Sunday, November 8, 2009
It's one of the ironies of globalism that bringing diverse peoples together has led to mono-cultural dominance in certain areas. Take the supremacy of English for instance. Globalism hasn't made more people eager to learn more languages but all people want to learn English, or more specifically American English(Amglish).
And look at the dominance of Hollywood. Though certain segments of the movie-going public welcome new opportunities to see more movies from around the world, the overwhelming trend worldwide has been to see Hollywood movies. Italy and Japan used to have thriving domestic film industries. No longer.
And, then consider pop music. It's like all the kids around the world wanna be black--at least in style, though some kids even frizzle their hair and darken their skin.
And, though many people want to look white-ish, many others want to ACT black or SOUND black. Look at all those whites and non-blacks on American Idol trying to sing black-ish. There used to be a time where white rock and black soul were distinctly different--even if both they'd borrowed from one other--, but lately, it's like just about every white pop singer wants to look, move, groove, and sound black. They don't even try to adapt blackness to white styles or tastes(like Elvis and Rolling Stones did) but merely to ape the black style note for note, beat for beat, funk for funk.
And, look at the eating habits. Though yuppies try more kinds of cuisines in big cities, the world as a whole is eating BIG MAC and drinking Coke. It all reminds me of the Globo Chem skit on Mr. Show or the music video Amerika by Rammstein.
I think it is somewhat misleading to say Asian or black women want to be white. They only want to appropriate certain elements of white-ishness to their own racial features. In a globalized world where cultures, commodities, and ideas can be switched back and forth--Chinese buying buicks, whites dabbling in Tibetan Buddhism, French listening to Afropop, Nigerians watching Hollywood movies, etc--, it's only natural that people want to trade body parts and looksies as well. With biogenetics, the changes may not happen under the knife of a plastic surgeon but at the genetic level. I'll bet some guys are already hatching the plan for the SUPER MAN: Jewish brains, Aryan facial features, black physique, Anglo temperament, Asiatic 'spirituality', etc.
The new ideal isn't so much white but mixed-blood. TV journalism may prefer Asians or blacks who look white, but the corollary is that such people are preferred over pure whites. Obama has a certain whiteishness, and that was appealing to many white people. But, MORE CRUCIAL is the fact that mixed-blood whiteishness is preferred over pure whiteness. Lots of white people prefer Obamaness to Mitt Romneyness; they prefer Will Smithness to Tom Cruiseness. Both Will and Barack have elements of whiteness and blackness, and THAT is what's so appealing. (Even in the dog world, the hottest trend is for custom mixed-breeding, which isn't the same thing as scattershot muttery. After all, most people are not fascinated with Mexican mestizos. They are fascinated with Tiger Woods who seem to have the right mixture of black athleticism and Asian temperament which made him a superduper golfer. One might call it designer interracism as opposed to populist interracism.)
Will Smith is a light-skinned black guy. There is the ideal of mixing the best elements of blackness--charisma, studliness, assertivieness, style, stronger muscles, stronger voice, etc--with best elements of whiteness--pleasant face, cool and calm demeanor, clean cut look, etc. TV journalism may discriminate against non-whiteish blacks and Asians, but it's also increasingly discriminating against pure lily white types. And, because of the Suzie Wong or Mamasan exoticism, Asian women--white-ish or not--are often preferred over white women.
And, ever notice a lot of Jews in TV journalism? Some of these Jews look rather waspish--like Katie Couric--, but many Jewish pundits on TV are not waspish. Why are Jews so prevalent? There is the fact that Jews own the media, but there's another factor: the ideal or appeal of Jewish intelligence and wit. Whether it's a show like Seinfeld or TV news, there's the idea that SMARTS matter and can even be SEXY. So, even though Jewish-looking types don't usually become news anchors, they show up on TV all the time to offer their views. Ted Koppel, it must be admitted, did one helluva job.
I really think Michael Jackson was a special case, and I'm not even sure he was trying to be white. I think he was trying to be Mickey Mouse or some Disney cartoon character. He was trying to be Bambi, Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Cinderella, and Snow White rolled into one--with a touch of Diana Ross and Liz Taylor. To be sure, most Disney characters were Caucasian types, but at any rate, I think Jackson wanted to be fantasy figure than a real figure. He was like the modern day version of King Ludwig II who was crazy about magic castles and Wagner's Lohengrin.
At any rate, most black men are NOT like Michael Jackson. And, if lighter skinned blacks tend to succeed more, it's not necessarily because white society prefers them over darker blacks. In our PC culture, most companies cannot and would not employ such strategy--"get the light skinned house negro over the black field negro"--as they may have in the past.
No, the reason for greater success of light skinned negroes could be (1) higher intelligence due to having some white genes--like Cornel West or Michael Dyson (2) a more even temperament thanks to having white genes (3) bad relations between 'wanna-bes' and 'jigaboos'--at least according to a Spike Lee movie--that pushes wanna-bes toward white society. Didn't the light-skinned black wife of Senator Cohen once say that she has been bullied by black-skinned kids back in school? Indeed, one often meets light skinned middle class blacks who will privately tell you that they can't stand black people who act crazy and shit. They are into the whole black power fist-shaking and rhetoric and all that, but they don't want to integrate with most black people. Such people tend to be more motivated to study and work hard to get the hell out of black areas and make it in the white world.
To be sure, there are certain professions where the IMAGE is everything, and so certain types are preferred over others on the basis of appearance or presentation. Viewers generally prefer white-ish blacks over blackish blacks or white-ish Asians or yellow-ish Asians or white-ish browns over brownish browns. Indeed, even blacks, Asians, and browns feel this way. If a TV station hired a black guy with fat lips, broad nose, and etc, black viewers might complain that blackness is being caricatured in the old Sambo way. If a TV station hired an Asian guy with slitty eyes and buck tooth, Asians might scream 'stereotype!'. If a TV station hired a Mexican with stubby neck, fat face, and thin mustache, lots of Hispanics would get pissed too. People want to see good-looking version of themselves, and that generally means having some elements of white-ishness.
But, many whites want idealized or exoticized versions of themselves too. Lots of white people hate pale skin. There's nothing uglier or drabbier than Irish skin that burns but doesn't tan. And, whiteishness in and of itself isn't necessarily pretty. Too long a nose can be ugly. Or check out the thin lips of Kenneth Branagh. Ugh! For every Robert Redford, there's a whole bunch of ugly white guys who look more like Beavis and Butthead. Nor are 'white' features necessarily owned by whites only. Lots of people in the Middle East have similar features. (Of course, one could argue Arabs and Persians are also Caucasian in the broad sense). And, many Ethiopians and Somalis have aquiline noses and un-fat lips.
Also, standards have changed over time because the world has discovered that different races excel at different things. Blacks, for instance, are king of the hill in sports. So, the new ideal in athleticism has become black. Many white guys want black-sized penises and black-tones muscles--and thick black voices. I used to work as a clerk at a videostore, and the rising sexual ideal in porn became black male and white female. What amazed me was that most people who rented out these tapes were white males(followed by white females)!!! I was tempted to play anthropologist and ask, 'why would nice white boy like you be watching stuff like this?', but it wasn't part of the job description. I think they loved to fantasize being big muscular black guys making a white woman feel pleasure she'd never gotten before from a dweeby flabby white guy--or maybe the feminized or liberal-metrosexuailzed white male viewer identified with the white porn actress and excited to be dominated by a Big black guy. One look at Ken Burns, and you know what I mean. What a dweeb.
Look at Sports Illustrated or College sports. The hot models or cheerleaders are mostly white but the top athletes are mostly black. So, when we see the rise of the whiteish ideal among blacks, we mustn't read it ONLY as dominance of white standards but rising preference for mixed-race standards. Black males prefer white women, but it's equally true that more and more white women prefer black men. Of course, black male/white female unions are limited by the fact that so many black males drop out of society or don't accomplish much. For all I know, it could well be that geeky Asian males have more success with white women than black males do. Asian males, like Jewish males, are more likely to have the dough and good jobs. White women may fantasize about the Negro stud but still want something stable and safe, not wild and crazy--at least not forever.
Anyway, 'interracial' has different connotations depending on the races involved. It generally means black male/white female or white male/Asian female in our society. This may be why there are many white-ish looking black guys--or can they be said to be black-ish looking white guys?--but almost no Asian males in TV journalism. But, there are many white-ish looking Asian women or exotic Asianish Asian women in TV journalism. TV media sells sex as as much--if not more--than news.
I suppose different people like the mixed-race ideal for different reasons. A white liberal takes pleasure in seeing the POSITIVE result of race-mixing--a person who looks better than pure blacks or pure whites. A white conservative may feel less threatened by a white-ish looking non-white than a non-white-looking non-white. Even in pop music, guys like Nat King Cole and Johnny Mathis crossed the color barrier before more nakedly black guys did. Sure, there was Louis Armstrong, but his act wasn't threatening because of the cartoonish coon aspect. Blacks may like to see good-looking black folks who have both black charisma/magnetism--lacking in white bread folks--and some of the appealing facial aspects of whiteness. So, the ideal is becoming increasingly Eurasian or Africasian than pure white.
Many non-whites may indeed want to lose some of the 'unpleasant' aspects of their non-white-ishness, but there are also plenty of whites who wanna take on certain aspects or attributes of non-whiteness.
The reason why we hear more complaints about non-whites wanting to "look white" is because it fits into the liberal narrative on 'white racism and imperialism(cultural and historical)'. The idea is that Evil Whites, through their control of global media, have made non-whites lose self-esteem and wanna be white-ish. The idea is that 'racism' has now become internalized within the hearts of non-whites. White don't need to politically oppress non-whites anymore since non-whites have come to loathe themselves and worship whiteness. Since whiteness is still identified with evil and imperialism, it is deemed wrong for non-whites to wanna be white.
