance capitalism is universal. Nor can we say that a mercantile economy managed by nationalistic technocrats can save the day and keep things running smoothly. This seemed to have been the case in Japan through much of the post-war period, but it was largely the government connected and dominated banks that made crazy loans that eventually led to economic collapse. Also, Japan’s ‘national family’ style of political economics where even inefficient companies were propped up and subsidized by government-guided banks in the name of national unity and solidarity led to tremendous waste and mis-allocation of resources, fatally delaying the necessary streamlining of the economy via the process of ‘creative destruction’ so vital to capitalism.
It is for this reason that the American model seemed to be the winning in the late 90s. Mary argued that Reagan started the necessary process whereby old and defunct industries would be allowed to fail and lose out to more innovative and efficient competition. Instead of investing in obsolete industries, the emphasis was on the new, and this paid off in the latter part of the 90s with the boom in high-tech, a field in which America was far ahead of the game. Alas, financial tricksterism turned a genuine tech boom into a tech stock boom and bust.
But more dangerously, the new globalism wasn’t just undercutting and destroying defunct industries which really deserved to die but was undercutting new and healthy ones. Even efficient and innovative firms often couldn’t compete unless it sought cheap labor overseas. Thus, it became difficult to build and maintain even LCD TV factories in the US. With the world connected like never before, the outflow of new technology–and jobs created with it–happened lightning fast. In the past, a US firm might come up with a new technology, build factories in the US and hire American workers, and US manufacturing in that field would dominate the world market for a decade or two before other nations began to make cheaper and comparable versions, at which point American firms were innovating and producing the NEXT NEW THING.
This no longer applied in the New World Order. When Japan or US created a new product, the factories would often be set up in places in China, Mexico, or Indonesia than they might ever see the light of day in America. Though there has indeed been a vast increase in the ‘cosmopolitan’ liberal upper middle class as result of globalism, it remains that MOST Americans aren’t in the upper middle class ranks. If anything, the wealth of Middle America has been stagnant or eroding. When the power and wealth go, so go the pride and security.
Prior to the rise of globalism, the American Middle Class pride and security had been linked to American National Capitalism. American Middle Class worked for American companies and made goods and services for American consumers. And, as consumers themselves, they bought goods and services produced by their American neighbors. But, this ‘spiritual’ bond based on a nationalist version of capitalism was gone. As far as Middle America could see, American companies had betrayed them and gone overseas to hire cheap foreign labor. As far as American workers could see, American consumers had betrayed them by purchasing cheaper foreign-made goods. As far as American consumers could see, American workers seem to produce nothing that consumers wanted to buy. What many Americans failed to understand was all these betrayals were self-betrayals as Americans.
We may blame the Mexicans or the Chinese, but who really created the foundations and conditions for this New World Order. It could not have been made possible without the rise of Jewish finance, Jewish political power, Jewish economic theories(on both left and right), Jew-run media, and the Jewish controlled hightech sector.
Of course, Jews are worried about the rising anger among gentile white Americans and thus try to redirect the anger at everyone else but the Jews: Muslims, Chinese, Mexicans. So, even as Jews preach to us about the dangers of ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’, Jews allow white Americans blow off steam by harping about the Chinese–or ‘Chicoms’–, Mexican Illegals, and Muslim terrorists. As long as we say nothing bad or negative about Jews, some degree of white rage is tolerated–as therapeutic catharsis. Jews fear that unless some of this pent-up anger is released, it may one day explode like volcano at the Jews. Thus, Jewish Hollywood is remaking RED DAWN with Chinese invading the US. Hollywood has given us many movies with evil terrorist Muslims. And, many people on TV and Radio are allowed to bitch about illegal immigration. What no one can discuss, however, is Jewish power and how it hurts the interests of white Americans.
Since Holocaustianity has become such an integral part of White American consciousness, even white Americans who dislike Jews make their anti-Jewish argument in the form of a pro-Jewish argument. Thus, they don’t say, "rotten liberal Jews made Barack Obama president", but say something like, "wonderful but misguided Jews supported Barack Obama, which is unfortunate since Obama is not good for the Jews. Oh, I pray that Jews come to see the light and realize that Obama is bad for them while we white conservatives are good for them since our loyalty to the Jewish community is 100% unconditional. God bless the Jews, Amen and goo." One may call this the ‘goo-jew complex’.
