Sunday, November 27, 2011
Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascist Consideration of Jewish Anxiety in David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ.
The following is intended for and will likely make sense to only those who’ve seen David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ, not least because of the complicated plot twists and the discussion of the surprise ending. For those who’ve seen it, I’m assuming your knowledge of the basic storyline, main characters, and themes.
Cronenberg is someone I acknowledge as a personal artist but do not particularly like. I’m not a big fan of grotesqueries, and the reptilianism of his surgically probing intellect leaves me cold . A film like DEAD RINGERS, with its tantalizing contrivance and convoluted interrelations, is certainly provocative, but it’s feels and smells something soaked in formaldehyde.
Even so, Cronenberg, along with the equally oddball and eccentric Atom Egoyan, is regarded as one of the most important filmmakers from Canada. Interestingly enough, one is Jewish and the other is Armenian in origin despite Canada’s two largest populations being Anglo and French.
Other than the history of cultural achievement among Jews and Armenians, there is a creative advantage in being the outsider or an individual caught between two worlds. Just as a multi-lingual person slips in-and-out of different mental realities of varying nuances, colors, and moods, an artist of divided or conflicted identities may have a creative leg up on an artist who only knows one world or one mode of reality(especially among Northern-European-whites in the Americas whose cultural identity has become colorless and generic, bled of its ‘racist’ tribal essence to render it as ‘nice’ and ‘inoffensive’ as possible; this antisepticism has roots in Protestant emphasis on spiritual purity and disdain for the pollution of cultural superstitions--so rife in Catholicism with its rituals and customs--though, to be sure, Jews have exploited the spiritual antisepticism of white Protestants, twisting it into a secular politically correct puritanism whereby the souls of white gentiles are sucked dry, kosher-style, of every last drop of blood carrying particularist cells of white identity). This may be especially true in the modern world where cultural and personal identities have been in constant flux and under pressure from changes, upheavals, displacements, etc. If this became the fate of nearly all mankind in the 20th century, it could be said Jews and Armenians experienced it for much longer--even for centuries and millennia--as nomadic middlemen communities. Of course, Western Imperialists adventured to and conquered places all around the world; but, with their superior organization, technology, and weapons, they were able to impose Their Reality/Identity on different parts of the world. In contrast, serving/surviving as minority groups, Jews and Armenians had to navigate between power and weakness, pride and shame. Power and pride because they were often smarter, more intellectual, more cultivated, and more successful than the majority population. Weak and ashamed because they were outnumbered, sometimes used as scapegoats, humiliated, and even massacred. Being members of an over-achieving underclass surely led to certain social neurosis(and even for the majority population who came to resent and fear the successful middlemen minority groups).
Identity is a fascinating subject for art since it is the key to all realities--physical, sensual, emotional, political, spiritual, psychological, etc. All reality is experienced and understood from a point of view which belongs to an individual. That individual has his own personal memories(biography), personal dreams(love, desire, ambition), personal problems, cultural identity(Jewish, gentile, white, Muslim, Asian, Negro, gay), political inclinations and interests(Identity Politics in our age), spiritual needs(search for God, higher truth and meaning), and psychological eccentricities. A person with a strong sense of identity generally has a stable view of reality. Conservatives and rightists of all stripes generally prefer stable realities based on fixed identities. If none such exists, modern creative right--or ‘cright’--(aka fascists)will ‘invent’ one from a mythic reading of the past and biological sciences. Mussolini sought to forge a neo-Roman mythic identity for modern Italians(mired in the fallen state of laziness, cowardice, vulgarity, and excessive garlic-eating.) Hitler took Greco-Roman-Germanic ideals and images to formulate his brand of the ‘Aryan Race’ theory and identity. The MODERN right, due to tensions between reactionary and revolutionary impulses, is an unstable entity. The TRADITIONAL right is on firmer grounds when it comes to Identity-Stability since it needs not invent, create, or formulate anything new; it can just stick with received values and customs.
Even so, the traditional right feels increasingly alienated from the modern world defined by accelerating change and upheaval. Consider the second-rate powers the Ottoman Empire and China became in relation to the dynamic and forward-looking West. (On the other hand, given the neurosis and the loss of equilibrium inherent in the globalist revolutionary order--where profound changes occur in the smallest details of life, e.g. new cell phone gadgets changing the way we communicate even the most mundane things--, the traditional right may actually feel more grounded, if not in modernity then in something of deeper emotional value. This appears to be the case among certain Muslim communities in the EU. Muslims may not feel at home in the modern West, but they feel at home in a vision of eternity that doesn’t bend to the fashions and fads of any given time. Indeed, the very fact that many traditional rightists don’t feel at home in modernity may make them feel more ‘at home’ with Truth. They may regard their values as eternal, even though or especially because their values are held in such contempt by seemingly frivolous people obsessed with the ephemeral. It may well be that their feelings of displacement within modernity strengthen their conviction in their True Faith or True Way. So, paradoxically, one’s sense of home could be heightened by one’s sense of homelessness. Being homeless in modernity is no reason to despair if one believes modernity to be a passing fad harvesting its own destruction via decadence, clearing the ground for the renewal and rebirth of the True Faith. Besides, modern people themselves seem out-of-place with modernity. Consider all those secular-liberal people who are addicted to all sorts of drugs and medication. And what does it mean to ‘belong to modernity’ when modernity keeps changing? What is modern in a post-modern world and what is post-modern in a post-post-modern world? With so many intellectual ideas coming and going like the wind, with so many ideologies steeped in the faddish scientism of the day, being modern doesn’t so much mean belonging to modernity, which is unstable and unfixed, but adapting oneself to the sense of not-belonging. So, paradoxically, even pro-modern people don’t belong to modernity since there are no constants in modernity but only a kind of war waged against itself to produce something newer or more ‘radical’.)
Challenge to Identity has affected all people and cultures, not least the Jews--perhaps more so than most. But no people have done as much to challenge, undermine, subvert, and change the Identities of other peoples as Jews have done. Change the Identity and you change the Reality. Consider the Russian film LUNA PARK where some antisemitic skinhead discovers he’s half-Jewish. The realization makes him see the world with new eyes. Films like VERTIGO, MULHOLLAND DR, SPIDER, THE APARTMENT(aka L’APPARETMENT)--and its remake WICKER PARK--, A.I., PERSONA, MURIEL, FACE OF ANOTHER, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, PSYCHO, BLADE RUNNER, and many others are fascinating for their play on the rules of identity. In a way, all works of fiction--especially films which presents us with an ‘more real than real’ parallel universe--produce the crisis of identity. Not only does fiction function as an alternate reality--dreams made real or reality made dreamlike--, but the audience identifies with characters who serve as projections of their own hopes and fears, desires and despair. The story of T. E. Lawrence is complicated when he tries to be more Arab than Arab, the perfect god-man Arab who shall lead Arabs to their freedom. Yet, he’s a British officer/agent, and when he’s treated as something other than an Arab by a sado-homosexual Turkish officer, something in him breaks. This is probably why some of the most thought-provoking and psychically lingering films tend to grapple with a kind of radioactive crisis of identity. The conflict isn’t merely physical(cops-n-robbers)but profoundly psychological(grave robbers). Movies such as INVASIONS OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, MEMENTO, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, and SHUTTER ISLAND wrestle with the anxiety of losing one’s soul or being robbed of one’s reality. (In BLADE RUNNER, it’s reversed, with Rachel discovering her identity or ‘soul’ was robbed from someone else. If characters in BODY SNATCHERS don’t wanna lose their souls, Rachel discovers she has no soul to call her own. Even so, she gains a unique self in making that discovery. Her realization of ‘no soul’ becomes her soul and not without shadings of poetic tragedy. EYES WITHOUT A FACE makes an interesting parallel and contrast. The girl in Franju’s film knows that the faces of other women are being grafted onto hers. She is not an innocent like Rachel. Yet, she is the beneficiary of the ‘robbery’ of identities carried out by her scientist-father.) It becomes even trickier since Identity is as often fanciful as real. Even normal people, to some extent anyway, spin and live in their own private myths--or share in those created by others(cults, religious communities, passion for art and entertainment). The film THE WRESTLER shows us a rather pitiful community of has-been professional wrestlers clinging to the cult of ‘stardom’--all the more pitiful since their trade isn’t a real sport anyway. And countless blogs on the internet with opinions, stories, ideas, and suggestions--most of which are never read or read only by people as the nutty as the bloggers themselves--tell us something the psychological or even mythological need for individuals to believe that ‘they matter’ in this world. And for those who feel small and insignificant but want to feel important and superior, there is the crutch of identifying with ‘great figures’. Among the Alternative Right crowd, there are many geeks, nerds, and gimps who invoke Nietzsche, Evola, and Mishima to pump their egos with intellectual, spiritual, creative, and ideological grandeur. They are like the silly son in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE who worships Nietzsche and wants to be a fighter jet pilot. But what happens when he discovers he’s color-blind, i.e. automatically disqualified from the pilot program? He bawls like a baby. Ninety-nine times out of hundred, anyone in the Alt Right community who blabbers about Nietzsche, Evola, Junger, or ‘superiority’ is almost certainly someone beset with feelings of inadequacy and insecurity. A confident person doesn’t have to constantly lean on the Nietzsche crutch--or Crutzsche--to feel good about himself. It’s like some pathetic leftist loser wearing Che Guevara T-shirts to show off, or some Negro kid going around with THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MALCOLM X as a personal bible. This isn’t to deny or belittle the greatness of certain intellectual, cultural, or political figures but to point out their mindless devotees are plagued with weak self-identities. If some identities are more easily shared--being Christian, American, European, African, etc--, certain Identities are contradictory for offering both mass appeal and exclusivity. The appeal of cults like Ayn-Rand-ism and Scientology is the promise of illusion of greatness to suckers everywhere. The psychology of the lottery works the same way. Anyone can buy a ticket but then dreams of being one-in-a-million. The trick is to offer hope to millions but ensure triumph to only a select few. The element of hope makes for a large community of shared dreams, but the reality of victory-for-just-a-few betrays the true nature of people’s dreams. There are winners and losers in this world, with most people being losers and select few being winners. Most people belong in the club of losers where the overwhelming psychology is “I don’t wanna belong to a club that would have me as a member.” People wanna belong to the aristocratic club of winners, but not only is it out-of-reach for most people but elitism in our demotic age isn’t as legit as it used to be. And so, the trick for rich and famous people is to present themselves not as symbols of power and privilege of a select few but as embodiments of hopes and dreams of the masses. This way, even though today’s superrich celebrities are many times richer(and spoiled and pampered)than aristocrats of yesteryear, they are fawned over and even worshiped by the people as representatives of their democratic hopes. The only real equality is the equal desire of everyone to be less equal or superior to others. Most women aren’t beautiful and won’t look much better even with makeup, but consider the amount of time and money spent on cosmetics to ‘share’ in the identity of beauty peddled by mass media. And, it’s not for nothing that a reinvigorated Christian is said to be ‘born again’, i.e. gain a new identity.
Identity also has many facets. In the simplest sense, it is your legal identification--name, social security number, nation of origin, citizenship. A person who fakes this kind of identity is said to have committed ‘identity fraud’. But Identity is also a mask we wear in society. It is also how we choose to see ourselves. In Stanley Kubrick’s LOLITA the James Mason character doesn’t fake his identity in the manner of Quilty, but he is a faker nevertheless. He hides his lust for Lolita and marries her mother. He wears the mask of respectability to indulge his feverish sexual obsessions. (Masks and sexuality loom large in his final film EYES WIDE SHUT.) He also willfully chooses to blind himself to the holes in his self-identity, maintaining the myth that he’s cleverer than the others when, in fact, he’s being taken for a ride no less than Lolita’s dimwit mother had been by him--hubris is a big theme in Kubrick’s films, with a superior man being upended by more superior men or by forces beyond human control or comprehension. Mason’s character thinks others don’t see what he’s really up to, just like Tom Cruise’s character in EYES thinks he’s fooling everyone with the mask. In both LOLITA and EYES WIDE SHUT, an ‘outsider’ overestimates his own charm and cleverness, only to be exposed and humiliated as someone ‘out of his league’. (Interestingly enough, LOLITA, HOUSE OF GAMES, and eXistenZ all end with the ‘outwitted’ character taking revenge on the character of higher intelligence by employing brute force, the gun. The rule seems to be “outwit those dumber than you” vs “kill those smarter than you.” Smart people can win over dumb people with their minds; dumb people can win over smart people only with their fists. Stalin may have killed a lot of high-level Jews because he sensed they were smarter than him. Jews, being smarter, have used cleverness to gain power over us. What they fear most is the brute force of dumb goyim that outnumber them. They must keep us tamed, like ranchers with cattle. A goy panic-and-stampede is what keeps Jews awake at night in cold sweat.)