But, the liberal narrative has a different take on whites who go out of their way to be non-white or non-white-ish. Barack Obama's mother rejected white men and sought only non-white mates to have mixed-race kids, but this self-loathing woman is lionized by the liberal media. White kids who imitate black style and attitude are not said to be self-loathing whites fallen under black cultural imperialism but praised for trying to be 'cool and progressive'. Indeed, a black guy who only listens to black music is considered to be open-minded, but a white guy who only listens to white music is said to be 'racist'. If you say, 'I hate classical music but love reggae', you're a progressive who embraces diversity, but if you say, 'I hate reggae and rap but love classical music', you're an evil bigot. It's amusing that 'progressive' magazines like Rolling Stone actually promotes a kind of mono-culture--English language Rock and black music(Afro-pop, rap, and soul)--but considers itself very open-minded. Cinephiles are curious about and open to movies from all over the world, but 'progressive' in pop music culture don't really give a damn about anything other than largely black musical culture(run by liberal Jews)in the English speaking world. (I suspect Bono cares more about saving African kids than non-African kids because he's into black music culture... which goes to show that liberalism is, if not outright racially bigoted, racial-favoritist.) As far as white liberals are concerned black = diversity. It never occurs to them that the spread of Jazz and Rap--especially since backed by Western musical industrial power--might constitute a kind of cultural imperialism(or dominance of Hollywood constitutes a kind of Jewish cultural imperialism--even within America itself). And, this gets even funnier when French immigrant youths use rap music to dis and piss on American imperialism. Rap and rock, spread around the world by (Jewish)American 'cultural imperialism' are the weapon against American hegemony. After long rap sessions putting down the US, I'll bet they go for Big Mac, Fries, and Coke. Anyway, English people who reject fish n chips or corned beef for spicier non-western cuisine are not ridiculed or mocked for their culinary self-loathing. White people who prefer African or black music over classical music or European folk music are not attacked for having fallen prey to non-white cultural imperialism.
Also, the world today isn't what it was 50 or even 30 yrs ago. There was indeed a time when Hollywood and European metropoles dominated the global entertainment and industry, and the great movie, music, and sports stars were white. But, much has changed since then, and non-white worlds have their own media conglomerates promoting their own stuff. Most Japanese pop is filled with Japanese stars.
And, even in old white dominated Hollywood, not all white people in movies were good looking. Indeed, for every glamorous white guy on screen, there were many more ugly white guys. For every Cary Grant, there was Red Buttons. Also, some of the biggest stars weren't really good looking but appealing for their style or personality--John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart. (And in much of the late 60s, 70s, and 80s, non-glamorous people were cast in popular shows like Kojack, Columbo, Barreta, etc. If beauty is a matter of who gets positive exposure, we'd all think Roseanne Barr, Barbara Streisand, or Jimmy Walker are beautiful people since they were all over TV. And, we'd think Oprah is the most beautiful woman in the world because she's been on more magazine covers than anyone else. By the same logic, we'd all think William Hung is the greatest singer in the world if SONY spent 100 million promoting him and put his music on MTV everyday for a full year. Dream on.)
Men have been liked for their manliness and not necessarily for their good looks--consider Ben Johnson or Charles Bronson. And, many women were admired for their unique style than beauty. There were countless Hollywood starlets more beautiful(in a conventional sense) than Lauren Bacall or Marlene Dietrich, but they lacked the X-factor allure of Lauren and Marlene. And, the success of people like Naomi Campbell proves that one doesn't have to have classic white features to be admired, approved, and adulated.
There are probably certain aspects of whiteness that are appealing for biological than cultural reasons. Same could be true of certain black traits. Regardless of culture or politics, people have admired strength and magnetism in men. In this area, blacks have natural advantage. In the area of looks, people like a well-structured face, and white angularity has more of this than black 'brutishness' or Asian roundness.
Indeed, the notion that white looks are preferred ONLY or PRIMARILY because of Western domination in the past few centuries can be disproven by studying history. Ibn Fadlan, a well-educated Arab, came upon the Germanic Rus peoples during the Middle Ages. He was of a great civilization whereas the Rus people were barbaric--they washed their faces in the same water basin and didn't wipe their butts. Even so, Fadlan described the Rus as the most beautiful people he'd seen; he never saw Hollywood movies. Romans looked down on Germanic peoples culturally but admired their strength and beauty. Romans also admired black muscularity and strength--and often pitted the black African against the Germanic beast in the gladiatorial ring. Most Asian movies have Asian people, Asian News are all Asian(or I would assume that's the case), and etc, but even so, Asians prefer the 'white' look. During the Mao yrs, China was shut off from the entire world, but if you look at most communist posters from that era, the heroic figures tend to be somewhat white-ish.
Perhaps, non-whites don't see their preferences as necessarily white since 'caucasian' looks exist in all races. It may be more generally present among European whites, but it's not exclusive to whites. Similarly, all nations have gold but some have more of it than others. Just because South African has more gold than other nations doesn't mean Gold is necessarily or primarily an African thing. China has relatively little gold, but I've heard no people on Earth love gold more than Chinese do. So, when an Asian person has surgery to look more 'white', he or she may see it as trying to look more pretty. Even if this form of prettiness is more prevalent among whites, such looks may indeed exist among some Asians as well. Or, when a black person wants to have an aquiline nose, he may want it to look 'better', not necessarily because he wants to look white. After all, there are plenty of Somalis and Ethiopians with aquiline noses. And, when a white guys wants to run real fast or jump real high, he may not necessarily want to be black or just be a great athlete.
To be sure, a lot of whites undergo plastic surgery too and not only to fight aging. We tend to notice less of this because we miss the 'racial' element. Even so, anyone who undergoes plastic surgery is trying to circumvent biology or genetics in order to conform to or attain the attributes of another set of genes. Plenty of whites have short legs, fat noses, stubby necks, fat asses, pig noses, buck teeth, etc. When they have plastic surgery to look pretty, we don't say, 'they are trying to look white' but only say 'they are trying to look pretty'.
So, there is a problem when we say Blacks or Asians are necessarily trying to look white. They may only be trying to attain a certain narrow kind of look that happens to be more prevalent among whites. Even so, many white people may not have these qualities either. After all, non-whites are not going under the knife to look like Rosie O'Donnell, James Carville, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Tim Robbins, Will Smith, or other funnyass looking whites. In fact, your average white guy looks more like Bob Costanza than James Bond. Most TV shows about EXTREME MAKE-OVERs are about white women trying to look pretty. If whiteness = prettiness, why bother? The truth is most white people don't look like 'white people'--of the Aryan Ideal. Just look at the Nazi leadership, and it's not hard to realize that the idealized white beauty too is a myth--if we are to believe it's shared by most white people. Most white people look uglyass. Just look Rudy Giuliani's fathead and thin lips. Just look at John McCain's squat body. Generally speaking, 'pretty features' may be more prevalent among whites, but it's still not shared by most whites.
Also, there has never been a single ideal of whiteness. Whites at the European periphery have admired 'pure' whiteness of the Northern Europeans, but Northern Europeans have admired exotic whiteness of outlying areas. In the movie BREAD AND CHOCOLATE, Italians look up and try to pass for blonde Germanic types. But, Northern Europeans have also been fascinated by dark latin or Greek beauty mixed with non-European blood. Just look at Sophia Loren's 'Negro' lips. But, she's beautiful! Or, look at some Slavic and Hungarian women with a tinge of Asiatic features. They can be very exotically beautiful--with both good white looks and mysterious non-white looks.
I'm always amused when some pale skinned potatohead Irishman acts like he's something special because his blood is 'purer' than that of a Greek, Italian, Spanish, or Russian. Pure potatohead is what it is.
Labels: caucasian black asian cultural imperialism hollywood rolling stone magazine pop culture racism
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Brothers and Sisters, Why Are We(Christians and Muslims)Fighting? The Sickness of Hasan and the Evil of the Leftwing Jews.
There's no question Nidal Malik Hasan is a dangerous psycho. Though we cannot justify what he did, we still need to understand his angst and motives--psychologically if not morally. People who do stuff like this generally have private or inner demons which attach themselves to certain agendas or ideologies. Even David Chapman and John Hinckley devised--and presumably believed in--reasons as to why they had to stalk and kill. The movies TAXI DRIVER and MISHIMA take us inside the minds of strange or eccentric people seeking to translate their extreme passions into public action. Moral crusade is the bridge from the subjective to the objective. Crazy people cannot win respect, sympathy, self-respect, nor even notoriety by personal craziness alone--except in modern art. Their craziness must attach itself like a lamprey to mainstream or political concerns. The process isn't even conscious or opportunistic in most cases, and most crazy crusaders are true believers of their own lunacy. But, to understand such people, we must first look into the core of their personality. While it's true that even normal people can be driven mad by undue stress, some people are genetically more pre-disposed.
So, let's assume that Hasan would have been nutty even had he been raised in a normal white Christian family in the Red State South. And, Hitler would have been a dangerous personality under any circumstance. Had he come under communist influences, he might have killed 6 million bourgeoisie. Had he been raised as a Jew, he might have called for the wiping out the Palestinians.
Genetics aside, what about the political, social, or moral issues that may have triggered Hasan's rampage? It's very possible that Hasan did experience instances of 'racial' or cultural bias in social life. Despite PC values dominant throughout society, there's still a lot of bigoted bullying in schools, playground, media, and military. For instance, no amount of pro-gay propaganda will prevent certain kids(especially in the non-white communities) from insulting and attacking 'faggots' in school. No amount of 'people of color' peace sermonizing will prevent fights between black and Hispanic gangs in LA. Similarly, no amount of anti-antisemitism got rid of anti-Jewish feeling in Eastern Europe under communism. The values and ideals that may prevail at the top of mainstream culture don't necessarily trickle down to the bottom, nor are assumptions of mainstream culture identical with real reality.