With the rise of globalism dominated by finance–made all the more powerful by innovation in computers and high-tech–deep divides were created among the white gentile population. For jobs or job security, the American worker could no longer rely on the American employer or businessmen. (With the import of cheap third world labor–much of it illegal from Mexico–, American employers also came to rely more and more on new arrivals than on white Americans. Even in fields such as computers and engineering, many firms sought cheaper and more docile foreign workers than American workers.) So, whom could the American worker–either laid off or facing job insecurity–turn to? The business of America was no longer business in the old patriotic sense.
The American worker couldn’t rely on himself either as most people don’t have the skill or will to go into business themselves. Besides, with the rise of giants like WalMart, it was more difficult than ever to open and run a little business of one’s own. And, most of us don’t own nor farm the land. Without jobs, we turn to the land and produce our own food–and most of us don’t even have such skills. Increasingly anxious Americans could rely on three things: trickle down service economy, borrowing, and government. The second half of Clinton years saw a boom in the sector and created a sizable techno-global upper class. They had so much money that they spent it like crazy, and it trickled down to people in the service sector. This trend began in earnest during the Reagan era but came to full fruition under Clinton in the late 90s. For a time, it didn’t seem to matter that so many Middle Americans were working as service sector servants. There was so much money trickling down from above that all seemed well. Also, dotcom boom was such that it convinced a lot of Americans that they would all be millionaires if they owned stocks. Well, we know what happened to the bubble. To keep the masses happy, the era of Bush Jr. came up with the Housing Bubble created by vast amounts of borrowed money, Wall Street trickery, and leftist egalitarian demands for equal loans to all. For a while, it seemed as if anyone could buy a home with easy loans and no money down; it seemed as if housing values would keep going up, and everyone could just live by flipping houses or borrowing more money with their homes as collateral. Well, we know what happened to that bubble. Now, we are in the Obama era, and guess what bubble we have now? The socialist bubble where we need not worry since the government is going to provide us with free college tuition, free medicine, free this, free that. There will also be the massively government subsidized Green Technology. Where will the money come from to pay for all this? Fancy smarty-pants liberal Jews in Wall Street will come up with ways to borrow more and print more, and for the next 6 or 7 yrs, it will seem like everything is well again, with economic recovery and creation of new jobs. But, it will really have been just another bubble. This is like the story of the Three Little Piggies. Each piggy–Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama–assure us that his economic house is made of bricks but it’s actually made of straws and will blow away in yet another economic tsunami.
Karl Marx wrote about the problem of ALIENATION: how the industrial worker is alienated from his labor because the goods he produces are owned and sold by the capitalist. But, Marx proved to be wrong. The modern laborer was not necessarily alienated from his work as long as his wages were decent, he could afford goods produced by himself and others, and maintain a mutually beneficial relation with the capitalist. In other words, the worker felt bound and integral to the rest of society through an economics defined by nationality, culture, and shared values. In a National Capitalist environment, both the worker and the capitalist shared one thing in common: they were both Americans and working for America. They both took pride in American wealth, American power, American jobs, American opportunity. Thus, even if an American worker didn’t own what he produced, he knew that other Americans would buy his goods, and he would buy the goods produced by other Americans. And, though the worker worked for the capitalist, there was a sense that the American employer depended on the American worker. In this sense, the fascist economists were right. Marxist analysis had been too materialist. A worker need not resent the power nor the wealth of the capitalist if he felt that his labor was crucial to the capitalist. Thus, the worker would take pride in his work and not feel that his role was expendable. Also, there would be the sense that whether one was rich, middle-class, working-class, or poor, they had all thing in common: love of nation, allegiance to culture, assurance of fundamental freedoms, and provision of basic needs. National capitalism and national socialism are complementary by the virtue of NATIONALISM. Capitalism need not be divisive nor exploitative(nor alienating to the worker) IF the capitalist cares about his country and regards his workers as fellow countrymen. And, socialism need not be parasitic and devitalizing if there is a strong national sense that social programs are to be appreciated and not taken advantage of. The flipside of pride rooted in nationalism is shame. Those failing to live up to national standards of sobriety and responsibility would be stigmatized.