There are also aspects and shades to Identity that are dependent on other identities. How one identifies oneself may not jibe with how others identify him, the corollary being one may be identified in terms of what he is not(or even trying to be)by others. Obama is an interesting political phenomenon because he is entirely about the Politics of Identity, which isn’t quite the same as Identity Politics. If the latter connotes neo-tribalism--black power, brown power, gay power, womyn power, Muslim power, etc--, the former is about the politics of socio-psychology. Obama’s trick is less about what he is--racially, biographically, ideologically, politically, etc--than how he allows others to project their wishful perceptions onto him. Obama is a screen, a kind of Cinebama. As commentators--and even Obama--have remarked, his method has been serving as a mirror to reflect(or refract)the projected hopes, dreams, and anxieties of all sorts of people. He’s less a chameleon changing colors than a weird lizard with the ability to reposition its mirror-like scales in relation to observers. Obama, like much of the modern world, is a political and cultural creation of Jews who control and play MSM like a videogame. The world that Jews erected all around us--and within our own psychological walls--is a kind of Obamadrome. Sarah Palin, as VP candidate, was also the creation of Jews, especially neocons like William Kristol. Jews are able to pull such stunts because, more than any other people, they understand the power and tricks of psychology. (Even Oprah would be nowhere without Jewish backing, coaching, and support. And of course, Hollywood as a dream factory has been created and owned by Jews nearly from the beginning.) Jews can pull off an Obamenon or a Palin-drome because they see what most people cannot see: the marionette strings working on the mind. Jews rig the strings for maximum efficiency. After decades of PC education and brainwashing about the evils of ‘racism’, the Jew-media need only spout a few words and show a few images to browbeat, shame, or silence the public. It’s gotten to the point where the Left only needs to yell ‘homophobe’ to have people get down on their knees and beg forgiveness from gays. Even conservatives insist that they are NOT ‘homophobic’ instead of countering political correctness by rejecting the very term ‘homophobia’ as a dirty liberal Jewish trick. Who in his or her right mind really believes that one is mentally sick or plagued with ‘extreme irrational fear of something normal and harmless’ if one happens to find fecal penetration(aka anal sex)between men gross and putrid? Or if one finds ‘gay marriage’ to be among the most ludicrous notions in history?
We all seek to understand and control Identity--ours and others’--, but Identity has a logic and can take on a life of its own. Also, Moral Identity can easily be concealed. A murderer can pass as a wonderful member of society. Catholic pedophile priests can earn the trust of families. Communist spies and ex-Nazi criminals work as loyal patriots in other countries. Everyone has some secret to hide. How many spouses have cheated on their partners and kept it a secret? (Of course, some pop cultural identities rely on the thrill of transgression. Keith Richards to name just one.) Consider the significance of the Mark of Cain, the man who killed his own brother. He tries to hide the murder, but God knows he did it. Strangely enough, however, God marks him for protection than punishment. It’s a mark of both shame and shelter, perhaps suggesting God as both a forgiver and judge: because He has condemned(marked) Cain to a life of shame, Cain is to be spared. Similarly, we believe a criminal isn’t to be lynched by a mob but marked and judged by the law.
Identities can also be fixed and/or flexible through a strange set of dynamics. Even if a person sincerely chooses to change his self-identity, he may be regarded the same by others. A Jew in Nazi Germany could have tried to be a good German, but he still would have been a Jew. And no matter how much white people try to prove that they are no longer ‘evil racists’ or ‘antisemites’, most Jews and Negroes will continue to see the white race as the enemy. Sometimes, the flexibility of identity can become a kind of fixed identity. For example, both Jews and non-Jews have identified Jews with ‘rootlessness’ and ‘cosmopolitanism’. Though a rootless person is not fixed to anything, rootlessness as a quality can be fixed as the defining character of a certain group or people. This is perhaps what makes Jews a special group in certain goy societies. They are fixed with the identity of unfixed-ness. There is also a certain duality in Jewishness. Historically and culturally, they are older than goy peoples; but intellectually and economically, they are ahead of goy peoples. They are, at once, the most ancient and most futuristic of peoples, the most fixed and conscious of an inherited past and the most daring and bold in the embrace of new possibilities. What a fitting coincidence that Einstein was so fascinated with the relation between time and space. No people have had as strange a relation to time(past history and future possibility) and space(Zionist obsession with a ‘sacred’ plot of land and cosmopolitan globe-trotting world domination)as the Jews. Most peoples either belong to the past, present, or future, not all three. When we think of Greek or Egyptian glory, we look to the past. When we think of Negroes, we see their triumph in the future, as castrated white males are given to kissing black ass and jungle-fever infected white women are turning into mudsharks at record speed. White Americans used to represent the future, and for while, they owned the present, especially from late 19th century to much of the 20th century. But white people/power now seem destined to be a glory of the past as the future devised by the Jews will ensure the destruction of white folks at the hands of Negroes and Illegals(in the US) and Muslim and Africans in Europe.
Identity--as a psychological, moral, political reality--changes not so much from person to person as from perception to perception. How I identify a person differs from how others do it. This can be obvious, like some people seeing Obama as the messiah of ‘social justice’ while others see him as a ‘stealth Muslim’ and/or communist. But the differences can also be a matter of nuance or shading, the slight but crucial difference that makes a woman seem merely pretty to one person while divine to another; or makes a man seem merely decent to some but saintlike to others.
Though legal identity is generally easy to affix or verify, other forms of identity--especially moral, spiritual, and ideological--tend to be interpretive and rely on angles of perception.
One of the great shocks in life is to assume onself to be regarded in one way, only to be rudely awakened otherwise. Consider Ceaucescu’s shock upon discovering how Romanians really felt about him. Gaddafi, who’d for decades created for himself a mythic bubble of invincibility, also lost sense of his true identity. Few things are as dangerous as believing in one’s own myth(or the flattering myth created for one by others, e.g. Woody Allen falling into the trap of self-identifying as America’s own Bergman thanks to fawning praise from critics like Vincent Canby and Andrew Sarris, who foolishly declared MANHATTAN as the best American film of the 70s.) Perhaps, it’s human nature to be narcissistic and wrap onself in a happy myth--a king or queen in each of us trying to get out. If so, we shouldn’t rely on our nature to test our connection to reality, as our nature prefers fantasy to fact--not only for ourselves but for the people whom we admire and worship, which is why we’ve constructed grandiose myths around the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, MLK, FDR, Kennedy and Camelot, Obama, and Oprah. When staring in the mirror doesn’t satisfy one’s narcissism--as the looks and achievements of most people are meager--, other figures serve as glorified mythic mirrors for the masses seeking to identify with something bigger, nobler, mightier, and/or more beautiful than themselves. In the case of transsexuals, males imagine and then hope to transform themselves into beautiful females. It is a displaced narcissism: not for what one is but what one hopes to be.
In most narratives, identity is something we take for granted. Romeo is Romeo, Juliet is Juliet, and a rose is a rose. At the core, both know who they are. Romeo is crazy about Juliet, and Juliet is head-over-heels for Romeo. Their Identities are essentially emotional, defined by their mutual attraction. A conflict arises because Romeo and Juliet are separated by Imposed Identities of clan-ism. Romeo, as a Montague, is not supposed to be on good terms with anyone who’s a Capulet, what Juliet is. So, there is a kind of crisis of Identity, but Shakespeare also establishes and clings to the reality, indeed higher truth, of core Identity based on true love. Though their social identities become confused due to clan politics, there’s no doubting their core identities as lovers with hearts of gold. (To be sure, one could argue that Romeo and Juliet are, in a way, strongly attracted to another precisely because of the crisis of Clan Identity. They know their love is impossible, therefore all the more poetic and beautiful. It isn’t really innocent pure love but a self-consciously tragic love. If Romeo and Juliet had been of the same clan, their love would have been genuine but not ‘something to die for’. It’s their belonging to different clans that gives them an opportunity to experience love as an art and religion.)
Most films offer narratives of clear identities, allowing us navigate easily between truth and falsehood, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. We know, for instance, that Harry Callahan is good(and on the side of the Law) and his enemies are evil--though, to be sure, some observers may argue that Callahan is interesting for his dualistic identity as a lawman who violates laws to get the outlaw. Most Westerns would be meaningless without clearly etched characters. Of course, many Westerns do present the crisis of moral identity. The main tension in HIGH NOON is less about the sheriff vs four outlaws than about him wrestling with his own conscience: should he fight(and die)like a man or should he run(and live)like a coward? And what makes SHANE interesting is his shadowy past. He’s a sun marred by sunspots. Ethan(John Wayne)in THE SEARCHERS is torn between his savage nature and civilized values--made all the more ironic since the foundation of any civilization is violence, often more brutal than that among savages--, between his compassionate forgiveness and vengeful ruthlessness. And the Randolph Scott character in RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY is an idealist-turned-cynic or a cynic-repressing-his-idealism. In THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY, Leone dragged the notion of Western morality through the desert. His ‘good’ isn’t very good, the ‘bad’ isn’t really much worse than others, and they all play ‘ugly’ in their own way. In ONCE UPON A TIME IN West, Chaney conceals his true identity to Frank, a villain who has often disguised himself to frame others for his crimes. And in DUCK YOU SUCKER, Sean(John) and Juan, despite their differences in terms of biography and national origin, kinda merge(PERSONA-like)into a shared Moral Identity of cynicism and despair. But despite these problems of moral identity, we know that each character is contained within his own biography, consciousness, desires and passions, and conscience.
This is also true of CITIZEN KANE where, despite its complex theme of Identity--its perceptions and meanings--, a character named Charles Foster Kane is the central figure of the plot. (Perhaps, the great appeal of this film rests in its hall of mirrors approach to Identity. The film is less about Charles Foster Kane per se than Kane as seen through the eyes of various people who knew him. It’s less about ‘objective’ identity than about perceived or projected identity or identities of Kane by the constellation of individuals. Some knew him a lot, some knew him a little; some loved him, some hated him, some loved and then hated him. The gulf between Kane the famous celebrity--or public myth--and Kane the private individual widens and narrows depending on the perspective; and of course, celebrity is one of the most important phenomena of the 20th century. A newsreel informs us that Kane was called a ‘communist’ by some and a ‘fascist’ by others, but the famous man always called himself an ‘American’--though he was a globe-trotter who later in life built himself an aristocratic fantasy fiefdom called Xanadu. We are told of his humble beginnings and idealistic concern for the common man; we are also shown his growing imperiousness and megalomania. The question of ‘who was Charles Foster Kane?’ also raised questions of ‘whom was he based on?’, which led to a lawsuit by William Randolph Hearst, the king of ‘yellow journalism’. But it also raised the question, ‘who was Orson Welles?’ and queries as to how much of Kane was a projection of Welles’ own ego and character? Another question of Identity was ‘who did what to make CITIZEN KANE the masterpiece it is?’ Some, led by Pauline Kael, credited Herman Mankiewicz as the film’s main author, while others insisted Welles as the true genius. And some credited Gregg Toland as much as if not more than Welles for the look of the film. Of course, dogmatic auteurists will claim that it doesn’t matter if Welles didn’t contribute much to the script or work on every technical detail since the director--or directator--, as the artist who shapes it all into a unified vision, is the true author. After all, Douglas Trumbull did his best work with directors capable of powerful personal visions like Stanley Kubrick and Ridley Scott. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that 2001 and BLADE RUNNER, though profoundly indebted to various artists and technicians, are respectively the films of Kubrick and Scott. Even so, issues of Identity are trickier with films since cinema is essentially a collaborative art requiring the skills, talent, and contribution of so many people. The camera has one eye but many hands. Though CITIZEN KANE is about the present searching the past, part of the fascination lies in something like a sci-fi-like futurism in its conception and execution. Back in 1941, it must have looked like a film conceived and made by future minds and instruments, as 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY did in 1968. It was vastly ahead of its time, and it’s no wonder that it inspired and influenced generations of filmmakers and continues to do so.)