Despite feminism, there is still a good deal of spouse abuse. Despite the mainstream liberal narrative of white racial oppression, the reality on the ground has often involved whites being attacked by non-whites. Similarly, despite OFFICIAL efforts to be fair to Muslims or Arabs, there is still a good deal of unspoken and even outspoken hostility toward those people. Sometimes, the hostility is subtle, as when Hollywood will only hire Arab actors to play swarthy terrorist roles. Or, when people at the airport act nervous or throw hostile glances when they see a 'raghead'. Of course, we may have good reasons for feeling this way, but if you're a Muslim or Arab who hasn't done anything wrong or feels that one's own people have been oppressed by the American-Zionist controlled NWO, our hostility--subtle or blatant, real or perceived--may become unbearable.
Also, not all PC are the same. It's NOT okay to badmouth Jews or blacks, but it's okay to make a Hollywood movie with nasty Muslims or where Chinese invade Detroit(the coming remake of RED DAWN).
Also, it's politically acceptable to blame or attack white Christian males. Indeed, many white males are just as frustrated as Hasan when it comes to unfair treatment by mainstream media and institutions controlled by liberals. I'll bet Frank Ricci felt a lot of anger too. Of course, most normal people take the hard knocks in life and learn to deal with them or patiently seek legal redress. But, some people who happen to be naturally more sensitive or paranoid go crazy. Paranoid people weave a vast web of meta-perception where the entire world is out to get you. For instance, a normal kid who's mocked at school may feel emotional hurt but still understand that not everyone is out to get him. A paranoid mind works differently. (Think of the ending of the movie CARRIE or EL by Luis Bunuel). If a some people put him down, he thinks EVERYONE is trying to put him down. Sung Hee Cho at VT had been made fun of in middle and high school, but he took the hurt intensely personally and then began to think the whole world was against him. To his credit, his rainbow mayhem was at least politically correct as his aim didn't discriminate by race or color.
Also, even people who feel intense rage generally don't react violently out of fear of prison or punishment. But, some people overcome that fear by creating an inner myth(personal crusade as with Travis Bickle in THE TAXI DRIVER)or devoting onself to a higher cause(Islam, radicalism, or nationalism--as with Yukio Mishima or that funny guy with a truck in the 80s who threatened to blow up the Washington Memorial in the name of nuclear disarmament). They feel that God, history, 'spiritual vision', or higher morality(or Truth) is on their side, forge an armor of martyr mentality, and lose fear of death or punishment. Of course, as their madness is intensely private, they tend to plot it out alone or with a few fellow crazies. (But, when we reflect on the Taiping Rebellion, Communism, Nazism, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot-ism, 60s radicalism, Jim Jones-ism, Scientology, and Isalmic lunacy, maybe it's possible for entire peoples--even psychologically normal people--to fall under the sway of madness. Either there are far more crazy people than we think, extreme crisis brings out the craziness in all of us, or even normal people need something powerful to cling to in their humdrum lives. How else does on explain the Che chic among bourgeois liberals? How do we explain college educated people who believe in Creationism? And over time, even crazy stuff become normalized. Suppose Nazism had won. Would normal Germans be spouting Nazi lunacy today in the way that liberals spout PC nonsense? Maybe. There are still many Russians who revere Stalin and many Chinese--even rich ones--who see Mao as a kind of national god-hero. Just consider Mormons in Utah. Mormonism started out as a whackjob religion, but now it's the mainstream faith of many decent and sane people. Come to think of it, many religions, faiths, and philosophical movements were founded by half-crazy or fully crazy people.)
Perception is reality, and there's no denying that US is a hostile place for Muslims. Sure, there is political correctness and multiculturalist ideology, but again, not all political correctness are the same. Consider that Tom and Jerry cartoons snipped out black stereotypes but long kept on Mexican, Chinese, and other stereotypes. Consider that Don Imus got fired for saying "nappy headed hos" but Sarah Silverman's star only rose higher after "I love chinks" remark and Sarah Bernhardt hardly suffered for "I wish my black friends would rape Sarah Palin" remark. And, Larry David is hotter than ever after pissing on Christ.
If there's an irony in all of this, Hasan the Arab Muslim killed mostly white gentile males when, in fact, both white gentile males and Muslims have been trashed, demeaned, and dehumanized by Jews who happen to be mostly leftist, liberal, and/or Zionist. But, we mustn't overlook the OTHER irony. White gentiles go fight Isreal/Neocon/Zionist/AIPAC wars and kill 100,000s of Muslims when, in fact, it's not Muslims who are destroying America. Muslims are not the main funders of the Democratic Party or of Neocon Rinos like John McCain. Muslims are not behind the OPEN BORDERS policy. It was not Muslim lawyers who legally assaulted the rights of good decent white men like Frank Ricci. Muslims don't control Hollywood which blacklists white conservatives and demeans white Christians and white nationalists--even as liberal Jews give moral, financial, and political support to the non-white nationalisms(New Black Panthers, Acorn, and La Raza)under the umbrella of 'multiculturalism'.
Hasan killed Christian gentiles, and Christian gentiles kill Muslims. Why? Though we abhor the social values in the Musilm world, Muslims have NO Power to impose them on America. (If it's different in parts of Europe, the problem lies more with European liberalism than with Muslims. How can we blame Muslims for being aggressive against a weak and sappy people? Political power abhors a vacuum, and liberalism in Europe has suppressed or even banned white pride and white power. Since white people cannot express pride and power in their own countries, Muslims in Europe obviously want to take charge. Besides, who wants to assimilate into a decadent culture that pisses on itself, castrates the males, and embraces perversions like 'gay marriage'? The problem is less Muslims than Western liberalism in Europe. At any rate, Muslims have no power in the US, but blacks do, and again, the problem has been white liberalism when it comes to racial problems. It made sense at the time to extend equal rights to blacks, but white liberalism then demanded that whites only be apologetic and guilt-ridden. Blacks smelled the blood of white weakness and have politically gone on the offensive ever since--just like kids turns into brats when parents become permissive.)
Anyway, Muslims have no power over American domestic or foreign policy. If any single group has dominant control over US government, Wall Street, Hollywood, news and info media, foreign policy, social policy, cultural outlook, etc, it is the Jews, and most Jews are liberal or leftist and committed to undermining the power of the white majority.
Even though PC says all minorities should be protected and embraced, some groups are more equal than others. And, who gets to decide which groups are favored and which are demeaned? Jews have that power since they control the media and academia. Also, thanks to the Jewish use of the Holocaust card, we can never expose nor criticize what the Jews are up to without being labeled an 'antisemite' and being blacklisted from professional careers or business contracts. Of course, Jews played a crucial role in communism which killed tens of millions--Bolshocaust--, but we can't discuss that either since the liberal Jewish media have brainwashed us that doing so would be tantamount to 'red-baiting' or McCarthyite witch-hunting'. In the Jewish controlled media, anti-communism is worse than communism. McCarthy is worse than Stalin. Indeed, anti-fascist communists have been honored by PBS and NPR but never anti-communist fascists.
So, since all peoples are not equal under PC, we can better understand--if not justify--why Hasan may have gone bonkers. Turn on talk radio, and no one gets punished for saying SCUM MUSLIM THIS or EVIL MUSLIM THAT. You can hear anti-Islamic vitriol all day and night from Limbaugh, Savage, Levin, Hannity, Hewitt, Medved, etc. Oftentimes, they don't even specify that they are talking about RADICAL Muslims but attack Muslims in general.
Or, Limbaugh can scream and rant about the CHI-COMS without end(which is rather funny since he's all for globlalism and Walmart which depends on Chicom 'slave labor', which Limbaugh claims to loathe. Limbaugh hates Chicoms but loves the very global economic arrangements which have made the Chicoms stronger and richer than ever!) But, imagine a talk show host ranting about Jewish influence even if he specified it as 'radical' Jewish influence. How long do you think he would last? Suppose a talkshow host talked about blacks the way most talkshow hosts talk about Muslims or Arabs. Isn't it funny how the entire nation got freaked out over the Dubai port deal, but we cannot much discuss the much bigger danger Jews have posed to this country? During the hottest period in the Cold War, many spies for the USSR were Jews. Rosenbergs gave mass-murderer Stalin the most carefully guarded secret in America. Stalin got the secret that gave him the power to blow up the entire free world. It wasn't just the Rosenbergs; there was a vast leftist Jewish network that did this. Yet, McCarthy is today demeaned more than these communist-sympathizing Jews. McCarthy was a drunken fool and a boor, but was he worse than communist Jews?
Another case of selective outrage which exposes the bogusness of PC is the contrast between our remembrances of Japanese-American imprisonment and the red-baiting of McCarthy years. Over 130,000 Japanese-Americans were racially targeted, dispossed, and herded off to prison camps. During the Red Scare era, an handful of commie-lovers were blacklisted from certain sensitive professions or couldn't get a gig as a singer at a club or write for Hollywood for a few yrs. Which was a bigger violation of human rights? Obvious, aint it? Yet, look at most history books or PBS specials, and the moral outrage and historical remembrance are outweighed in favor of the Red Scare yrs by 1000 to 1. FDR is the untouchable hero to the liberal Jews who control the media and besides, "Japs" had been rounded up in order to fight evil fascism. So, that story is swept under the rug. But, when it comes to Jewish communists who were blacklisted--though not dispossessed nor imprisoned--for a few yrs, NPR and PBS would have us believe it was the worst thing that ever happened after the Holocaust and black slavery.
So, we should know where Hasan is coming from. He shouldn't have done what he did and what he did is ugly, disgusting, and evil, BUT he had a right to be angry for unfair treatment of Muslims IN America and in the Middle East by American government and war machine that are essentially the tools of the AIPAC gang.
Though liberal Jewish media are ever so quick to come to the defense of blacks, illegal Mexicans, and gays, there is a general lack of protection for certain groups, especially Muslims and Chinese--two groups Jews hate most. So, what happens to be 'wink wink okay' or 'hell no not okay' is really a matter of how Jews control the media. Imus said 'nappy headed hos', and that was NOT OKAY since Jews want alliance with blacks. But, talk radio hosts making fun of Muslims is okay because anti-Muslim sentiment serves the agenda of Zionism.