But, we don’t have national capitalism nor national socialism. (By the way, national socialism here is not to be confused with National Socialism, aka Nazism, which went way beyond sane limits of government power.) What we have is global capitalism and welfare socialism–to be followed by global socialism predicated on the notion that evil white folks changed the world’s climate and thus must dole out 100s of billions of dollars to dumbass poor black African countries run by tribal savages. (Isn’t it funny how, even before the ‘climate change’ crisis allegedly struck the planet, the black government and people of Zimbabwe had already destroyed just about EVERYTHING they could get their hands on? Seems to me that the real danger for Africans is not ‘climate change’ but black rule.) Global capitalism allows American capitalists to look upon their nation as just another ‘market’. If some liberals argue that US is nothing more than a PROPOSITIONAL NATION, some libertarians argue that US is nothing more than a PROSTITUTIONAL NATION(and that it’s a good thing too). Nothing matters but the cheapest price and biggest profits.
Of course, these globo-capitalists wrap and hide their naked crassness and greed by traveling and showing interest in foreign cultures, acquiring a taste for exotic foods, and financing or holding summits on pressing socio-global issues of the day–like hunger in Africa. Though such masquerade, the greedy and crass global capitalists make themselves come across as compassionate globo-saints while ‘bitter and resentful’ white American working and middle classes are said to be uncaring, stupid, bigoted, and narrow-minded yahoos who hug their bibles and shotguns. It occurs to the global capitalists that their ‘progressive compassion’ and ‘decency’ have been bought by a brand of cutthroat capitalism which will ship entire factories overseas if it can maximize profits for the owners, CEOs, top shareholders, and investment bankers. Just look at lowlife scum like Bill Gates. How did he make his fortune? Though monopoly capitalism and taking out all competitors using the dirtiest tricks in the book. But once he was swimming in his billions, Gates remade himself as Mr. Conscience of the world. Of course, when he talks of ‘giving back’, he doesn’t mean giving back to white Americans who actually bought his Windows products and made him rich. He means giving billions–made from white Americans–to lazy, moronic, and demented savages in black Africa. Same with Steve Skol of Ebay. Skol the cutthroat global billionaire scolds the rest of us about how we don’t care enough about humanity. Well, maybe WE could afford to care more if we had a couple of billion too made from dotcom shenanigans.
It may well be true that more and more Americans are ‘bitterly clinging to the Bibles and guns’, but why is this so? Isn’t it because global capitalism–plus massive third world immigration–has eroded the power and well-being of the white working and middle class? Now, what is the chance of the ‘progressive rich’ doing away with globalism? No chance of that happening since globalism has become their main bread and butter. There is simply too much money to be made by the global elites all over the world. The rise of the liberal billionaires would not have reached such heights without globalism. The progressive rich want MORE GLOBALISM. More global capitalism and more global socialism. That way, they can make MORE MONEY and assuage their ‘guilt’ by giving MORE MONEY to all the poor sods around the world. But, what does this really do for the white working and middle classes in America?
To be sure, there are many blessings that come with globalism. One could argue that many backward countries did see marked progress thanks to globalism. After all, even a low-paying job in a place like China or Mexico is better than NO job. And, we have had access to cheaper goods which has kept inflation down. With all the printing going on in the Fed, inflation would have shot through the roof if not for cheap goods made in third world nations or services rendered by cheap illegal aliens. And, globalism has created a new kind of ‘global citizen’. More than ever, one can travel and see the world. One can settle and work in places our ancestors never dreamed of. It’s nice to have friends and associates all over the world.
The problem is people with certain talents or skills in certain professions gain a tremendous advantage over everyone else. If you’re a factory worker, you’re simply out of a job if the factory in your town shuts down. A global capitalist may shut down a factor here and build it over there and make MORE MONEY, but a worker cannot simply go to Mexico or China to work for that factory again. Some professions are fluid and mobile, others are solid and rooted. A finance maestro can, via hightech communications, work the entire globe. It doesn’t matter what happens in town A in country B or town C in country D. He can move capital or exchange currency from one place to another, always find another angle to make millions more. Global capitalism greatly advantages some people over others like never before imaginable. If you’re a corporate lawyer or hightech tycoon wizard, you can always adapt your skills to the global marketplace. If you’re a traditional American worker with a sense of nationhood and place, then you can be royally screwed. Just by using the internet, all of us are easily aware of how interconnected the entire world has become. Thus, those who make money off of this interconnectedness are bound to do better and better in the. But, the fact remains that MOST people live in real reality–fixed physical spaces–than in the virtual globo-marketplace.