The Mystery--also thriller and suspense--genre is necessarily playful and subversive with the nature of Identity. Despite the moral murkiness of some Westerns, the basic tension boils down to physical violence between individuated archetypes, the heroes and villains.
Mystery stories are not only about ‘who dun it?’ but ‘who is who?’ Agatha Christie’s TEN LITTLE NIGGERS--later changed to TEN LITTLE INDIANS--deftly toys with facets of Identity. (IDENTITY, starring John Cusack, could be a remake.) And THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD hinges on the identity of the narrator himself, implicating the reader whose identity merges with that of the narrator. And the dark secret in PSYCHO is “who is Norman Bates’ mother?” which become a question of “who is Norman Bates?”, which turns into a question of “who is each of us?”, or “is there a bit of Norman Bates in all of us?”
Even so, we expect the truth at the end of a mystery, a thriller, or noir story. Though human senses can be fooled, there is light at the end of the tunnel, truth revealed by painstaking gathering of evidence and application of logical inquiry. Though the world won’t know what really happened in CHINATOWN, Jake knows and we know--as do the bad guys who got away with the deed. In PRIMAL FEAR, we know that Roy fooled the world, but at least we know that he fooled the world. That is an incontestable fact.
The most subversive treatment of Identity are found in horror and science fiction genres. PSYCHO is often classified as horror, but there’s ultimately a clinical or rational explanation for Norman Bates’ psychosis. In true horror, as in THE SHINING, forces beneath and beyond conventional reality are assumed to exist. They can possess a person or manifest themselves in human form--and sometimes we aren’t sure which is which. Is Jack in THE SHINING a normal person whose repressed nature is possessed and unloosened by evil spirits, or is he never-ending reincarnation of the same evil spirit? Is he a condemned man or a conduit of non-human(or meta-human)forces--an evil counterpart to the Star Child at the end of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY? Or, is he both? After all, there was a real David Bowman who was ‘chosen’ and reconfigured/reprogrammed into the Cosmic Man.
Of course, evil spirits or extra-terrestrials are better at this business of manipulation than humans are. In A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, top scientists devise a method of turning a psychotic criminal into a law-abiding person, but their methods(and results)are crude and superficial--based on theories of conditioning and behaviorism. Alex is not made into a good person but merely into a helpless bad person. The social engineers of 1984 are far more effective in converting the self-identities of deviants and heretics. If the scientists of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE approach people as machines whose behaviors can be reset through conditioning, psycho-social engineers of 1984 overwhelm the freewill and moral courage(and identity)of the prisoner/patient by extracting his deepest/darkest fears to be turned against him. Despite all the ideals and convictions held by man, everyone has a fearogenous zone that, when provoked, reduces even the biggest hero into a frightened child. Winston Smith, who has a phobia about rats, will do anything to save himself--even pleading that the rats be diverted to devour the face of the person he loves most. Thus reduced by fear, shame, and a perverse form of gratitude(for having been spared), he becomes a true believer in Big Brother. Having no self-pride left as an individual of courage and conviction, his soul is harvested by the state. The state doesn’t merely change Winston’s behavior by external forces but plants a self-perpetuating psychological/emotional mechanism which keeps him forever loyal to Big Brother. He can only receive a new identity of shared worth by the state, which through its godlike power, demonstrated its total mastery. (Though 1984 is understood as a satire on Stalinism, it could also be Orwell’s wrestling with the totalitarian within himself. At one point, Winston Smith says he’s willing to do anything--terrorism and murder--to destroy the system. The irony is the system was probably built by people like him who felt utterly justified as agents of history for whom the ends justified the means, only to discover that the means became the ends. In this sense, 1984 could have been as much Orwell’s psycho-analytical rumination of his own utopian demons as an attack on Stalinism.)
Though A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and 1984 contain sci-fi elements, they are best approached as dystopian satire. The emphasis is on social critique, moral philosophy, and politics of power. The run-of-the-mill works of sci-fi, while touching on big themes, focus on fantasies of future technology and/or space aliens; philosophy takes a backseat to push-button-light-speed-travel.
(Fans of STAR TREK and DR. WHO insist those shows are heavier on ideas than effects, but I wouldn’t know, never having been able to stomach more than 10 minutes of either. For me, aesthetics is at least 50% of science fiction. Films like LA JETEE and THX 1138--both film school version and feature length version--demonstrated one can do more with less, indeed with a fraction of the cost that went into TV versions of STAR TREK or DR. WHO, which is a crime on the senses.)
Science fiction genre is essentially defined by four aspects--spatial, mechanical-technological, biological, and psychological(or psy-fi), which may verge on the spiritual or metaphysical--though, to be sure, many science fiction combine all these elements. Spatial science fiction is concerned with exploration, adventure, discovery, and conquest of space--macro- and/or microcosmic--with the aid of technology. On the macro-level, it entails super-speedy machines--futuristic jet fighters--or space travel; on the micro-level, it means probing or even journeying into the minute or microscopic realm, as in the movie FANTASTIC VOYAGE where a team of doctors enter the bloodstream and inner organs of a patient. Mechanical-technological science fiction is fascinated with machines and futuristic technology, like the Terminator, laser weaponry, starships, or mecha-suits. Biological science fiction is interested in the possibility of new life forms created by science--germs, clones, genetically boosted men or creatures, hybrids, etc--, extra-terrestrial life forms(friendly or hostile, contacted by us or contacting us), or life forms of mysterious origin(generally threatening)that we try to understand, control, or resist with advances in technology. Psychological science fiction, generally the most interesting kind, is mainly focused on the surreal effect of technology on human consciousness--or it delves into non-human consciousness of meta-beings, extraterrestrials, or advanced robotic systems.
(Of course, there’s also the political science fiction, often allegorical in nature, perhaps the most famous being the PLANET OF THE APES series. ZARDOZ is another notable example, though it also touches heavily on philosophy and spirituality.) Psychological science fiction is often, if not always, philosophical. Some seek to better understand psychology to formulate a better world--a utopian vision--, while others are fascinated with the mind-bending possibilities of, for example, certain drugs, mind-reading-or-altering machines, certain mysterious forces, etc. Many psychological science fiction owes something to drug culture and/or neurosis-verging-on-psychosis. Arguably, some of these works are less science fiction than science fiction being employed as signs and tokens to lend form to the warped contours of the authors’ minds--in the way that dreams are said to ‘materialize’ thoughts and feelings through symbols. (Might one call this ‘signs-fiction’?) Philip K. Dick, Kobo Abe, and William S. Burroughs--whom I haven’t read--possibly owe more to Franz Kafka than to most science fiction authors. Their works seem less interested in the potentiality of technology than in the strange logic of subcerebraean interiors. There’s almost a sense of the mind being a sci-fi mystery unto itself, a thinking machine operating by logic but haunted by illogic. In this sense, THE SHINING could also be categorized as psy-fi as well as horror. It presents the human mind as a maze haunted by forces beyond human comprehension. It has more in common with films like 2001 and SOLARIS than with most horror movies. The fusion of science/technology and psychic/occult elements in MINORITY REPORT also distinguish it from most science fiction. Despite what the human mind is capable of achieving, nothing man has produced(and probably shall produce)in the fields of knowledge, art, science, and technology comes anywhere near the complexity of the lump of tissues called ‘brains’ created by evolution. This is why biology, the science of life and nature, is the strangest science. We tend to define science in opposition to nature, with science being human, artificial, rational, orderly, and logical and with nature being wild, chaotic, mindless, and random. Yet, science discovered the order behind the disorder--the laws of nature--(and with advanced physics, even the anarchy beneath of the laws of nature). Life is stranger than non-life because the ‘behavior’ of non-life, at least above the subatomic level, follows the rules of billiard balls and mathematical principles. (And the subatomic level, crazy as it is, is predictably unpredictable and consistently random.) Life, on the other hand, has a life of its own. It has its own life-force or ‘will’, and among humans, something called ‘free will’. This ‘will’ enables man to be both more orderly and less orderly than things of nature.
It could be said man creates his own nature. Most animals, especially the lower forms, possess the ‘will to live’ but not ‘free will’. Confronted with threatening stimuli, they’ll almost always respond in a certain way, unless impaired in some way. For example, a gazelle, upon seeing a dangerous predator, will always run. Or a hungry crocodile will always gorge on available food. Though man is an animal, his self-consciousness sometimes shapes his thoughts and behavior against or beyond elemental biological needs.
There are several ways to approach and understand this. Spiritualists may speak of the eternal soul, philosophers may speak of the individual soul or consciousness, sociologists may emphasize one’s place within the larger community, and psychologists may, via psycho-analysis and/or physiological mapping of the nervous system, present the hidden realities--forces or functions--that predictably organize and order human behavior and actions in certain ways. Yet, all efforts to understand the totality of the human mind have eluded us. We are still more adept at measuring the movements of distant planets in the Solar System than understanding what makes the human mind work the way it does, or why and how an ‘animal brain’ evolved into a ‘human mind’. As much as we want to know more--indeed the total truth--, part of the problem is our seemingly inborn rebelliousness against such clarity. Just as most people don’t want to expose their nakedness, they don’t want to be psychologically denuded either.
There’s also the fear that greater knowledge about our true selves could upset the accepted status quo of right and wrong. Religious people are still disturbed by Darwinism, and radical racists of the modern white right were disgusted by the notion that the noble ‘Aryan’ man shared fundamental similarities with all the other races, including the Jews and Negroes. White radical racist supremacists also couldn’t accept the fact that Ashkenazi Jews are smarter and that Negroes are stronger/tougher. When people cannot stand or accept reality or truth, they seek to enforce their official ‘truth’ by destroying all evidence contrary to their prejudices. So, the only way to destroy the fact that Jews are smarter was to wipe them off the face of the Earth. And the only way to maintain the falsehood that blacks are just cowardly ho-de-do-ing Sambos and shuffling coons was to keep them enslaved or socially separated. Following the horrors of WWII, mainly caused by the radical racist modern white right, the West felt compelled and/or was forced to accept the humanity of all races and peoples. Enlightened people welcomed this as the triumph of truth over falsehood, but in effect, they traded one set of lies for another--one that could prove to be far more damaging for the West(and all of humanity since the West is the core of human civilization and order in the world). The falsehood that Jews are intellectually inferior to ‘Aryans’ or that Negroes are physically inferior to whites has not been replaced by the truth of Jewish intellectual superiority or the Negro’s superiority in physical/athletic prowess, but instead by the falsehood that all races are equal and that racial differences are merely matters of skin color. So, despite the fact that intelligent, cunning, and ruthless Jews rule most of America and the fact that Negroes are emasculating and pussifying white males and taking white females--who are turning into mudshark traitors at record pace--, the only ‘truth’ allowed by officialdom is the notion of racial equality. We are to believe that short Mexicans, if they just exert themselves a tad more, have an equal chance at winning the 100 m sprint. We are to believe that increased spending on public education will turn all them Negroes in public schools into Nobel Prize-winning scientists. Jews and Negroes, though perfectly aware of their intellectual or physical superiority, support this myth because they fear white resentment and awakening to the fact of their enslavement by Jewish brains and Negro brawn. But, white conservatives and radical racists also prefer myth--white conservatives prefer ‘equality of races’ while white radical racists prefer white superiority in all facets of life--over reality(of Jewish intellectual superiority and Negro physical superiority)because it just hurts their tender vanity of white male pride, the residual effect of centuries of white domination around the world. Still addicted to the conceit of ‘superiority’, white rightists refuse to wake up to the fact of their increasing victimization, especially since pitiful and pathetic ‘victimhood’ is supposedly the defining characteristic of pesky non-whites(as opposed to the noble and victorious ‘will to power’ of Nietzschean white rightists). The great contradiction of the Alternative Right community is it shrieks and whines like a victim but is loathe to admit that it is a victim.