Also, as Muslims have little media or academic power, they quietly simmer in their rage; they have no effective outlet to vent their anger. Even a black cop-killer gets sympathy and respect from the black community, human rights groups, and liberal media. Even Jewish communist spies and ideologues are apologized for or honored by the liberal media and historians. But, no one looks into or cares about why Muslims may be so angry. We are blind to the fact that Muslims have their own 'Remember the Alamo' moments and myths.
During the Bush yrs, there was some degree of sympathy for Muslim suspects if only because the liberal media wanted to make Bush look evil. Even so, such sympathy was much greater in Europe than in America--as Zionist Jews who control the US don't want Americans to sympathize too much with Muslims or Arabs. And, whatever sympathy for Muslims that may have existed during the Bush yrs have dried up with the rise of Obama. Look at how the anti-war left has fallen silent ever since Obama became messiah to us all.
The White Right should try to understand Muslim anger to some degree as both white rightists and Muslims have a common enemy. Most of the mainstream media will not even consider the views of the 'alternative right'. When such views are mentioned, it is immediately condemened as 'racist' or 'hateful'. Mainstream media invite the likes of Anti-Defamation League and SPLC to spout off on a whole bunch of issues, but when was the last time they invited someone like Jared Taylor or Peter Brimelow for counter-opinions? When we are not Invisible, we are demeaned, caricatured, dehumanized, and attacked on a daily basis by the liberal Jewish media. Neocon Jews like David Brooks aren't much better.
Even though we detest Muslim values, we can understand how those people feel because the powerful liberals Jews who gave a python grip on this country treat us the same way. Both Palestinians and white Americans are living under the Jewish/Zionist/Marxist-Wall-Street-Complex occupation. (Jews use capitalism to rake in billions and billions and then purchase and use socialist Big Government to rule over us as slaves.) Things may indeed change if the Muslim share of US population reaches that of Paris or London, but the 'Muslim problem' for White America exists in the form of Mexican Illegal Invasion, and liberal Jews are fully behind it. (One could argue that the Muslim problem is Europe's 'Mexican' problem, but Europeans are digging their own graves. Confident and righteous Muslims are only reacting to the wimpiness of liberals--though to be sure, if movies like THIS IS ENGLAND are accurate, some Muslim anger may indeed be a reaction to white thuggery as well, though one could also argue that white thuggery is a reaction to out-of-control immigration).
Anyway, like many people on the white right, Muslims in America feel mounting rage because anti-Muslim hostility is still approved and encouraged in most of America by a thorougly hypocritical and selective PC apparatus controlled by liberal Jews, gays, and blacks.
Sure, Muslims were not racially profiled in airports, and major politicians have said all the politically correct things about Islam being a 'religion of peace' and so forth and so on. Even Hollywood movies like IRON MAN will have a scene pretending to distinguish between good decent helpless Muslims and evil terrorist radical Muslims, but all that's just tokenism.
In actual truth of daily life, I've long sensed open anti-Islamic sentiments all around. Not that I'd prefer PC suppression of such hostility. If anything, I want to get rid of PC so we can be openly hostile(through honest opinions, not naked violence) about ANY people. If we are to have a free and honest discussion of race and culture, we must be allowed to freely air our fears, dislikes, suspicions, frustrations, etc--as long as we refrain from name-calling such as 'nigger', 'honkey', and 'kike'.
Because Muslims have no media or political power, their anger and frustration build up inside. What happens to the raisin in the sun? It can EXPLODE! Blacks and Jews have the means to vent their anger and frustration through politics, media, or song/dance. But, when Jews weren't allowed to express their frustrations, they became radicalized too--into communists and Zionists. (The funny thing about Jews, however, is that they've maintained their radicalism long after they've been welcomed and embraced by mainstream society!) When the British didn't much listen to Jewish pleas, it led to the Irgun, a terrorist group that blew up British officers and their families and friends. Terrorism is the weapon of the powerless. This isn't to say that the powerless are necessarily saintly or decent. After all, Timothy McVeigh was a monster. But, both the white right and Muslims have been targeted for special bashing by the media dominated by liberal Jews. And, white right and Muslims aren't allowed equal opportunity to speak back in an open forum. Indeed, if liberal Jews behind Obama get their way, there will be stringent 'hate speech' laws like ones in Europe which will forbid certain kinds of speech--mostly white rightist, 'antisemitic', anti-black, and anti-gay'. But, hateful feminist, communist, gay agenda, black, anti-Christian, or Zionist speech will be protected.
There's no doubt that Hasan is a sick and psychotic individual, but would the shooting have happened if US hadn't support Israel's destruction of the Palestinian people for many decades? Palestinians had NOTHING to do with WWII and the Holocaust(Germans), the evils of communism(Russians and Jews), Pearl Harbor(Japan), American race riots(blacks), and the invasion of America(Illegals from Mexico). YET, white Americans have supported the Jews in the robbery, oppression, dispossession, and humiliation of the Palestinian people. And FOR WHAT??? Have Jews shown an ounce of gratitude to white Americans for having sacrificed 100,000s of lives to defeat the Nazis and save Jews, for having overlooked and/or forgiven the Jewish role in communism, for having welcomed many Soviet Jews to settle in America, or for having supported Israel to the hilt? What did Jews give back to White America at the end of the day? "Gay marriage", Illegal Invasion from Mexico, discriminaton against people like Frank Ricci, Larry David pissing on Jesus, Carole King singing 'You've Got a Friend' to Fidel Castro, hateful anti-white and anti-Christian propaganda from Hollywood, promotion of interracism--especially between black males and white males in order to humiliate white male pride--, unnecessary wars that bankrupted the economy, and BARACK OBAMA and all those Maoist Czars he has appointed!!!!!
Anti-Islamic Americans talk about the rotten way that Muslims treat their women, as a modern Western women, I agree with their sentiments. But, at least Muslim mistreatment of women involves their own women. But, how have the Jews treated white women? Hollywood moguls have used and abused white women as sex dolls to pump with drugs, their slimy dicks, and false promise of stardom. Pop cultural industry run by Jews encourage our young girls to dress up like hookers and act like apes gyrating their groins to jungle music. Jewish-run music industry has promoted and spread Rap music whose message is guys should be thug pimps and women should be slutty skankass ho's. Jews encourage young white girls to go with black men and have mulatto babies when the white race is facing severe population decline and racial extinction. Jewish men laugh in the face of white males who must suffer the indignity of seeing more and more of their beauties go off with thuggish or trashy blacks. What is Obama but a liberal Jewish posterchild for miscegenation? And Jews control the porn industry which is largely about poor 'white trash' gentile girls being pumped with with drugs by Jewish porn makers and then pumped with the dicks of black males. This is how liberal Jews treat white gentile women. This is how Jews rake in billions of dollars from us and then donate billions to Israel so that the Zionist war machine can kill Palestinian women and children and rob Palestinian men of their male pride. What's the difference between a Palestinian male losing his male pride and a white American male losing his male pride? What's the difference between a Palestinian seeing his house razed to the ground and his wife and children being tossed into the streets by Israeli thugs AND a white American male being forced to racially integrate, getting beat up by tougher black males, and seeing his girlfriend or daughter being brainwashed to shake her ass like some jungle slut and going off to have babies with trashy black males? WHO have been behind assaults on human pride of both Muslims and White gentiles? The liberal Zionist Jews!!
It's wrong for people go around shooting people, but it looks like both Hasan and white Americans have their bitter eyes on the wrong enemy. We attack Muslims and Muslims attack us, yet we are all being (Jerry)Springered by the AIPAC gang. If we hadn't been the pitbull of the Zionists in America, our relations with the Muslim world would be much better. Sure, we would still detest their values and vice versa, but they would be over there, we would be over here. It's the Zionist agenda which got us over there and led to blowback from there to here.
Some has raised the question, 'should Muslims be allowed in the US military?' It's a controversial but worthy issue for discussion.
We should also discuss, 'should Jews be allowed to serve in US government?' Jews are heavily over-represented in government in Congress and in Obama's adminstration. All Jewish politicians except one are liberal Democrats. Obama wouldn't be president if not for Jewish money, media support, and backing. Obama and the Jews who supported him(over 80% of Jews) are doing everything in their power to destroy the constitution, take away our freedom of speech, increase illegal immigration to swamp the white population, pushing for the gay agenda and 'gay marriage', trying to socialize as much of US economy as possible, and taking our tax dollars and giving it to Wall Street banksters who are mostly Jewish. Goldman Sachs was the biggest donator to Obama. Google, run by Jews, is also one of the biggest supporters of Obama. George Soros, an evil international Jew, pretty much owns much of leftist politics in this country. Hollywood is run by Jews and not only gave millions to the Obama campaign but has repeatedly impugned the image and reputation of white Americans, especially conservatives.
Muslims sometimes act violent and pose a danger to us, but the people who've really TAKEN OVER this country and are taking away our rights at an alarming rate are the mostly liberal/leftist/Zionist Jews. And, during the Cold War, most anti-American radicals were Jews. The biggest act of terrorism in US history was when Julius Rosenberg gave the secret to the atomic bomb to mass murderer Stalin. Thanks to Jews like him, a communist tyrant gained the technology enabling him to blow up the free world if he so chose.
I'm not saying that Jews nor Muslims should not, respectively, serve in US government or US military, but it's still a worthy subject of public discussion. There are many patriotic Muslims and Jews--I've met both kinds--, but there are indeed terrorist minded Muslims who hate the US, and there are many many leftist, liberal, and radical Jews who want to de-white-ize and de-Christianize, and de-Americanize this country. Thanks to Muslims, we have incidents like the latest killing. Thanks to Jews, we have a son of a mudshark and an African communist as president of United States who has filled his administration with outright communists, Maoists, Nambla-oriented fruitcakes, and other degenerates who look down on the American people as dumb children or as guinea pigs to experiment with.