At any rate, clinging to the Bible and praying won’t do much good for white Americans. Clinging to guns maybe somewhat better since it may be necessary to bring forth a revolution and tear down the essentially liberal Jewish globalist elite that has undermined this nation and our people. Anyway, things are likely go grow more and more dire.
Jews are united than ever before. Over 80% of them voted for Obama. Jews dominate Wall Street–global capitalism–and the hightech sector–the tools of global connectivity. Wall Street Jews have used the hightech tools of Silicon Valley Jews to financially integrate the entire world, and Silicon Valley Jews have been showered with Wall Street investment capital. Nearly all Jews are also united on the issue of Israel. The stuff about Obama being dangerous to Israel is just a charade put on by Jews in order to fool the world that Obama is not Jewish-controlled and to make conservatives feel afraid for the Jews targeted by the closet-Muslim-Obama(ROTFLMAO!!!).
Jews are in the very professions where they are able to unite and coordinate their power. Wall Street, Hightech and computers, media and entertainment, academia, etc. Notice all of these are fluid and rootless enterprises or institutions. Jews may have been nomads throughout the millennia, but they always stuck together–and always sought to divide the goyim so as to practice divide-and-rule(if not divide-and-conquer). One could argue that there is some division between leftist intellectual Jews–in the academia and media–and rich billionaire Wall Street and Silicon Valley Jews, but this isn’t really so. Why? Because even most rich Jews are liberal or leftist. Google is 100% behind the socialist Obama. Hollywood has long been anti-American. Also, most leftist Jews know their funds come from rich Jewish capitalist donors. The Jewish tradition emphasizes both the importance of profits and prophets. Thus, Jewish businessmen take pride in their prowess of making money. But, they also feel that, as Jews, they must give handsomely to moral and social causes. Of course, most of these causes directly or indirectly serve Jewish interests and are thus greedy and self-serving. And despite the likes of Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, even most leftist Jews believe in ‘Israel’s right to exist’, which is a euphemism for ‘Palestine has no right to exist’. Besides, even the cretinous Chomsky and the pompous Finkelstein argue that Israel and Zionism are puppets of US imperialism when in fact, US is a puppet of AIPAC and Jewish media.
With the fall of old-time communism–which really had pitted many capitalist Jews against communist Jews–and the rise of globalism, the Jewish community is powerfully united. In the post-industrial economy, Jews are united by hightech, media, and finance while white Americans are divided amongst industrialists, workers, and consumers. Also, if Jews are united by a sense of shared victimhood and moral superiority(and narcissism), the white community is divided three ways among proud whites(conservatives), confused or apathetic whites(moderates or independents), and guilt-ridden whites(liberals).
We are indeed living in very dangerous times. It’s no wonder the liberal Jews want us to be glued to celebrity news and stupid TV AND pacified by more welfare socialism. Bread and Circuses. No more well-paying jobs or self-pride for Middle America? Well, don’t worry and be happy, and just watch tabloid news about Tiger Woods and Elin. Laugh like an idiot to American Idol. Watch more sports and go gaga over black athletes. Watch some Will Smith movie, munch on popcorn, and pee in your pants. Or, if you really have some political blood in your veins, indulge in the mindless fantasy revolutions or violence of Matrix, V for Vendetta, Rage Against the Machine, Ted Nugent, Avatar, or other trash.
How is it that so many Latin Americans are apathetic or ‘happy’ though their countries are in such sad state? Because they are all hooked on dumb soap operas about the rich, beautiful, and neurotic on TV. Junk culture is really a form of mind and social control. It makes people prefer fantasy over reality. Just look at all the stupid blacks in American cities addicted to welfare and TV. This may be the future for all of us. Obama, the puppet of the liberal Jews, is tempting us with more goodies and freebies. He says he CARES about us. But, if you take candy from Obama, you’ll lose your soul–just like little children who take candy from strangers often lose their innocence or even their lives. What Obama’s offering you is NOT national socialism but welfare socialism. Bread and Circuses to take your minds off pressing concerns of what’s happening to this country so that the global elites can yet move closer to the so-called NWO, whereby they can play with the entire globe as their pretty little toy.