A white rightist vainly sees himself as a member of a natural aristocracy but finds himself screaming in terror when confronted with the great power of Jews--in business, media, and government--and Negroes--in sports, streets, and in the bedroom with white women. Alternative Right embraces the myth that it’s the natural order of things for whites to be at the top of the heap, which is why it bitterly blames the totalitarian artifice of political correctness for the
dis-empowerment of whites. But, what is nature? What may be natural for individuals may not be natural for groups. What may be natural in politics may not be natural in sports. What may be natural in economics may not be natural in the arts. On a collective basis, if each race were to work to maximize its own power in competition with other races, the white race may indeed have an advantage over other races. Blacks, though physically strong, tend to be stupid and crazy. East Asians, though intellectually equal of whites, seem to lack individual initiative. But, if we define ‘nature’ as an individual quality, then the logical, rational, and correct policy is to elevate individuals, regardless of their race or culture, who are best at certain things. This means Jews will rise above whites in academia, literary pursuits, law, science, medicine, high-tech, finance, economics, and etc. It means Negroes will rise above whites in funky pop music, sports, ass-whupping in public places, and in attracting the attention of women, especially white women. And if the Nietzschean concept of charisma is so central to the Alternative Right, couldn’t one argue that the more charismatic, authoritative, forceful, shrewd, and dynamic Obama is closer to the ideal of Nietzscheanism than the nerdy, wussy, bland, and feminine-voiced fellers who comprise the Alternative Right community?
Despite the label ‘science fiction’, most and even the best of sci-fi works generally have little do with anything like real science or extension thereof, even when written by real scientists or experts in the field. No one reads Isaac Asimov to learn real science. Most science fiction aren’t even predictions of a likely future but prophecies of future fantasy--or a far-out allegories of problems in the present world. Actually, ‘science fiction’ is something of an oxymoron. Asimov’s FOUNDATION, for example, could be read as an history of Jewish spiritual, intellectual, and social strategy to survive(and ultimately triumph)in a world populated by mostly crude and aggressive less intelligent goyim.
At any rate, if science is distinguished by rationality, clarity, and factuality, the purpose of most
science fiction is to undermine such notions of physical or mental order. Science fiction is, as often as not, a form of science-subversion. Instead of supporting science(and technology)as the highest ideal(or instrument of truth), it exposes the limits and dangers of science.
Science fiction is often spiritual in nature. The setting of Andrei Tarkovsky’s STALKER is the Zone, which has been abandoned by man--who has turned his planet into an industrial wasteland--and is being reclaimed by organic nature. Tarkovsky’s point seems to be that mankind generally creates two kinds of worlds: one in mystical harmony with cyclical nature(paganism) and/or with eternal spirit(Christianity) AND one in service of modern man’s vanity, avarice, and arrogance. Though the eponymous character of STALKER is something of a deluded fool--even a dangerous zealot--, he has a connection to a mystery at odds with the materialism of modernity with its obsession for production, consumption, and disposal.
In ANDREI RUBLEV, Tarkovsky’s meditative glance alternates between the pagan world of nature and the eternal realm of the Church. Nature is the creative work, the art, of God. The Church is the place to worship God and a shelter from the harsher elements of nature, both of forests and man; it is also the work of art by man as a tribute to God. Andrei Rublev, as a traveling icon painter of churches, is an artist of God. But mankind is not perfect, and no man, even one as decent and talented as Rublev, can express truth by clinging only to beauty, sanctimony, purity, and spirituality. God may be perfect and pure, but Christianity is not about purity. It is about the convergence of purity and profanity, sin and redemption. Why else would its central image be the bloody desecration of the Son of God? So, though the forces of cruelty and oppression in the film are depicted in the form of back-stabbing princes and brutal Mongol hordes(who ransack and pillage a church), they too are part of mankind’s truth. Without them, would there even be a need/longing for God as protector, redeemer, and forgiver?
Tarkovsky also locates the seeds of man’s fall in the heart of man--indeed in the nobility of man. The film begins with man’s ambition to conquer the sky, and we share in the thrill of the flight via a primitive hot-air balloon. But there is also the suggestion of hubris, man’s tendency to elevate himself as a god above other men. Andrei’s traveling companion is a trusted friend later overcome with envy and resentment over Andrei’s greater talents. He unleashes his pent-up rage on his dog, which is beaten to death. Though a servant of God by profession, he may have been reminded by the dog of his second-rate status vis-a-vis Rublev, who also happens to be a younger man. Ideally, one serves one’s master in the hope of being appreciated and accepted by the master, if not as an equal than as a worthy apprentice reflecting some of the master’s luster. To serve God then conceals a desire(or hubris)to be like God, which may explain why many Christian preachers, Muslim leaders, and Jewish Elders are half-crazy. It’s the Lucifer Complex, named after the most loyal angel who wanted to be closest to God--to the point where he wanted to be His equal--and was struck down for his insolence masquerading as purest loyalty.
There is a certain paradox at the core of spirituality, especially in the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition. On the one hand, since God is thought to be a spiritual essence and since each man is said to have a soul--and that God is the only deity for every man--, there is the promise of man’s union with God, which can edge ever closer to wanting to be God. Recall that Adam and Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit because they wanted to know God and to be nearer to God, which became too-close-for-comfort for God. God wants man to be close to Him but not too close.
The movie ALL ABOUT EVE shows the dark side of worship. Eve seems to humbly worship famous people, but her real desire is to be like them, even to supercede them. Her real modus operandi is the Lucifer Complex. And when liberal Jews praised and flattered the Wasp elites and pretend to act like ‘good loyal Jews’, they were really hankering to topple the Wasp elite and become the new godlike elites of America(and the world). And of course, Hitler’s sucking up to the German elites concealed his desire not only to rise to their level but above it and become the god of the ‘Aryan’ race.
So, ANDREI RUBLEV understands that the seeds of evil are buried in the hearts of man and sprout integrally with life itself, intertwined with the nobility of man. And in man’s humble wish to be close to God is the hidden mania to supercede God. Indeed, the roots of both evil and nobility feed off the same nutrients. One could say that the failed artist in ANDREI RUBLEV defies God because he cannot accept the way God made him. There is an echo of this in AMADEUS, where Salieri renounces God who apparently chose the ridiculous Mozart to be His musical emissary to the world.
But there is an element of evil or the dark side even in the magic and mystery of creation. The final part of the ANDREI RUBLEV revolves around the casting of giant bell, and the boy in charge of the project possesses characteristics ranging from petulance to patience, rashness to reason, harsh to harmonic. He is a gambler, a visionary; a charlatan, an artist.
Why did Tarkovsky, the maker of the medievalist masterpiece ANDREI RUBLEV--and a man steeped in Russian Christian tradition--, later direct two science fiction films? Perhaps, other than the fact that SOLARIS and STALKER are more about spirit and nature than science and technology, there is an aspect to Christianity that is kinda sci-fi. To an unwashed and illiterate peasant in the Middle Ages, a great cathedral might have appeared as something ‘out of this world’. The Church represents eternity, which encompasses not only the entirety of the past but the totality of the future. It is like a spiritual time machine, a portal to the realm of God’s soul. (There may be some of this in the novel CANTICLES OF BERKOWITZ, which I haven’t read.) One enters the church to listen to God and to be heard by God. A man entering a church in the Middle Ages might have felt transported to the future of the Second Coming of Jesus or back to the past when Jesus walked the Earth(or when the Church was first founded). And people who enter any church today may feel transported to the past or the future, depending one’s faith or imaginative disposition. (Perhaps, the best way to revive the Christian Church is to add sci-fi elements to make it more relevant to modern people. Most people today associate the Church with the past, but in the actual past, the power of the Church derived its association with the future. It’s no wonder that science fiction, especially through films like 2001--but even STAR WARS and STAR TREK--, has become like a religion for many people. And of course, the Church of Scientology was created by a science fiction author.) Indeed, some churches look like spaceships, and it was surely no coincidence that the mothership in Steven Spielberg’s CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND resembles a massive intergalactic cathedral and Christmas tree. (It’s as if Spielberg the Jew, being a member of the tribe that abstained from the fun and revelry of Christianity, created his own ersatz Christianesque faith for himself. After all, the friendly extraterrestrials in the movie choose a Jewish guy as the Chosen One. And E.T. seems to be the product of a lonely Jewish kid who created his own pet Jesus as a giant raisinette-crossed-with-a-Negro from outer-space.)
Another thing that lends Christianity a futuristic feel is the element of prophecy in the church doctrine. To be sure, Judaism looks forward to the coming of the true Messiah, but most Jews today are not practicing nor believing Jews. Also, in its rituals and customs, Judaism very much feels like an ancient religion, a remembrance/preservation of the past than an expectant look to the future. Jewish excitement about the future is really invested in finance, high-tech, culture, politics, psychology, sexuality, and other secular matters than in spirituality. But the spirit of Christian futurism is still alive, and most Christians still speak of Jesus as a living entity that belongs to the past, present, and future.
In contrast, even though the memory and meanings of the great Jewish prophets and leaders live on, the figures themselves have died thousands of yrs ago, and that’s that. And though Muslims believe Muhammad was the last great(and the only perfect)prophet, he too is understood as having died long ago and gone to Heaven, and that’s that. But, Jesus is said to live forever--not only in the realm of afterlife or hereafter but amongst us here and now. His spirit is all around us, talking to us, listening to us, healing us, performing miracles all around us, etc. Christians believe that He shall even return in body sometime in the future. In spirit anyway, He has never left us or our world. This element has made Christianity a more lively, dynamic, and even spasmazoid religion than the others. The preacher in the movie THE APOSTLE is not a rare breed; he is so worked up about his faith because he senses that Jesus is all around him, listening to his every word, leading him, correcting him, punishing him, forgiving him, and goading him to ever greener pastures of the soul and holy deeds.
For similar reasons, Christianity is more conducive than other faiths to the horror genre. Paganism and Hinduism are rife with frightening elements, which are, however, accepted as part and parcel of their world view, therefore not necessarily evil. As such, they can be terrifying but not really horror-istic since they feel at home in the dark, cruel, and daemonic ways of the universe. Aztec religion, for example, is a house of horrors where the element of horror comes as no surprise. A faith system that accepts the horribleness of the world and the necessary darkness of the soul is less able to articulate or formulate what we conceptualize as evil. Judaism and Islam, though built on the principle of the one and only perfect God, are also more accepting of the world as is(than is Christianity). As Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for everything, and as the Book of Job says, even God can do horrible things in the name of a grand design unfathomable to us. And Muhammad, though said to be the perfect prophet, had no qualms about hacking limbs and taking countless lives to spread his one true faith. Despite the sincere spiritualism, there is a clear divide between the spiritual world and the physical world in both Judaism and Islam. One prays to God and resists fleshly temptations, but it is understood that there is and cannot be any purity in THIS world.