Friday, November 6, 2009
There is a Cable TV show called MAD MEN which has stirred up much debate on NPR, conservative websites, and many blogs(or so I'm told.) Actually, I would like to see a truly intelligent and honest movie about the advertising world whether set in the 50s, 60s or today--or anytime in history. Advertising has become the perfect metaphor for what has become of American capitalism. American capitalism is now more about the art of selling than what is actually being sold. For one thing, we no longer have a manufacturing economy that makes things but more of a service economy that schmoozes customers. For another, American students are more likely to major in business--shaking hands--than in engineering--using hands.
Of course, this has been a long-running theme in American history. As long as "there's a sucker being born every minute", why not go for the easy buck? The American West was filled with snake oil salesmen of all stripes. Prior to regulation and government control, one could advertise just about anything. Indeed, advertising men haven't been much admired through most of American history.
But, at some time in the 20th century, advertising turned into an high concept art and a prestigious institution. Just as gambling had started in the underworld but gained respectability via Las Vegas and Atlantic City, advertising became a chic and choice industry for ambitious people. And, in a way, this was understandable given changes in the economy. The reputation of capitalism that had suffered terribly during the Great Depression recovered during the postwar yrs. US economy was dominant around the world, and Americans made stuff--quality goods ranging from can openers to cars to jumbo jet engines that were envy of the world. Americans had great things to sell, and so what was being sold and how it was being sold went hand in hand. There was no shame in advertising the latest American car or refrigerator or TV set. But gradually, America become an importing nation. Advertising came to mean more about promoting foreign goods than American goods. Trade deficits mounted but advertising companies made us feel good about buying a Toyota or shopping at Walmart. Also, places like Detroit and other cities got filled with blacks who made poor workers and worse products--blacks also burdened companies with high cost due to their high rates of on-the-job thieving and absenteeism. Unions got fat and bloated and protected inferior workers as long as they had union cards. American goods in many sectors got worse and worse.
Also, despite government regulations which curbed many of the abuses of the past, pervasive hyper-consumerism emphasized the desirability than the durability of good and services. Desirability was linked to disposability. Consumerism meant always looking for the latest and hottest stuff without thinking whether one really wanted or needed it. It's as though we increasingly began to judge a book by its cover.
In a way, we all went along because we didn't want to face reality. We wanted to be told that certain drugs would make us happy. Or, if we watch this or that TV show and emulate its characters, we'll be cool and hip. If we listened to this self-help guru, we'll find enlightenment. If we followed the advice of that financial genius, we can become overnight millionaires.
And, it even extended to politics which became more about selling a candidate than finding one who's truly fit for the job. Though Reagan was indeed a great president, much of the appeal was marketing. Clinton upped the ante, playing the role of rock star celebrity. Bush sold himself as a NASCAR Mall Church beer buddy All-American. Obama was sold as Will Smith messiah, as the Son of Virgin Oprah. Palin sells herself as Moose hunting barbie. None of this necessarily new in politics, but the level of marketing and the brazen shamelessness have gone totally out of control. The old Anglo-American model of sober restraint and dignity has been replaced with the kind of trashy and splashy Latin-American politicking of the Perons of Argentina.
And, the mythic romance with capitalism has led to all sorts of frauds since the 1980s. Perhaps, David Mamet captured it most succinctly in GLENGARRY GLENROSS where the trick is to fool clients into buying worthless land. It doesn't matter what you sell, only how you sell. The main commodity is not the commodity itself but the communication.
Though capitalism is the best economic system known to man, a blind kind of Ayn Randism came to 'spiritually' prevail among many Americans who looked up to rich people as demi-god heroes and even saviors of mankind. This was understandable to some extent as the wealth of nations does indeed depend on risk-taking entrepreneurs and corporations. But, Americans forgot that powerful people must be watched, scrutinized, and criticized.
Because what passed for American conservatism and new liberalism(under Clinton) painted a simple picture where BIG GOVERNMENT is corrupt and intrusive whereas businessmen were heroic, honest, and hardworking, many of us turned a blind eye to what was happening in the corridors of American capitalism and just took faith in the idea that the rich guys were doing the right thing. But, what happened?
ENRON! Enron turned out to be more about the art of selling than having a superior product or service to sell. In a way, it was more of a advertising company for energy than an energy company. And, look at the dot.com rise and fall in the late 90s. Though an handful of internet companies were indeed the real thing, many had nothing to sell except hype. Since the mantra was 'technology is the future', clever geeks and their financial partners-in-crime were able to fool the public into thinking that their companies would be the next Microsoft and every investor would become a millionaire.
Then, there was the whole business with the so-called OWNERSHIP SOCIETY which might as well be called the UNIVERSAL HOUSE-OWNERSHIP PROGRAM. In all of this, the very people promoting, marketing, and selling this stuff may have genuinely believed in the garbage they were spewing. As the art of advertising and promotion had risen to such masterful heights, it was easy to be dazzled and fooled by the illusion--in the way that cosmetics and coaching can make even a no good bitch come across as a beautiful wonderful person.
The biggest fraud of them all was the financial instruments that enabled the housing bubble and led to the Great Recession. Again, it was more about the art of selling than what was being sold. It turned out that the financial instruments created by Wall Street wizards were really retarded, fraudulent, or delusional, but what did it matter? We were all sold on the notion that they were brilliant innovations by the best and the brightest from top business schools of Harvard and other great schools. We were assured that the financial instruments were blessed by yoda-like gurus Alan Greenspan, Bernaeke, and Hank Paulson. To question them would have been like questioning God, Jesus, and the pope during the Middle Ages. Essentially, Wall Street packaged and sold dead rats inside boxes, but as long as the boxes were beautifully wrapped in gold-leaf paper and scented with perfume, it was "DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY."
With loss of American jobs and rising trade deficits, things were not adding up to sober people. But, there was no reason to worry, we were told over and over. The admen in government, Wall Street, academia, Hollywood, media(both Milton Friedman on the right and Thomas Friedman on the left) and etc assured us that things would all work out. We could just keep borrowing and borrowing. Housing prices would go up and up, and we could live on mortgage-backed loans. Or, Green Jobs would save us as 'green was the next red, white, and blue'.
Not that Obama's 'socialism' is any better. It too is just a vast marketing ploy, more a mega conjob to empower himself and political allies than do something difficult, constructive, and longterm to set the US economy and society on the right track. The STIMULUS PLAN was an advertising fraud. We were told we had to pass it right away or unemployment would go past 8%. Well?
The Banks had first gotten everything their way by effectively ending regulation of their industry. After their financial instruments and shenanigans brought down the economy, they used the media and government to sell the notion that they MUST BE bailed out or the whole economy will sink.
We see much the same in Hollywood. It no longer has new ideas but only regurgitates old ideas repackaged with bigger explosions and more expensive special effects. But, Hollywood sure knows how to market and sell their stuff. Worse, people seem to prefer this stuff if only because it makes them feel good and assured that happiness and pleasure are there to be easily had.
Journalism, the so-called Fourth Estate, is supposed to play the role of truth-speaker and skeptical commentator, but even it has become part of advertising. Just consider how the news media sold Barack Obama as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Remember the media's cheerleading for the Iraq War? Consider the fact that much of financial news has fed us Panglossian fantasies about how the world is gonna be part of a new global order in which everyone will be much better off. There may indeed be lots of good things about globalism, but the news media were more sellers than tellers of what's really going on.
Perhaps, the people deserve a lot of blame too. No one likes bad news or at least non-sensational sober news which upsets us or fills us with anxiety. It's no wonder then that most people would rather hear liberal or mainstream conservative fantasies about race than the harsh and troubling truth discussed by members of the 'alternative right'. No wonder that people would rather listen to Oprah than James Watson.
Of course, radicalism too can be sold as something fashionable and satisfying. Though the whole Climate Change movement is about gloom-n-doom, people sign up because it gives them a cartoon vision of good vs bad. Everything is simplified and easily digestible to the heart and mind, and there is the happy promise of salvation of all mankind(accompanied with glib self-righteousness) IF we do the right thing and bow down before Carbon Pope Al Gore. Christianity too is both about gloom and doom AND uplifting salvation. Indeed, simple-minded negativity and simple-minded positivity seem to go together--just as comic book superheroes need to be confronted by grand villains. No doom, no boom. Indeed, Obama's presidency is inconceivable without the economic woes, from which he's to save us like Superman saves a woman tied to railroad tracks. He's just another Superman comic hero created by liberal Jews.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
There's a running theme in Western liberal criticism of East Asia which is rather odd and amusing: the notion that East Asian nations are unnaturally and obsessively homogeneous unlike the more diverse and 'progressive' nations around the world. East Asian homogeneity is especially jarring to Western liberals since East Asia is the most successful part of the world outside the West. East Asia challenges the notion that a nation must be diverse in order to make social, political, and economic progress. Japan, Taiwan, and Korea all developed and progressed politically, economically, and socially while remaining racially homogeneous. (It seems a nation doesn't have to be racially diverse to draw from diverse ideas and innovations from around the world. You don't need Frenchmen to have French restaurants, you don't need Germans to make quality machine parts. From the outset of their Westernization, Japanese observed, learned, copied, and made their own revisions and innovations. Rest of Asia followed.)
Anyway, the liberal narrative would have us believe diversity = progress/innovation/prosperity while homogeneity = reaction/stagnation/poverty. We've been lectured on and on about why Spain was eclipsed by other European nations; it banished diversity by kicking out Muslims and then the Jews. And, we've been told us that Vienna was a cultural paradise in the early 20th century because of the diversity. (Perhaps, their success had less to do with diversity per se than with the presence of smart/talented Jews. After all, suppose Vienna had kicked out gypsies, Serbs, and Croats but kept the Jews. It probably would have still been culturally and intellectually interesting. Suppose Spanish kicked out Muslims but kept the Jews; the economy might have continued to thrive. So, the key to success wasn't just open diversity but selective diversity. A scientific project with only Ashkenazi Jews would be more successful than one with Pakistanis, Zimbabweans, Bolivians, etc. Btw, wasn't Spain eclipsed by Great Britain, an even more racially homogenous country?)
Western liberals are troubled with the rise/success of East Asia since it doesn't fall into their historical/moral paradigm. It was bad enough that East Asian rightwing regimes(even the Chinese Communist Party become essentially a quasi-fascist patriotic party after Mao's death)proved to be more progressive and successful than leftwing regimes(such as North Korea, Maoist China, and communist Vietnam), but now Western liberals are faced with having to explain why racially and culturally homogeneous East Asia has made the most amount of progress(outside the West).
So, it's no wonder that the liberal media would take every opportunity to point to the 'evils' of 'racism' and 'xenophobia' in East Asia(though almost never against Zioinist Israel). Western liberals would have us fear and loathe the rise of East Asia since it's not the triumph of diversity and progressive values but of nationalism, 'racism', and reaction.
But, there is one big problem with this view. First, there is the problem of what might be called the IMPERIALISM OF GUILT. It projects Western notion of historical guilt onto other peoples. This has been MOST offensive in regard to Palestinians. Since the West oppressed Jews and committed the Holocaust, there is the notion that antisemtism is evil. But, it doesn't seem to occur to many Westerners--esp. in the US--that Arab hatred of Jews has its own context and logic. Palestinians hate Jews not because of racial ideology but because Jews took Palestinian land. To accuse Palestinians of the evil of antisemtism is to the apply the IMPERIALISM OF GUILT. It's as though the entire world has to conform to the Western notion of historical guilt and right/wrong when the non-Western world operates by different histiography and experience. Similarly, maybe the Korean dislike for foreigners has less to do with 'racism' and more to do with historical insecurity due to having suffered invaders from Mongolia, Manchuria, Japan, Russia, etc. for example, Japanese or Koreans may still be nasty, unpleasant, and pigheaded, but to use the charge of 'racism' may miss the point or the nuances of how they see history--their own and of the world. Similarly, maybe not every instance of anti-Gypsy feelings among Europeans is a case of neo-Nazism; maybe, it has something to do with the fact that Gypsies have a shameless criminal culture and go from place to place to commit all sorts of petty robbery.
Of course, as East Asians have grown rich or richer, they may now indeed look down on 'dirty' foreign workers in their own countries. But, even here, we must take into account class context and differences. To rich East Asian businessmen or affluent liberal global elite, the presence of foreigners could mean cheap labor or sign of political progress. To poorer East Asians, it could mean competition and loss of cultural identity. For poor or poorer people, cultural identity and traditional values are all they have.
Another problem with the liberal Western view of East Asia is the moral contradiction of their argument. On the one hand, Western liberals condemn the entire history of Western expansion, conquest, 'exploitation', slave trade, spread of diseases, rape, and etc. We are told over and over of how white people invaded the Americas, shipped blacks across the Atlantic, settled in places in South Africa, forced sex on natives or non-whites, used and exploited non-white labor(such as Chinese railroad workers). Yet, the reason why much of the world became diverse is precisely because of Western imperialism and expansion. Without it, there wouldn't be a single black person in the Americas. South Americans would all be pure-blooded native 'Indians', not mestizos of mixed blood(initially the result of Hispanic rape of native women). South Africa would be all black than having a substantial white and Asian population. USA would be less diverse if whites hadn't brought over non-whites for slave work or cheap labor--to pick cotton, to lay down railroad tracks, to pick tomatoes, to clean bedpans of old white people, etc. So, this DIVERSITY that white liberals so proudly extol had largely been accomplished through conquest, rape, slavery, and exploitation of cheap labor. Diversity was FORCED on the native 'Indians' who never had a chance to say "NO, we don't wanna be invaded, lose our lands to whites and blacks and other newcomers, and mix our blood with the invading peoples." Blacks never had a chance to say, "NO, we don't wanna be shipped across the seas and made to work on plantations." So, even as Western liberals condemn the history of imperialism, they are most obsessed with and supportive of the product of that evil historical process: DIVERSITY. It's like condeming interracial rape but praising its outcome. Western liberals are wittingly or unwittingly rationalizing and even justifying--through a roundabout way--their conquest of the world.
Seen from this angle, their ideological attack on East Asia is both understandable and funny. East Asia is the only part of the world that never fully came under Western imperialism. Japan modernized early, China was too big and homogenous for any one power to dominate. Korea was colonized by Japan. Also, East Asia was reasonably advanced, unified, resistant to Western diseases, and populous. So, East Asia could not be conquered and raped like native 'Indians' of the Americas. Also, as East Asia was mainly inward looking, it didn't import millions of slaves from Africa. (Japan did try to join the imperialist club but ultimately failed miserably and LOST EVERYTHING). So, Asian homogeneity exists because it was spared or resisted the aggression of the West and also because it never imported huge numbers of blacks nor conquered non-Asian territories. (Sure, they exploited their own kind, but that doesn't fall under the rubric of 'racism' or 'imperialism'.)
You'd think this is a GOOD thing: not being invaded & having your nation/culture wholly altered by imperialists--as happened to the "Indians" of the Americas, racial cousins of Asians--or not having brought millions of African blacks to work as slaves on rice paddies or bamboo fields.
Instead, white liberals trash East Asia for its lack of diversity and for its obsessive homogeneity. Would white liberals like East Asians more if East Asians had been conquered and raped(and racially altered)like "Indians" of America or if East Asians had forcibly imported 3 million blacks from Africa? East Asia would surely be more DIVERSE, just as much of the Western sphere is diverse--mainly because diversity had been forced on non-white peoples.
Of course, diversity is today being forced on the white majority of Europe and North America, as if the only way to wash away the sins of imperialism and 'racism' is to now 'rape' the white population as well. All said and done, diversity was mostly the policy of the elite. White elites decided to explore and conquer new lands, to rape and enslave non-whites. Now, the white elite wants to mongrelize most whites as well. In both cases, the vast numbers of people had NO SAY in any of this. The natives of Mexico were never given a chance to say NO. And, American and European whites also aren't allowed to say NO. If you say NO in the USA, you're demeaned as a 'xenophobic racist' and blacklisted. If you say NO in Europe, you're locked up for 'hate crimes'. Western imperialism has morphed into the imperialism of guilt and into auto-imperialism. Long ago, the white elites used white masses to conquer non-white worlds. Today, the white elites use non-white masses to conquer the white world. Just consider the Labor Government policy of increasing non-whites to maintain elite liberal power.
So, this may explain the hypocritical hostility of white liberals against East Asia.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Some Thoughts on New York Times(aka Jew York Times) Article on the Ambivalent South Korean Feelings toward the West.
I suppose South Korea is facing the the kind of social issues that Western nations faced decades ago. Difference is Western nations confronted them from a position of strength and guilt. They were the richest/most powerful countries in the world--and confident and conscientious enough to come to terms with their 'historical crimes'. South Korea is now a developed country but has always been politically weak--subservient to Imperial China, invaded by Mongols and Manchus, occupied by Japan, and then wedded to great powers like USSR, Red China, or the USA. So, Koreans may still feel that they are a colonized people in some sense despite their recent successes. (Japanese also feel this way to some degree: their country had been under Western imperialist intimidation and/or domination since Matthew Perry's ships arrived.) Also, Koreans are less likely to feel guilt as they've never conquered and/or enslaved other peoples, nor had a sizable enough minority in their midst--like blacks in the US or Jews in Poland. Even when they are nasty and vicious, Koreans may see everything through prism of victimhood and powerlessness. In this sense, they share something with blacks and Jews who' vea lways insisted on their victimhood and suffering--even when blacks burn down cities or even when Jews raze Palestinian homes. But, the difference between Koreans and Jews/blacks is that Korean problems are limited to Korea whereas black and Jewish politics and agenda have global import and repercussions.
On the other hand, it could well be that Korea might follow in the footsteps of the West. The article suggests a generational conflict between older people who knew and grew up in a homogeneous Korea and a younger generation hooked to globalism via internet and pop music. Of course, there could be conflicts among young people too: the prosperous globe-trotting liberal/intellectual/yuppie types and those who've fallen through the cracks and feel resentful about having to compete with 'dirty' foreigners.
Koreans, like the Chinese and Indians, send many of their students to the West. This means that the educated elite in South Korea will come under greater influence of 'multi-culturalism' and 'progressive' ideas. They may be more eager to please and win respect from foreigners than be sensitive to the passions and prejudices of their own people. Since East Asians are followers than innovators, their social policies may well follow the Western model for both good and ill. A more tolerant and open-minded society is certainly better, but when the DIVERSITY CULT takes over, big trouble ahead.
The article suggests that Koreans aren't necessarily against race-mixing but have mixed feelings about it. They feel superior to some races, inferior to others. They feel resentful toward the 'superior', contemptuous toward the 'inferior'.
Or, maybe the main issue isn't racial superiority/inferiority but racial comfort. Perhaps, for many insecure or anxious Korean people, their Korean identity is all they have--their country isn't just a nation-state but more like a big family living in one big house in which foreigners can only be bothersome guests if they stick around too long. Since Korean society/culture is all they know, many Koreans could be annoyed and threatened by having to deal with funny, strange, and/or weird foreigners(who don't know the rules inculcated in all Koreans from childhood). In the non-individualist East, one can(or must) lose oneself in the larger culture/crowd. When a unified and common culture--as in Korea or Japan--dissipates, one is surrounded by cultural strangers and forced to assert oneself individually--like people in NY or LA. Problem is East Asians were not raised to think or act that way. Some cultures are more comfortable with individuality; others are not. For a people accustomed to a stricter sense of social place, decorum, and hierarchy, the prospect of a society where people must be judged as individuals for his/her wit, personality, and talent may be distressing. Sheep don't want to forced to behave like wolves. In MERRY X-MAS MR LAWRENCE, Tom Conti says Japanese went crazy because they are an 'anxious people'. Maybe, Koreans too.