Christianity is different. Jesus did arrive as the Perfect Man in this world, which means our world can be sanctified by the presence of a physically pure being. Also, Jesus as the Son of God--and as God--presented a new concept of God as the embodiment of the purest love and harmony. And Christian saints sought to emulate Jesus in this, their own, world. Since Jesus and the best of the saints proved that pure spirit can triumph in this world and in our time--or in parts of this world at certain times--, the conflict between good vs evil became sharper and more acute in the imagination of Christians. Christianity is both more tolerant and more intolerant than other religions. Paradoxically, its tolerance instigates its intolerance. Jesus, the tolerant and forgiving physical manifestation of God, came and lived among us, died at our hands, and forgave us. From that narrative derives the ideal of tolerance. But, the story of Jesus--His sermonizing and crucifixion--makes this world ever more the fervent battlefield for spiritual victory. That this Son of God most painfully died for our sins fills us with greater guilt than anything in Judaism(Adam eating the fruit or Jews periodically disobeying God)or in Islam(which has no guilt associated with Muhammad since he triumphed in this world and his followers revered and hailed him). Besides, when Jews did bad stuff, God punished them mightily in the Old Testament, and so they got their comeuppance. Jews understood good and evil in terms of ‘If we disobey God, He’s gonna beat us pretty good.’ The Christian concept of good vs evil is more troubled and anxiety-ridden since God did NOT punish mankind for the torture/murder of His Son. Mankind couldn’t have committed a greater sin--the killing of Son of God, who was in effect God Himself--, yet it was forgiven and allowed to get away with the horrible crime. Because mankind was forgiven for the worst crime possible, Christians feel they must always atone for their evil. There is less need for atonement in Jewish culture since when Jews did wrong in the Old Testament, Yahweh smote them pretty good. Bad Jews got stoned while good Christians atoned. There is a mix of great guilt and great fear at the core of Christianity. Guilt of having killed (the Son of)God and the fear that God will punish mankind doubly worse if it doesn’t atone and come to Jesus. It is a form of moral blackmail, and indeed the New Testament says that forgiveness is ultimately conditional than eternal: mankind is given an extended period in which to come to Christ, and those failing to be redeemed when Jesus returns in flesh--not as the forgiving God but as the God of Final Judgement--are in some really big trouble. (The secular variation of this Christian Anxiety can be seen in political correctness. Modern liberalism/leftism holds that Western Man committed the greatest crimes against humanity--especially against Negroes, Jews, and gays--but got away with it; after all, the richest nations on Earth are still white--European, American, Australian, etc. Since white man committed the worst crimes yet has been allowed to enjoy his ill-gotten bounty, he must forever atone for his past crimes by kissing Jewish ass, sucking Negro cock, and bending over to the fruiters.) Muhammad’s definition of victory was simpler: conquer and convert and increase the numbers of the faithful. Also, its spirituality was simpler in its demands and manifestations: how to dress, what to eat, how many times to bow--more behavioral than personal-spiritual. A Muslim is not supposed to ‘talk to’ Muhammad in the way that a Christian does with Jesus. A Muslim feels and lives essentially as a communal being than as an individual being. As long as he lives in a Muslim community and follows the rules of Islam, he can be reasonably content. Christianity, on the other hand, is more communicative than communal. It’s not enough for a Christian to live in a Christian community: he or she must communicate with the Lord, his or her Savior. Therefore, a Christian’s sense of spirituality is less stable than that of a Muslim. He could be surrounded by Christians in a Christian community but still feel separated from God if he doesn’t feel the communication with God. This is evident in Ingmar Bergman’s THE SILENCE(aka THE COMMUNICANTS)in which the Christian faithful in a small community, despite their faith, do not hear the voice of God. This goes for the minister too. To Muslims, adherence to certain rituals and habits is enough, but Christians need something more. Without the ever-present feeling of God in his or her soul, the rites and rituals seem hollow.
It is for this reason that a Christian may be more acutely insecure about Good vs Evil, thereby harboring a mentality more conducive to the horror genre.
Another reason for the spiritual tension within Christianity could be the emphasis on innocence and purity, made all the more potent by the racial characteristics of the European race. Whatever their notions of spiritual purity, Judaism and Islam are religions of impurity with a grubby quality to them, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing: they are more realistic. The Old Testament taught the Jew that though God is pure and good, mankind shouldn’t expect to be likewise, especially if members of the filthy goy tribes and races. (And even the supposedly perfect God tends to be contradictory and inconsistent throughout the Old Testament narrative.) And Muhammad’s message to his followers is ‘you gotta roll with the punches’. Pray and bow down before God and all that, but don’t play the perfect saint; your enemies wanna to chop off your heads, so chop off theirs first.
In contrast, the ideal of Christianity is to be like Jesus: pacifistic, loving, forgiving, saintly, pure, and etc. However difficult this ideal may be, Jesus did present it as a model of possibility in this world. The problem, of course, is that bad shit happens to saintly people--consider what befalls the character in Luis Bunuel’s NAZARIN. Worse than the tragedy is the comedy of persecution.
A saint isn’t only an target of immoral cruelty but of laughing amoral ridicule. A Christian is supposed to be a lamb among lions, but lambs almost always get eaten by lions, which are decidedly not vegetarian. So, a Christian is steeped in moral crisis. Jesus the Perfect Man and Son of God showed the way to be a lamb-like saint, but you get whupped following that manual. Jesus may be great, but His message hurts like hell. A Christian cannot reject Jesus and His message, but neither is one willing to get whupped all the time. So, one looks for roundabout ways to win in this world, and it comes down to ass-kicking other peoples. This way, you win as a Christian but by violating the principles laid down by Jesus. You must act un-Christian to win as a Christian. So, the Christian heart is beset with more fear, guilt, confusion, and anxiety than that of other religions.
This was made all the more striking by the appearance of the white race, especially in Northern Europe. With their very light skin and golden hair, some members of the white race have the look of purity and angel-ism. Though body and soul are two different things, we do have a tendency to think metaphorically. Consider how many religions and cultures equate lightness/whiteness with purity and faith and darkness/blackness with evil and the demon world. White is clean, black is dirty. (Of course, white can signify blandness and dullness while black can signify intensity, authenticity, and power.) Nazism eradicated the border between reality and metaphorality, between body and soul. ‘Aryans’, by the virtue of their blond hair, light skin, and blue eyes(and alleged superior beauty), were deemed to be ‘spiritually’ superior to all the other races. Body was soul.
Modern liberalism deems Western Christianity to have willfully or unwittingly laid the psychological grounds for modern racism--culminating in Nazism--by idealizing spiritual purity in physical terms by denoting certain racial characteristics. For example, Jesus, His Disciples, angels, and Mary look so saintly and pure because they are depicted as so white, so European, or even Nordic. We don’t just feel their purity through words and music but through their pristine white features. The same effect wouldn’t have been possible with certain other races. Semitic Jews are curly haired, hook-nosed, rubber-lipped, and funny-looking. Jews can look spiritual and wise but never pure. And Muslims, most of whom were Arabic through the ages, were a bunch of swarthy Semites too. Of course, Jewish and Arabic beauty can be astounding too, but with their exaggerated features and darker skins, they are less useful for metaphors of purity--and besides, both cultures were into covering up the body. Though Christians of the Middle Ages were into covering the body too, the fact is Jesus died naked. And then, the Renaissance restored nude paganism, and it became a feature of Christian art ever since. The Christian West thus created works of art where the sensual served metaphorically to convey the transcendently spiritual. It featured nudity not so much as tits and ass but as transcendent ideals, proof of God’s creative eye for beauty. To be sure, the idealization of beauty goes back to the Greeks, but spiritual purity is not an element in Greek art. Rather, the Greek emphasis was on the Ideal Beauty.
What does all of this have to do with the genre of horror? A big theme in horror is defilement, and the forces of defilement love nothing more than purity and innocence. Horror is attracted to Christianity(and Christianity is fascinated by horror)because purity and defilement define themselves against the other. As such, they both repel and attract one another, producing a kind of erotic friction of love and loathing. THE EXORCIST is effective as horror because it’s the story of an innocent goy girl who is possessed by the Devil. It would have been less effective if the girl was Jewish because J.A.P.s are pretty horrific to begin with. How worse could Sandra Bernhardt, Sarah Silverman, Barbra Streisand, or Roseanne Barr be if she were possessed by the Devil? (In fact we might feel sorry for Satan trapped inside them.) Or consider the movie OMEN where Devil begats his own son. The freakiness owes to the idea that a seemingly innocent angel of a child could be a the son of the Devil. (The element of deception poses a greater threat in Christianity than in Judaism and Islam. Islam has a certain manly brusqueness that guards itself against soft seductive charms. It retains the warrior mentality of pagan Arabs. And Muslims place veils over their women, not only to defend what they regard as feminine dignity but to protect men from feminine wiles. Judaism demands faith in God but not in things of this world. Though Christians, like Jews, believe in the fallen state of the world, they also believe that things of this world--individuals and objects--can be imbued with purity and holiness. Jewish faith is defined by the PRACTICE of religion whereas Christian faith is also obsessed with OBJECTS of religion. Perhaps, this is because the holiest objects of Judaism, such as the Ark of the Covenant, have been lost long ago. Christians, especially Catholics, are obsessed with certain objects they consider to be holy. And even Protestants believe that Jesus, His Disciples, and a long tradition of holy saints walked and blessed this Earth. The Old Testament has plenty of prophets and wise men, but it’s not a book of pure saints aglow in holiness. And if Jews are obsessed with certain objects, it has more do with taboos and revulsion than sanctimony and reverence. If Catholics value certain objects as holy relics or images of Jesus on toasts, Jews revile pork, shellfish, and other filthy things. Christians seek the saint, Jews avoid the taint. Thus, Jews are far more skeptical of things of this world than Christians are. Christians--especially Catholics--, having faith in holy things of this world, can more easily be suckered by the Devil. Jewish faith connects directly with God. Though Jewish priests serve as middlemen between God and Jews, they themselves cannot be objects of faith. But Catholics long had a tradition of investing their emotions in holy objects and revering holy men and saints. So, the Devil has an easier time fooling Christians than Jews. In LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, Jesus is nearly fooled by the Devil because He seeks pure truth--and in this world too. Though hardly a good film, it is useful as an instruction on the evolution of faith from the Jewish to the Christian. A traditional Jewish rabbi would never seek pure redemption in this world, preferring to stick to the proper practice of religion. Jesus, in contrast, seeks the absolute truth in this world--at least for Himself--, demonstrating His conviction by healing the sick and reviving a dead man. Moses pulled off some magic tricks too, but it was really God’s work. But there is a sense in the New Testament that Jesus Himself has the power to heal mankind, which suggests He’s either the Son of God or God manifested in the flesh in this world, which means that things of this world can be pure and holy. Because the faith of a Christian can be purer and more childlike--and innocent--than that of a Jew or Muslim, the Devil loves to toy with Christians. The quality that is holiest in a Christian--blind faith in the iconography of this world--is paradoxically what makes him most vulnerable to the machinations of the Devil. It’s like nothing is easier to corrupt than the purest innocence of a child dazzled by toys and candies. Of the three religions, Christianity is also the most feminine. This is paradoxical since it is, by far, the most sexless or even anti-sexual religion. Judaism strictly moralizes sexuality but encourages Jewish men to use their plump whankers on their women to have lots of kids. Muhammad seems to have had lots of lovers before finally settling down with four; and I don’t know if the Koran really says so, but I’ve heard fallen Muslim warriors can gain entry into a kind of Valhalla where seventy seven hot virgins await each of them. So, one might think there’s a bigger place for women in Judaism and Islam than in Christianity, a religion where a form of asexuality is held up as the highest ideal. But it is this asexuality that allows for greater equality between male and female. Judaism and Islam may have greater use for women as women, but that also means men must be men, i.e. patriarchs maintaining strict control over their wives and daughters. Jewish guys and Muslim guys think with their dicks, and their dicks dictate their view of morality and the world. Since women are their possession, women must take a backseat to their manhood. In Christianity, the ideal man is sexless and denies pleasure to his sinful flesh. Since the ideal Christian man isn’t supposed to pop a boner and since an ideal Christian woman isn’t supposed to feel horny, there can be greater parity between male and female. Of course, in actual practice, Christian men were getting stiffies all over, and Christian women accused of overt sexuality were burned as Devil-possessed witches, BUT in the idealized sphere of virtue there was a place where men and women could co-exist virtuously like Jesus and the redeemed Mary Magdalene who didn’t whore around anymore. It is this ridiculous conceit that has allowed greater cooperation between men and women. Even in the ‘reactionary’ Catholic Church, priests and nuns worked close together precisely because they were supposed to be sexless. There was no such equivalent among Jews or Muslims. In a way, the close political alliance between gay men and lesbians could also be based their mutual anti-sexual-attraction; since gay men and lesbians don’t sexually care for another, their partnership is purely ideological and political. Because of the idealized sexlessness of Christianity, women are both the objects of greater trust and greater lust--leading to distrust, either of the self or the woman. There is the spiritual hope of man and woman transcending their fleshly desires and being equal as the children of God. But human nature being what it is, the Christian man has to confront his own repressed sexual attraction to the female or ward off her charms out of fear that she may be the Devil in disguise. )
It would have been be less effective as horror if the kid in THE EXORCIST were raised in a Jewish household since we don’t associate Jewishness with spiritual purity; Jewish kosher laws are about purification and cleansing, but that’s not the same thing as faith in purity(especially as identified with innocence and beauty); indeed, Jewish obsession with purification rites could be an admission of their hopeless lack of purity; it’s like Lady Macbeth constantly washing her hands that appear soiled with blood; though Jews regarded goyim as especially filthy, one wonders if this view was a projection onto goyim their own feelings of filth. (It would also have been less effective if the kid was a boy than a girl, for virginity and purity are valued more in the female than in the male. Also, girls undergo profounder changes during puberty, what with blood streaming out of their pooters. CARRIE was a pretty effective dramatization of this theme. In contrast, male puberty better serves genres like the Super Hero comic book. SPIDERMAN the movie associates Peter Parker’s web-shooting with ejaculation, as if the newfound ability to squirt sperm imbues the male with a thrilling sense of power, adventure, and freedom. ‘Peter’ is a slang for penis and ‘Parker’ could mean ‘park her’ or ‘park my penis inside her’--or maybe it’s like ‘porker’ or ‘pork her’. Ejaculation is orgasmic and pleasurable. In contrast, the monthly period is painful and limits the freedom of the female as an individual, something feminism is too stupid to realize.) Another reason a Jewish EXORCIST wouldn’t work is we expect Jewish kids to be know-it-all, smartass, cunning, and devious from a young age. Indeed, Jewish culture and religion never taught Jews to be lamb-like, goody-goody, and so-pure. Even today, ‘progressive’ Jews point out the errors of goy ways, not their own ways. Jews will point out what’s wrong with white gentiles, Muslims, Hindus, East Asians, and Latin Americans--and set them off against one another--but rarely criticize their own shortcomings, crimes, or evils. Jews are born weasels and raise their children to think and act like weasels. They see and understand the world for what it is and look for new angles to survive and thrive, not to be oh-so-goody. Jews are naturally and culturally more vigilant against their enemies and, for this reason, have a firmer grasp of reality and morality.