Problems of Korean Birthrates:
South Korea, CIA, 2000: 1.72 per woman.
South Korea, CIA, 2008: 1.20 per woman.
This is alarmingly low even by Western standards. Could this be the paradoxical product of Korea CHANGING TOO FAST but NOT FAST ENOUGH?
Consider that in a very short historical time period, young Koreans entered the modern world with all the promise of freedom, pleasure, fun, and so forth and so on. They are hooked to American movies, global youth culture, internet, videogames, comic book culture, rock n roll, the ideals of individuualism/freedom/liberty, and etc. They are taught all the correctly progressive things in schools, and things they see on TV and internet indicate they should fully be in the modern world. In this sense, Korea has changed TOO FAST.
But, maybe the wider/deeper Korean social reality isn't what Koreans--especially young people--have been promised by popular culture and progressive education. It hasn't changed fast enough to accommodate the new attitudes and expectations of young Koreans. Maybe, much of Korean society is still rigid, regressive, judgmental, conformist, and intolerant. And, maybe this aspect of Koreanness is most potent and powerful in the culture of marriage: maybe, a young person(especially a girl)has to give up her freedoms and liberty and play second-fiddle to her husband and kiss ass with the in-laws. Suppose some marriages are still de facto arranged. Then, no wonder that many young Koreans don't marry. (Could be the same too in Japan). Well, what about single-mothers? Could be that in a society where a great stigma is attached to having children out-of-wedlock, single-motherhood simply isn't an option for most women. South Korea could be a nation where societal pressure strongly discourages any woman from having kids on her own--unlike in Sweden or in the US. If single-motherhood were more permissible in Japan or Korea, maybe birthrates would be higher.
Also, it could be that Korean men are still louts--even the young ones. In the past, it could be that many women married and had kids because of social tradition and pressure. But, Korea CHANGED TOO FAST, and maybe young men and women now have the freedom to do as they wish. This freedom remains AS LONG AS one doesn't enter into institutional arrangements. In the US or Europe, one is a free individual even after marriage; one has more responsibilties but retains all the legal and social rights and privileges. It could be that one loses a lot of those rights and privileges formally or informally in Asia.
Since there is much less social pressure for girls to get married and raise a family today, many Korean women may prefer to remain free individuals than unfree wives. Better to be lonely and free than married and enslaved.
Besides, with all the electronic gadgets and entertainment, even unwed people can have lots of fun. (Could it be that one of the obstacles to higher birthrates in Asia is that the reality on the ground is so far removed from what Asians have come to desire in their eyes, hearts, and minds? The discrepancy between fantasy ideal and bio-social reality is surely more painfully obvious in Asia--and could also account for the low East Asian birthrates in America. In the West, if a guy can't marry a Cindy Crawford-type, he may still be able to find a decent looking woman on the level of Jennifer Aniston. Or, a woman who can't marry a Daniel Craig-type can still find a good enough looking guy--tall and manly enough if not exactly dropdead gorgeous. But, in Asia, few men or women measure up to the tall and glamorous caucasian types so prevalent in Hollywood movies and American pop culture that dominate global culture. Asian men tend to be short, and Asian women tend to be lumpy. This may not matter if Asians didn't have a culture of excellence and ambition--rising higher always means being more discriminatory; Harvard, for all its professed egalitarian ideals, discriminates in favor of smart/industrious over dumb/lazy people. After all, short stubby Mexicans are happy to marry other short stubby Mexicans and have lots of kids. But, Asian society is very hierarchical and status-conscious, and Asian youths are encouraged to rise up socially and improve themselves through better jobs, higher positions, respectable friends and colleagues, and quality mates--in other words, being more discriminatory. When Asia had been less affected by Western culture, even an Asian guy could look studly to an Asian girl, and even an Asian girl could look sexy to an Asian guy. But today, both Asian men and women are gaga over the Western ideal--consider the rates of plastic surgery in South Korea(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFfz3YFxi9s & Hong Kong women getting impregnated with Nordic sperm as they prefer the Eurasian look over the short Cantonese geeky look. Since more Asians than ever have risen socio-economically, expect and desire higher standards, and can afford to hook themselves to the daily stream of global entertainment imagery and fantasies, what was good enough for their grandparents and parents may not be good enough for themselves. Jews are no less ambitious and always seeking to improve their lot through higher success and quality friends and mates, but Jews are clever enough to act as though--at least in public--that they are all for eglitarianianism and progressive virtues. In practice, most Jews are no different than 'racist' or racialist Asians, but in rhetoric--as the NY Times pieces proves--, Jews are more likely to put on a good show about the brotherhood/sisterhood of men and women; I doubt if NY Times is as judgmental about Zionist chauvinism in US/Israel nor about Jewish groups caling for Jews-marrying-Jews.
The main difference between South Koreans and Jews could be the former are blunt about their prejudices whereas the latter conceal their biases under the veneer of 'social justice' and equality. But, look around and the MOST UNEQUAL people in the world are the Jews! Another thing... maybe marriage/birth rates have gone down in Asia because the rise of individual freedom & modern atomization has weakened traditional matchmaking networks via relatives, friends, work place, etc. The problem could be that even as Asians are freer than ever to choose on their own, they are still relatively shy and timid and don't have the gall or balls to seek mates openly and assertively as people in the West do. Asians could be caught in a no-man's land of individual freedom but lack of individual initiative. They are now free to choose their own mates but don't have the confidence to go-for-it.)
For more Korean to choose marriage, Korean society-at-large will have to catch up with Korean society-in-the-lead. Koreans rapidly gained freedom but can't use it functionally in much of their country. It's like making a lot of money too fast but not having the shops that sell what you want. More money for less spending. More freedom to do nothing.
NYT article is like so many I've read before.This is less reporting or uncovering something new than regurgitating the same old--mostly liberal Judeo-centric--warnings, pieties, and judgements. A similar article on Poland will invariably be about anti-semitism and how Poles have yet to be good boys and girls. If it's about East Asia or the Middle East, we get the same sermons about 'xenophobia', 'racism', and 'sexism'. These articles tell us little about another culture beyond what OUR main political and sociological hang-ups--shaped by liberal Jewish media--tend to be at the moment. We are supposed to feel glibly superior to those backward people or be warned that we must not slip back to the BAD OLD DAYS when we were like nasty Asians,Eastern Europeans, or Muslims today. I'm not one to disagree that there's a lot of unpleasant things in the non-Western world, but I can't help feeling that international reporting often amounts to little more than EDITORIALIZING BY OTHER MEANS.
After all, why don't these liberal newspapers report equally on problems of homogenophobia, asexism, and interracism? Homogenophobia would be the opposite of xenophobia: irrational fear or dread of wanting to maintain a largely homogenecous/cohesive society. The result? Look at the social ills of Paris, London, and LA. Homogenophobia can destroy entire cities. Asexism would be the opposite of sexism: the belief that there are no meaningful differences between sexes other than socially or culturally constructed ones--'gender' variables. Some good asexism has done to the birthrates in the advanced world! Some good it has done to the relationship between men and women! Interracism is the idea that races are improved by extensive race-mixing. So, is Peru or Brazil a more pleasant or stable place than Japan or Sweden?
NY Times and liberal media report on the evils, dangers, or unpleasantries of racism, sexism, and xenophobia but little on the worse dangers of interracism, asexism, and homogenophobia. Why? Because it is in the interest of liberal Jews to support interracism, asexism, and homogenophobia for the purpose of increasing and securing Jewish power. Jews, as a powerful and wealthy minority elite, don't want to be confronted by a unified people of race or culture. Homogenophobia means more immigration from third world countries, interracism means more race mixing to the point where white race will no longer distinctly exist(no distinct race, then no racial identity nor pride), and asexism means that white men and white women will not play their proper roles for the purpose of raising more children in strong patriotic families. Asexism will drive a wedge between men and women, with both groups comprising selfish atomized individuals.
I'm sick of these international news coverages that do little more than give us pat summaries and contain the same old same old smug assumptions about the 'less advanced and progressive' folks around the world. A Polish friend of mine has long complained about the coverage of Polish society and affairs. From reading American Newspapers, you'd think there is no Polish history, people, society, and culture except one associated with antisemitism, the Holocaust, and Jewish anguish and interests. It's Judeocentrism gone wild. And, all the blame is always on Poles, never on Jews. There's no mention of many Polish Jews having collaborated with Soviet invaders in the eastern part of Poland in 1939. Little mention of high representation of Jews in the Polish communist party after WWII. Worse, there's very little mention of how Poles fought bravely and suffered terribly in WWII.
A sign of good reporting would be a sincere effort to understand another culture and see where it's coming from. Understanding is not the same as agreeing or condoning. When an article contains more self-righteous judgment than understanding, it is lazy editorializing than quality journalism. Besides, I thought multiculturalism is supposed to be anti-Eurocentric! Yet, the NYT piece passes moral judgment on another culture based on the latest Western values.
I have a sneaking suspicion that NYT is just sharpening their ideological knife on S. Korea as a preparation for a bigger assault on China. Many liberal Jews may see China as South Korea on steroids. China is also largely homogeneous, an economic giant growing bigger by the day, nationalistic, 'xenophogic', chauvinistic, male-dominated(despite decades of communist orthodoxy), and a challenge to the liberal Jewish global order. Not only is China much bigger than South Korea, it is politically independent.