Christians--at least stupid white ones--cling to the ideal of purity and innocence as the path toward God and Salvation. In one way, this fills them with confidence and joy; but, in another way, it fills them with anxiety since stupid people’s hearts & minds are easily messed with and taken advantage of. Notice how the cunning Neocons use and exploit the Christian Right much more than the other way. As the movie MEET JOHN DOE demonstrates, the dark underbelly of simple faith is gullibility--pure innocence is more easily fooled by Evil. The funny paradox is that the most devoutly Christian person can end up being the best instrument of Satan. Since a good Christian is supposed to follow in the path of Christ with his pure heart, he can easily be fooled by wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing. The emphasis on blind faith and trust in Christianity has produced some of the biggest suckers in human history, and this continues even among secularized white gentiles for whom the music and the sermonizing of Bono and Geldoff have had the same effect as Oral Roberts’ televangelism on his dumb flock. Why else would so many white people have fallen for ridiculousness such as Oprah Windbag, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin? Why else would ‘born again’ George W. Bush have become such a dupe of Neocons? How else did Sarah Palin become a shameless and idiotic strip-dancer whore of AIPAC, all in the name of serving God? At least Barack Obama, punkass weasel that he is, knows what it’s all about. He knows it’s about Jews using him, so he tries to use the Jews in return. (Christian boneheadedness exists in the Alt Right community as well, most amusingly in the sermons of St. Mark Hackard.)
Of course, smart Christians came to the realization that their pure faith could be taken advantage of dark forces, just like innocent trusting children are easily fooled by strangers(like in Fritz Lang’s M). Some Catholic pedophile priests got away with child molestation because they did it behind the cloth and under the roof of God.
As a result, the default defense mechanism among Christian puritans/fanatics is paranoia and seeing Evil everywhere--not only in the obviously bad but in the seemingly good that may be infected with evil spirits. They cling to purity of faith but reserve this faith only for God and Jesus and nothing/no one else. This paranoid innocence is rife with the possibility of horror genre consciousness since everything outside the Spirit within one’s heart could potentially be the mask of Satan. But then, even the heart can be toyed with by the Devil. At one point in THE EXORCIST, the Devil takes on the semblance of Father Demian’s late mother and tugs at the his heartstrings. So, even feelings for other humans can be manipulated by Satan. Only one’s feeling for God and Jesus can be truly pure.
Another problem inherent in Christianity that gives rise to horror genre consciousness owes something to the morally/spiritually ambiguous relationship between the faith itself and its manifestation via idolatry. Judaism forbids the worship of idols, and the rule of Islam is to destroy all false idols. Since their worlds have been cleansed of idols, there are fewer conduits for Satan to work his magic on the unsuspecting populace. Christianity, on the other hand, has a twisted relation to idolatry and other pagan forms of cult-worship. For one thing, Christianity was fully realized as a spiritual concept through the work of Hellenized Paul who fused Jesus the New Jew with ideas and imagery lifted from pagan Greek/Roman culture. Indeed, even the notion of Jesus as a manifestation of God in human flesh is a kind of blasphemous organic idolatry. And then, the manner in and the objects by which Jesus died came to be sanctified, which led to Christians everywhere wearing crucifixes and placing crucifixes in their homes. Among Catholics, the cult of Virgin Mary was manifest through countless statues, figurines, paintings, etc. (It became like a circus religion. Just like clowns are supposed to funny but scare a lot of children, iconography of the Catholic Church is supposed to lend assurance to the faithful but often inspire a lot of fear and dread. Ever walk inside a dimly lit Catholic Church all by yourself? It’s like Gothic terror, with dark forces lurking around every corner. Wittingly or not, the Church played on fear to vamp the faith.) If the whole point of Christianity is the triumph of spirit over flesh(and the material world), it was rather strange that it paved the way for the sensual celebration of Christianity through images, sounds, and forms not found among Jews or Muslims. (Can anyone imagine Muslims ‘celebrating’ the birth of Muhammad with the naked consumerism of Christians on Christmas? The colors and flavors of Christo-consumerism are partly a carryover from the sumptuousness of Catholicism fused with classical Greco-Roman paganism.) The glory of Christianity came to be expressed through classical, or pagan, or idolatrous modes. We generally think in terms of dichotomies, like Madonna and the whore, but the sense of unease in Christianity lies in the unspoken suspicion that the whore is innate, if not in Virgin Mary herself, in the idolatrous images created of her. There’s the famous scene of the statue of Virgin Mary befouled in THE EXORCIST--an image of the saintly soul defiled by Satan--, but there is a hidden meaning that the defilement is inherent in the statue itself. After all, who is man to imagine and recreate the image of the Holy Mother with his sinful hands? When a transcendental religion comes to express itself through idols and images, is it not compromising and soiling its spiritual content and intent?
But then, the New Testament teaches us that Jesus the Son of God was manifest in human flesh/form and was indeed born of a woman. The lesson of Christianity is the possibility of rising above materiality, but so much of the power derives from its materiality. There is no equivalent of the crucifix or Virgin Mary statue in Judaism or Islam. Indeed, even the great figures of the Old Testament have been imbued with pagan-ist heroism not by Jews but by Christian artists like Michelangelo. Jews have the Star of David and the Menorah, but those objects don’t have the same mystical potency--an element of idolatrous magic--held by objects, relics, and images of Christianity. An horror tale where vampires are warded off with the Star of David would be rather funny--though the face of Barbra Streisand might do the trick. There is much horribleness in the Old Testament--mass killings, wars, famines, slavery, floods, etc--but not much in the way of ‘horror’ since there is a sense of certainty, especially because the Jewish God is a demanding, jealous, and judgmental God. Even when you don’t why He’s doing what He’s doing, you know He knows why He’s doing what He’s doing--or so Job found out. Also, God told Jews to be tough, scrappy, and distrustful of everything--except Himself--, and so Jews got used to the idea that the world is a dark and dangerous place. (In contrast, Christianity told its followers to love and trust everyone, even strangers. But reality being what it was, it didn’t do much good to be full of love and trust for one’s enemies--or even neighbors. So, paradoxically, the Christian teaching of ‘fear not’ actually filled its followers with deeper fear bordering on dread. Jews feel no guilt about fearing and hating goyim. Christians are supposed to overcome their fear and hatred, even of their enemies. But historically, Christians couldn’t help but to fear and hate their enemies, i.e. act un-Christian, which made them fear and hate their own sinful souls that disobeyed Christ. Even today, Jewish fears and hates are more honest. Jews see the world in terms of us-vs-them, even though they cleverly exploit universalist doctrines of equality and diversity. Jews feel no guilt about hating and fearing other peoples. Many white Christians, on the other hand, repress their tribalism and try to love everyone, but they find themselves failing at this out of fear of black crime, illegal invasion, rise of China, Muslim threats, and Jewish venality. But Christians are spiritually not allowed to fear and hate--and they feel they must atone for their ancestors who betrayed the true spirit of Christianity--, and so all these repressed feelings make for an unease that finds itself attracted to the horror genre.)
Jews may have been unsure of the fate awaiting them in this world, but they were certain of the Covenant between themselves and the Almighty God. Such stark sense of certainty doesn’t make for horror consciousness. Horror requires a sense of vulnerability and uncertainty at the core of one’s spiritual being, and this is more the feature of Christianity where even the mighty Son of God can be trampled, beaten, and strung up to die and dry. Christianity assures people to accept love and peace and to drop their weapons; to turn the other cheek, and have faith in salvation by the purity of their hearts. This fills Christians with hope and goodwill, but it also makes them feel naked and vulnerable since following the letter of Jesus’s teachings leaves them defenseless. Also, even among the most devout Christians, there must be the anxiety of whether Jesus was really the Son of God. If so, why is there still so much Evil in the world? And why did He die so pitifully? Horror is most acutely felt by children whose minds are rife with frightful imagination; it just so happens that Christianity not only encourages a child-like innocence amongst its flock but put forth a scenario where even the Son of God could be pummeled real good. (Also, the spiritual contrast between good and evil--at least in this world--isn’t as stark in Judaism as in Christianity. There is the wicked Serpent, but it’s not as if Adam and Eve are saints themselves. Moses and David are both deeply flawed men, and even Prophets play at realpolitik in the triumph of Jews over filthy goyim. And in the Book of Job, God and Satan are, if not exactly friends, poker buddies. So, there’s lots of evil in the Old Testament but not so much the idea of Evil. No one in this world is totally good or perfect, so nothing must be purely evil either. Rather, the Old Testament is morally pragmatic, with everything of this world being a mix of good and evil, with people struggling to be more good than evil. Christianity, in contrast, says the Perfect Man walked this Earth and served as a shining example of how humanity too can be nearly as good, or saintly. If Perfect Goodness could walk this Earth, then there must be also its opposite, the Perfect Evil. In the Old Testament, angels are merely messengers of God. In Christianity, they are symbols of absolute purity with golden hair battling the Prince of Darkness. Jews find all of this very funny and amusing, a kind of childish cops-and-robbers view of spirituality. And indeed, Jews, having gained insights into Christian psychology, manipulate it with the saintly myths of MLK, messianic fervor of Obama, and the Church of Oprah. Though MLK, Obama, and Oprah are frauds, weasels, and/or thugs, white Christian mentality is a sucker for that kind of stuff. And THE EXORCIST was made into a blockbuster by the Jewish William Friedkin with the backing of Hollywood. You can also find it in goy Dave Marsh’s iconography of Bruce Springsteen as the Saint of Rust-Belt America. Or goy Ken Burns’ pussy-ish worship of Jack Johnson as the black messiah with redemptive fists defeating white ‘racist’ evil before finally being crucified by white America for his ‘unforgivable blackness’. White Christians and Christoids--secular people steeped in Christian morality--are saps, and Jews know how to suck out the syrup. Of course, St. Paul himself was a Jew who turned the story of the historical Jesus, the reformist Jew, into mass cult for the goyim. As a result, the holiest woman for Christians has been some Jewess named Mary who gave birth to Jesus, that is until she was usurped by another Jewish female, Anne Frank or Virgin Anne, the key figure in the religion of Holocaustianity. She didn’t have any children but came to embody the mythic role as virgin mother of Jewsus, the holy people who supposedly died for our sins. Christians used to accuse Jews of being killers of Jesus; Jews now accuse Christians for being killers of Jewsus.)
In a way, the story of the Christ has elements of horror genre, not only because what happens to Him but because of the ghostly story of His Resurrection. Jesus, more than any other figure in the Bible, seems to hover in the realm between life and death. At one point, he brings a dead man, Lazarus, back to life; he mingles with dreaded lepers. He dies horrifically, but then His body vanishes from the tomb, and He is said to have returned from the dead. As a result, the phenomenon of death has less certainty in Christianity than in Judaism or Islam. A dead Jew is a dead Jew(though there are rare instances such as when the late prophet Samuel appears through a medium), and a dead Muslim is a dead Muslim. But death is stranger in Christianity since its founder Jesus revived a dead man and returned from death. This is perhaps why Christian cemeteries are more frightful places than Jewish or Muslim cemeteries. There’s less of a feeling that the dead will remain dead, especially since ornately designs tombs convey ghostly intimations of afterlife or the realm between the realm of life and the realm of death. (Consider the dark mystique and Christian imagery of cemeteries in films like VAMPYR Christian symbols serve a dual purpose to frighten and to lend comfort. Crucifix is both the symbol of Jesus’s loving sacrifice to redeem/save mankind AND of horrible pain/suffering by forces of Evil. It is both a symbol of power and powerlessness. Jesus of the Christian Myth ultimately gains everything, but He must first lose everything. It is the most extreme case of ‘no pain, no gain’. One clings to the Crucifix for security and support, but its image is that of Jesus who couldn’t even save Himself from the taunts and nails of His tormentors. Christians pray to Jesus to deliver them from Evil, yet Jesus’s only triumphed over Evil by being tortured/murdered. If that is the ultimate ideal of Christianity, then does it make sense to pray to Jesus to save us from danger? Shouldn’t we, like Jesus, readily accept the blows and arrows of life and try to spiritually rise about the fear and pain? Again, no pain, no gain. Maybe it’s no mere coincidence that a shot of heroin is called a ‘fix’, or instant crucifix. Lou Reed of the Velvet Underground composed “Heroin” where a shot of heroin makes the narrator feel like Jesus’s son. Heavenly euphoria is gained through the painful insertion of the seedy needle. Gates of heaven accessed through hell-corridors of darkness.) The concept of Purgatory also makes for horror consciousness since a dead person doesn’t just die or immediately enter Heaven or to Hell. He undergoes a process of judgement, whereby he’s punished for his sins before finally being allowed into Heaven. Also, there’s the fear that if good people--Lazarus or Jesus--can return from death, why not evil people or spirits as well? Vampire stories are essentially narratives of the resurrection of Evil. And Michael in HALLOWEEN keeps returning from death too. This ambiguity creates a wider grey area between life and death in Christianity than in Judaism or Islam. Lots of things Jesus does, especially raising Lazarus from the dead, could be called a form of black magic--and this may account as to why Christianity has been more adaptable to various pagan/indigenous cultures than Judaism or Islam has been. For example, Negroes might say Jesus had some voodoo power. And, though Jesus is worshiped as the Perfect Man and the Son of God by Christians, it’s not difficult to understand why He might have appeared Satanic to many Jews back in the days.
Another reason for Western Christianity’s association with horror consciousness owes something to the cult of beauty. Christianity was not just a continuation or expansion--universalization--of Judaism, but a fusion of Hellenic and Hebraic elements. Both the Greeks and Romans were wild about beauty and sensuality, of the flesh that blooms and decays. Beauty and decay are essential to horror, not least because there’s something inherently sickening about beauty being defiled. Ugliness cannot be defiled because it’s just ugly and putrid to begin with. And when an ugly person decays into old age, it’s ugliness turning into another form of ugliness. But beauty decaying into ugliness fills us with dread. There is something very dynamic and life-affirming about Hellenism, and so the world of the dead is full of dread. There is no happy afterlife in Hellenism. After one dies, one’s soul resides forever in the dark underworld. The great passion for beauty and the dread of decay/death characterize the elements of horror in classical mythology and consciousness. The story of Orpheus and Eurydice is a kind of horror tale, where a man ventures into the world of the dead to reclaim his love. The Beauty Myth so central to Hellenism came to lend color and sensuality to Christianity in which Virgin Mary came to be depicted as beautiful woman and Jesus as a beautiful man tragically killed by sinful mankind. Countless Christian paintings of the Crucifixion depict a synthesis of beauty and ugliness, life and death, spirit and sensuality. It’s no wonder that Yukio Mishima had his first cum(munion) by staring at an image of St. Sebastian studded with arrows. The most potent aspect of many great works of horror is not merely the horrific-ness, which is simple-minded and easy enough to represent, but a perverse blend of beauty and darkness, which is why DRACULA has fascinated generations of readers and movie-lovers. If Dracula only sucked the blood of fat ugly hags, it would be horrible but not horror-istic. Even Blacula has romantic yearnings to be reunited with the woman of his eternal dreams. VAMPYR and the original NOSFERATU are memorable not only for the horror but the poetry. The spirit-dreamworld of VAMPYR seems, at once, holy and unholy, co-occupied by God and Satan. Its greatness lies not so much in depicting scary things as in making non-scary or even sacred things take on sinister shadings. And though the vampire creature in NOSFERATU is indeed hideous, we are moved by his romantic attraction to a beautiful woman. The concept of evil spirits existed long before Christianity--and in other cultures--, but Christianity lent another shading to the horror. Minus the Christian element, vampires are evil, and you should just run or hide. But Christianity offers the possibility of spiritual triumph over evil spirits. If we have the true faith and right tools blessed by God, we need not run from Dracula. We can confront him and take him out. Of course, the catch is even the instruments of goodness are creepy since their potency also derives from the world of the dead. (Dracula is the inverse of Jesus. Jesus forgave his tormentors and murderers; He was expelled from earth by sinful man but gained eternal life in Heaven alongside His Father. Dracula doesn’t forgive his enemies, torturing and murdering them mostly cruelly; and then he curses God for the death of his beloved. He remains physically alive on earth but is exiled from Heaven forever. He becomes a living embodiment of eternal death. It’s like Obi-Wan Kenobi vs Darth Vader. Kenobi dies but gains eternal life whereas Vader employs technology to keep himself artificially alive; he is, in fact, permanently trapped inside a cold lifeless machine--at least until Vader too comes around and find redemption; but then, there’s an element of redemption in the Dracula story too; both Annakin Skywalker and Dracula didn’t choose evil to be evil but were lured into it by the way of romantic love.) Vampire stories are less about forces of life vs forces of death than about forces of evil dead vs forces of good dead--the spirit of Christ who died and was resurrected from death. The good dead may be good, but the dead is still dead, spirits of the other world, which makes them kinda spooky. The space between life and death created by Christ for the salvation of man could also be infected/inhabited by spirits of evil. This may be why one of the most freaky images in horror is the ghostly image of the innocent young girl in a white nightgown. It blends innocence and perversion in the zone between life and death. It’s like a defiled or satanic version of the pure virgin.
The Jewish mentality is also less conducive to horror consciousness since it can summarily dismiss everything outside Jewish culture as filth. Jews regarded themselves as the Chosen People of God and regarded other peoples as, at best, tolerable co-inhabitants of Earth and, at worst, as filth. Jews never needed to worry about the souls of non-Jews, especially since Judaism wasn’t a conversion faith. (Jewish mentality, also being more haggly-waggly middleman-ish or hair-splittingly rabbinical, is less conducive to the kind of wide-eyed innocent blind faith so pervasive among Christians.) And Muslims need not worry excessively about the virtuous purity of the soul since Islam permitted the conversion of non-believers with the might of the sword. If infidels refused to convert, a Muslim need feel no qualms or guilt about lopping their heads off. Christians were not allowed to regard non-Christians or fallen Christians as mere filth, as Jews often considered goyim. And it wasn’t enough for Christians to convert non-believers to their faith through violence and enforcement of certain rites, rituals, and codes. There had to be a sincere change of heart on the part of the non-believer-convert and a sincere love for all humanity on the part of the Christian missionary. This may all sound very good, but it’s more likely to produce anxieties, tensions, and neuroses since it’s trickier to conquer souls than bodies--at least before the rise of mass media and public education--and not so easy to ‘love thy enemy’. Jews were no strangers to horrors throughout the ages--bad things done to them and done by them to others--, but at the end of the day, there was a simple explanation at the end of the day as to why what happened happened: goyim are bad or God is displeased with something Jews did. Such moral starkness narrows the twilight terrain in which horror consciousness can thrive. To be sure, one could argue that the morality of Christianity is actually simpler and starker than that of Judaism. After all, Christianity says the Messiah arrived and blessed mankind with the bright shining truth of God. In contrast, the Old Testament--produced from generations of Jewish mythology, thoughts, records, and musings through the ages--is nothing without its great contradictions in the conceptualization of God and His design for Jews. Even so, Judaism makes one comfortable with those contradictions since (1) God is supposed to be beyond human comprehension and (2) world isn’t so perfect and consistent after all. Christianity, on the other hand, is especially neurosis-prone since it declares that the Messiah arrived and redeemed mankind(or at least offered the chance of redemption for mankind), but mankind and the world still remain much the same sinful place.
Of course, there are plenty of Jews working in the horror genre, not least freaks like Eli Roth and his ilk. Though I haven’t seen anything by Roth, gore porn isn’t the highest form of horror. Roth’s movies seem to revel in physical desecration. Just as Jewish porn-meisters get their kicks by defiling white women--especially blondes--by reducing them to sex toys of hairy-hook-nosed Jewish men or ape-like Negroes, Roth probably gets his kicks by imagining white gentile women being tortured and murdered by the dark forces representing his filthy and vengeful Jewish ego. This is horror as mere porn, not poetry, and as such, can never rise to the level of art.
Could Holocaustianity could serve as the basis for a kind of Judeo-centric horror? The Holocaust was indeed ghastly and horrific, the stuff of nightmares. There was something especially horror-istic in the notion of Germans, one of the most civilized peoples, perpetuating one of the greatest horrors in history. Horror-caust movies could combine the elements of horror and science fiction, and Ingmar Bergman achieved something along those lines with SERPENT’S EGG--it reeks and oozes with evil being born in the minds and bodies of Germans driven to desperation. On the other hand, the Holocaust may be deemed too sacred for a genre associated with tawdry sensationalism, which is why Nazi-themed horror movies tend to be allegorical than historical--or aimed at a niche subculture market(even illegal like child porn in some nations where the Holocaust is worshiped as a religion). Even so, films like CRIMSON RIVERS and GIRL WITH A DRAGON TATTOO--though, to be sure, more mystery thriller than horror--have attempted to ‘Aryanize’ evil by alluding to Nazis or so-called crypto-Nazis.