However South Koreans may feel about Americans, they must know that without US presence in the region as an impartial and generally fair-minded peace-keeper, South Korea will be sandwiched by a non-democratic China with no respect for human rights and a potentially re-militarized Japan which still hasn't face up to its imperialist and war-time deeds. One could argue that the 20th century was an anomaly in Korea's history. Traditionally, for 1000s of yrs, it had been a tributary state of China--albeit more harmonious in this role than Vietnam, which was often at war with China. This changed in the 20th century, with Japan becoming the major foreign power and presence for Koreans in the first half of the century. In the second half of the century, the northern part of Korea became close to USSR while the southern part became close to the US.
One could argue that Koreans--at least those in the South--never achieved so much economically, socially, and politically(even a working democracy)as under the protection and guidance of the USA in this period. If Chinese power grows and grows and if US withdraws from its 'empire', Korea will return to its traditional role as a tributary state of China.
And, if Chinese economy keeps developing, Korean companies--auto, cell phones, electronics, computer parts, etc--won't be able to stay ahead of the game. Korean economy will be subsumed into the Chinese, and Koreans will have to play ball with the Chinese to survive. If Japan will have decisive technological and scientific edge over the Chinese for the forseeable future, it's possible that China will overtake Korean technological edge in 10-20 yrs.
So, critiquing the problems of Korea could really be a roundabout way of bringing attention to the social ills of and ideological problems posed by China. If South Korea, a nation of 45 million is such an unpleasant place despite the wealth it has accumulated, think of the nasty horrors of BIG CHINA whose main ambition is not only to become a giant economic version of Korea, Taiwan, or Singapore but even to become a superpower.
"Today, the mix of envy and loathing of the West, especially of white Americans, is apparent in daily life."
-- New York Times.
Isn't this a case of pot calling the kettle black? Indeed, the description just about sums about how liberal Jews--best exemplified by NY Times--feel about the White West or White America. Jewish ambivalence--admiration and malevolance--can also be gleaned in shows like MAD MEN. On the one hand, Jews have admired and desired the blonde Aryan or All-American types to have as friends, mates, role models, trophy partners and hirelings. But, Jews have also resented white gentiles for the history of anti-Jewishness, better looks and physicality, and golden boy aura & firm manly handshakes. Jews have also held whites in contempt for their lower intelligence. Just consider the average Jewish feelings about Sarah Palin; Jews have openly ridiculed her as a 'bimbot'. Plain-faced but smart Jewish women have especially been resentful of prettier but less intelligent 'shikses' being preferred by (especially Jewish)men of power/wealth.
So, it's rather funny that the liberal Jewish NY TIMES should be wagging its fingers at Asians for harboring mixed and frustrated feelings about white Westerners. With Jews, this sort of feeling has gone on for centuries and still hasn't abated; indeed it has only gotten worse. Jewish support of Barack Obama has less to do with 'social justice' and more to do with sticking it to the White Gentile for the sake of Jewish revenge and power.
Of course, if anyone wrote an article about Jews akin to the NY Times article on Asians, Jews would scream BLOODY ANTISEMTISM and do everything in their power to get the writer fired and blacklisted.
Goldman Sachs Says United Korea Economy Could Surpass Germany and Japan. Just Another Trick from the Liberal Global Jewish Elite!
This report is so socio-economically bankrupt that it's surely due for bailout money!! From what I've read, South Korea doesn't want to re-unify with North Korea--at least anytime soon--precisely because they've seen the problems of German reunification. The idea of Korea, reunified or not, surpassing Germany or Japan, is too funny. Of course, Koreans are stupid and lacking in vision and imagination, but that's precisely why the Korean economy won't truly reach global standards--despite some companies like Hyundai and Samsung. Koreans are followers than leaders. Even much of the technology and machine parts they use in their autos, computers, and cellphones come from Japan. Also, South Korea has the lowest birthrates in the world. Korean share of world patents annually is less than 1% while Japan produces over 20%.
North Korea has been ravaged by decades of insane communism, and its robotized population living under a psychotic and corrupt leadership won't recover anytime soon. At best, they'll serve as factory ants useful only for making cheap goods. If by some chance the North Korean regime falls and freedom comes to North Koreans, it may be so traumatic that it might produce more problems than progress. A people infantilized for decades wouldn't much know what to do with freedom.
Goldman Sachs is either just looney or pulling a yellow-peril trick on the American public. Though it mentions Japan in the report(to play it safe), it really wants American readers to think 'yellow power to overtake Western nation, namely Germany'. Now, if dinky little Korea can overtake Germany, the implication is that Big Yellow Power China will overtake US within the same period and rule the world like Ming the Merciless. And, Hollywood is remaking Red Dawn as Yellow Dragon. ROTFLMAO. No, no, the liberal Jews don't fool me. I know how they think and play the game.
Btw, isn't it funny how the Jewish media and institutions don't much discuss the Bagel Power or Hook-Nosed Peril? While China is indeed a nation we need to watch closely and even fear, Chinese will always be OVER THERE and have little direct influence over us--let alone over other Asian nations(with the possible exception of Mongolia and Korea--but even Korea may avoid this through closer ties to Japan and US). The people who control much of our media, academia, culture, and government are liberal globalist Jews whose policies are indeed bad for America, especially white America. Don't let liberal global Jews distract us from the dangers they pose to us by hoodwinking us about the yellow dragon-octopus swallowing the world. The world has already been swallowed up the globalist Jewish serpent.
Besides, though China has greatly benefitted from the NWO, it didn't play any significant in creating it in the first place. Western globalist elitists--good number of them Jews--created and expanded it for their own interests and power. They created a system where they've profited greatly while Middle America stagnated. They sense rising populist rage among Middle Americans, and so they intend to channel our rage at The Chinese and away from themselves. But, Chinese would not have this massive trade surplus with us if the Western global elites didn't set up the NWO and welcomed China into it. And, not even the Chinese have reaped the kind of profits that the global Western elite has in the past 20 yrs.
Goldman Sachs isn't an American company nor even a world company. It is the banking interest of Organized Jewry and the idea and agenda behind its every report is: WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE JEWS?
We need to think in terms of WHAT IS GOOD FOR WHITE GENTILES. Well, liberal globalist Jews are BAD for us, but they comprise most Jews.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
There has been much written about the spiritual depth and meaning of much of popular culture. As people began to take popular culture seriously and as it matured and grew more complex over time, people--both artists and audiences--were not content merely with entertrainment value. They sought Higher Truth from the entertainment that gave them so much pleasure.
John Coltrane and many others were 'spiritual' artists, and a persuasive case can be made that popular culture came to express and embody the noble and beautiful themes of great religions, profound philosophical ideas, or spiritual searching.
BUT, we can also argue that a work of art should be judged by its form than by any professed intent by the artist. John Woo insists that his shoot-em up movies are deeply Christian, but aren't they really nihilistic bloodbaths? And, though some people involved in the making of The Wild Bunch said that its purpose was to show us the horrors of violence, didn't Sam Peckinpah's movie romanticize and glamourize violence instead--if we were to judge it by what's actually on the screen?
Heavy Metal Christian rock bands insist they are rocking for Jesus, but rock music is essentially pagan and nakedly sexual and aggressive. Form in content despite whatever or however the artist may explain himself.
If some guy screams BE QUIET while banging a drum in a library for several hrs, is he for quietude or for noise? Should we judge him by what he exclaims or what he does?
It's true that Jazz became more complex and Jazz artists incorporated elements from 'serious' music and Big Ideas, but the essence of Jazz was always urban, cynical, hipsterish, sensual-sexual, slickity slack, wild, shifty, conmanish, narcissistic, and/or uninhibited.
Also, even 'spiritual' Jazz artists had gotten into Jazz the old-fashioned way: seduced by the fame, money, glamour, women, drugs, etc. Only after wallowing in sin did they try to turn to higher meaning--albeit still through an artform which favored the joys of sin than sincere and earnest penance before God. The essence of Christianity is quietude and earnestness, yet I cannot imagine another artform as far removed from earnestness as Jazz is. If Jesus(or Buddha)had been Jazzy, he would have been a wild and crazy pagan hedonist, not an individual capable of silent meditation over 40 days and deep spiritual thought.
Many rock artists walked the same path as Jazz artists: indulging in the excesses of rock culture, self-destructing, and then trying to use the rock medium for 'higher' or 'moral' purposes. Their intention may have been sincere, but rock and Jazz have always been essentially hedonistic, narcissistic, irreverent, aggressive, rebellious, and anarchic artforms. As such, they have more in common with the 'seven deadly sins' than with the 10 commandments. Of course, the Devil is a crucial player in all great works of art. Even the most sincere artist who devotes his life to God or Mankind is motivated by vanity and a degree of megalomania. Every wanna-be-great-artist is a little Hitler.
I suppose even a heroin addict could rationalize his drug habit as a means to get nearer to God. And, PT Anderson said about his (godawful) movie BOOGIE NIGHTS that his characters are looking for a little dignity. Looking for dignity in the porn industry? Well, people are strange that way. If some people seek dignity through porn, it's not surprising that John Woo preaches Christian values through blood-soaked gun battles and some Jazz artists sought 'spirituality' through their music. (Rock may be more amenable to spiritual themes in the sense that it's less well defined--as it can be anything from pop music to honkytonk--and not necessarily anti-thethical to earnestness. "Hey Jude" and "Imagine" are very earnest songs.)
I must say there is great power, passion, and force in Coltrane's music, and one does sense his grappling with matters of Faith and Higher Meaning, but then the chaos and wild passions suggest he would rather have God play his music than vice versa.
Pagan gods may go for Jazz, but it's not the music of Jehovah or Jesus. Same is true of gospel. Sure, it's good music and lots of fun, but it has little to do with the essence of Christian faith. Why did so many gospel singers turn to secular music? Because they realized while they were jumping up and down and screaming and sweating that "I aint singing about God. I'm really singing and grooving about how nice it would be to git down with that hot mama."
FORM IS CONTENT.
This is why anti-drug and anti-sex rock songs and videos are ridiculous as hell. It doesn't matter what the lyrics say; the style and thrust of rock is LET'S PARTY AND BE WILD ALL NIGHT LONG.