Anyway, returning to the Tarkovsky’s strange/contradictory fascination with medievalism, nature worship, and science fiction, it all makes sense with an adjustment of our historical and philosophical lenses. To ordinary men and women of the Middle Ages when time stood still--mostly mired in dirt, poverty, ignorance, disease, and death--the world of the church and clergy would have seemed ‘state of the art’. In a world of mud hovels and hulking castles, the cathedral towered majestically above the entire community, the steeple pointing to the sky like a rocket ship. (There’s a similar sic-fi ambience to the architectural wonders of Egypt, ancient Greece, and the Aztecs, and indeed all three civilizations were deeply interested in the stars, as astrology, as a combination of science and spirituality, was the astronomy of their day. In a way, late modernity, with its shower of electric lights drowning out stars in the sky, has severed our sensual/spiritual connection to the world above. Experts have instruments to probe deeper than ever before, but humanity as a whole has lost contact with the stars.) Clergymen through the ages, before the rise of modern science, probably regarded themselves as the chosen few at the furthest edge of spiritual and scientific progress--not least because the Church was the center of learning and preservation of knowledge during the Middle Ages and beyond. Hermann Hesse’s THE GLASS BEAD GAME is premised on a similar notion, with as its setting an intellectual-spiritualist community where members represent both the ideals of eternity and the avant-garde. No wonder then that Hesse was popular with the counter-culture folks of the 60s seeking both an eternal-ist communion with timeless nature(apart from the consumer-materialism of technological society)and the pathway toward evolutionary progress to the next stage. This blend of seemingly opposed elements, both sciencesque and naturesque, can also be found in films such as SOLARIS and STALKER, the two great science fiction works by Tarkovsky. For Tarkovsky, the problem isn’t so much science per se but science unmoored from an awareness of man’s spiritual link to time, nature, and the universe. Reality isn’t something that can be understood merely by measurement or dissection. It is, like Henri Bergson’s theory of time, something filtered and woven through our personal memory, dreams, and desires. If Bergson and Chris Marker’s--director of LA JETTE--approach was psychological, Tarkovsky’s emphasized spirituality, which isn’t to say he was a literal believer in the Biblical text. Rather, Tarkovsky’s understanding of true knowledge, whether it be rational(scientific) or spiritual, revolved around the human soul, which, through ruminations on God and nature, was the true center of the universe . To gain knowledge FOR ourselves would be utilitarianism, something common in the materialism of both capitalism/consumerism and communism/productivism. To gain knowledge BEYOND ourselves harbors the conceit of disembodying ourselves from ourselves to access the nature of ultimate reality. In truth, all reality is seen, felt, and understood through human minds/hearts. No matter how far we travel from Earth or remove ourselves from our egos, we are still the same person trapped within humanness.
And if we learn to see things with fresh eyes, there is no division between our world and the other world. We don’t regard our planet as strange; we see grass as grass, weeds as weeds, trees as trees, and water as water. But if part of science fiction is about speculating about and knowing other worlds, we need only look more carefully at our own planet to realize it too is a ‘other world’. SOLARIS begins with a man standing over a pond, gazing at wavy motions of aquatic plants. Then, we see him surrounded by all manner of plants. Though the scene takes place on Earth, Tarkovsky’s trance-like meditation renders the familiar as something fascinatingly alien. The spiritualist gaze offers a glimpse into the strange ‘science-fiction-like’ otherworldliness of our world. No wonder then that so many people involved in the sci-fi community were interested with hallucinogens. Though mescaline and LSD were created in labs by scientists(and used for rational experimentation and analysis by psychologists, researchers, and government agents), their antecedents, the organic compounds found in various plants and mushrooms, have had a long pedigree in the spiritual journeys of man, for both good and ill.
Man is, by nature, both imaginative and impatient. Though science has brought forth countless wonders, it is a painstaking process requiring the utmost clarity in formulation, concentration, measurement, and conclusion. It is really beyond the intellect and/or patience for most people. We look to science for answers, but we also want quick results and no limit to what we can do with what we know. In this sense, the spiritual and/or fantastic elements of many sci-fi propound both ultra-science and anti-science. A sci-fi author who imagines flying cars and sentient robots may want accelerated science to produce such wonders. On the other hand, by allowing his imagination run wild, he may be implying that science will never catch up with man’s boundless imagination. It’s interesting that one of the most famous science fiction works, FRANKENSTEIN, was actually written by a romantic authoress who was deeply skeptical of science and technology, which she associated with industrialization and concomitant destruction of pastoral England where man and nature supposedly co-existed in cycles of harmony and inspired the poetic imagination of artists.
Like much else in life and art, science fiction is nothing without the yin-yang friction of reverence and revulsion. If sexual themes in art highlight beauty’s allure but also its seductive/obsessive dangers--VERTIGO, for example--and if political themes in art glorify power but also warn of hubris, science fiction impresses us with powers of technology but also preaches us a cautionary sermon. In this sense, science fiction tend to be as reactionary as revolutionary. Science fiction presents us with worlds we want to visit but not call home. Tarkovksy’s SOLARIS ends with the hero recreating the home he left behind on the oceans of the alien planet.
There is an element of Medievalism in the works of Isaac Asimov too. The main characters of FOUNDATION belong to a kind of elite organization, much like that of Rabbinical scholars or Catholic Church hierarchy. Their role is to save and preserve the core of human knowledge so that it may be reignited anew from the ashes even after the great fall of civilizations across the galaxy. Allegorically, this could refer to the survival of the Jews through the ages or to the rise of Christian Europe after the unstoppable fall of Rome. In a way, Medievalism is something Christian goyim copped from the Jews who’d been practicing a brilliant method of survivalism through the millennia. Medievalism is essentially a way of preserving the core body of knowledge linking the material world with the spiritual, the temporal with the eternal. Prior to the spread of Christianity, pagan peoples of Europe had no such concept. Either they fought and won or they lost and got wiped out--culturally or physically. It was the Jews who mastered a way to preserve their core belief system--to harvest and store their cultural seeds--through the worst of times so that it could be planted anew on fertile ground when the time was right. It was kinda like a spiritual/cultural form of egg-sperm harvesting. Some species thrive when the environment is favorable and then completely die out when conditions change. But some other organisms have the ability to seek refuge when times are bad. Some hibernate through long winters. Some burrow underground. Some migrate over long distances. Physically, Jews learned to burrow underground like ants and rats. Spiritually, they learned to separate their faith--sense of sacredness--from particularity of the soil and give it free flight in the sky realm, from which it could return to Earth when Jews found a stable community to rebuild their Temple. Tarkovsky should know a thing or two about Medivalism because the Russian Church had to go underground during the years of communism. Now, communism is dead but the Russian Church is back, though with the rise of trash-consumerism and Muslim populations in Russia, it’s facing an uphill battle for the soul of Russia--and may have to go underground in the future once again. One could argue spiritualism is partly the science of survivalism. When animals cannot live under certain conditions, they burrow underground and hibernate--dream. During winter, plant seeds lie dormant underground, as do various forms of insects. Yet, they don’t die but remain alive in a kind of dream state from which they may arise or metamorphose(into new forms)under favorable conditions. Certain cultures found ways and means to survive through what otherwise might have been a death sentence. No matter how great or powerful a creature--giant dinosaurs or mammoths(and other great mammals of the Pleistocene era)for example--, they are bound for extinction under drastically changed conditions unless they have the means to survive the onslaught; one way is to adapt or assimilate into new surroundings, and the other way is to go underground and reappear unchanged when the environment is again favorable. (The most effective method of survival may be parasitism or infectionism, to infiltrate or attach oneself to what otherwise might pose threat to one’s well-being or survival; over time, the parasite or virus may gain full control of the host; Jews prefer parasitism or infectionism but will settle for undergroundism or semi-adaptationism/assimilationism when the goy host remains ruthlessly vigilant of the Jewish threat; sometimes, Jews will fake undergroundism or adaptationism to prepare for eventual parasitism or infectionism, laying low or playing weak to buy time for the opportune moment to effect a complete seizure of power.) The Christian Church or the monastery, in this sense, has represented the portal to timelessness or a meta-cosmic-nature, a refuge from the constant changes and upheavals that have characterized the world of man and nature. Then, science fiction not only imagines a world transformed by science/technology but ponders the means that may ensure humanity’s survival amidst profound changes. One way is to escape into outer-space, especially if Earth is bound for destruction(as in WHEN THE WORLDS COLLIDE) or is over-populated/polluted(as in BLADE RUNNER). Another way is to journey into inner-space, as in the meditative and spiritualist STALKER(which could be called ‘trance fiction’, ‘hypno-fiction’). In the case of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, man journeys into outer-space, only to be guided by extraterrestrials into his inner-space(ostensibly to be genetically modified for the purpose of returning to Earth to save humanity from itself--at least according to interviews with Arthur C. Clarke). The famous Stargate sequence in 2001, like the metamorphosing mind-ocean in SOLARIS, is pretty ‘trippy’. Though partying was a main feature of counterculture, there was also the widely shared anticipation of a new dawning (re)connecting man with cosmic harmony(though some hippies got burnt out so bad that they turned to Jesus to save them from hallucinogenic goblins). Though users of special drugs claimed to have gone very far and seen wondrous things, spiritual traditionalists tended to regard drugs as a shortcut, a form of cheating, to the Other World or, worse, a delusional false Eden, a trap set by demonic forces . In other words, there’s no such thing as Instant Karma--incidentally, Andrew Sarris initially derided Kubrick’s 2001 as ‘Instant Bergman’, that is before changing his mind after watching it again under the influence of pot. What was seen as ambrosia by some was regarded as the dangerous Forbidden Fruit by others, and the debate continues to this day as to whether the drug culture of the 60s generally healed or harmed Western society. Well, it did inspire some interesting pop music and movies.
The danger of drugs is much like the danger of religion, paradoxical(especially in the West)given the competition between religions and drugs for the soul of man. This isn’t strictly true since many cults and religions(especially the pagan)made use of mind-altering substances to journey to the Other World. But given that the use of drugs is generally associated with fantasy and pleasure while religions tend to be austere and demanding of discipline, drug culture and organized religions have tended to be enemies than allies. And even among pagan peoples, drugs are generally not to be used for recreation, especially by young people. The supply and usage are regulated by priests or medicine men in accordance with certain rites, passages, and journeys. Peyote was not a party drug among Indians. What became their party drug of choice, alcohol, led to their undoing(as opium was for the Chinese in the 19th century). Religions, due to their traditions, dogmas, taboos, and emphasis on humility, generally don’t encourage free-roaming fantasy. A Christian has to worship God and His Son as laid out in the Bible, not imagine himself as a sexy buddha in psychedelic ladyland of buxom babes with multi-colored hair. A real Buddhist must seek Nirvana through years of self-denial, detachment from desire, and mental concentration, not go on blockbuster mental trips into fantasy realms. So, while drug culture and spiritualism have something profoundly in common--fascination with the Other World, desire to transcend mere materiality, to reach ‘higher’ levels of consciousness--, one tends to be creative and explorative while the other tends to be reverent and adherent. Drug culture emboldens the thrill-seeking and reckless ego-drama to see or be god. It is a kind of blank slate spiritualism enabling the creation of one’s own gods and vision of paradise. Religions, on the other hand, justify and sustain themselves on the premise of the Great Truth having been revealed or established already. Drug culture encourages adventurousness or leadership role on the part of the user. Religion demands follower-ship among the faithful. There is an element of Promethean heroism in drug culture for it is bolder to chart one’s own spiritual map than follow in the footsteps of previous giants; but there is also the greater chance of becoming lost or distracted along the way. Also, religions provide a clear destination--Heaven or Nirvana--for its adherents, allowing those who fall by the wayside a chance--moral compass--to find their way back to the true path. Spirituality-via-drugs, in contrast, may reveal the destination only after one’s long been on the journey: a destination profoundly different from what one had expected to find, like Columbus discovering the New World than India.
With religions, we must look backwards to move forwards. All religions, in this sense, are funereal for the Great Truths were revealed by people who have left this world long ago. This gives religions their authority, legitimacy, gravitas. But as a form of spiritual ancestor worship, they tend to be stifling and constrictive since the Great Truth in sacred texts are not to be rewritten or extended by us. No writer, however gifted, would be allowed to write an addition to the New Testament or the Koran. (On the rare occasion that a visionary reforms or rewrites sacred texts and gets away with it, the beginning of a new religion is heralded. Christianity began as a reformist extension of Judaism; it didn’t rewrite the Old Testament but added the Gospel of the New. Muhammad was even more radically blasphemous, rewriting the entire Bible in accordance with his personal vision. It may be that the most sacred traditions originated from the biggest blasphemies, rather like the biggest tyrants had beginnings as the biggest rebels. Blasphemy with balls has the makings of a great religion.)
Religious scholars may revisit and reinterpret old texts, but Sacred Texts are to remain the way they are. Religions have authority but lack a certain aura associated with artistic creativity and drug culture. (To be sure, churches and temples have a long tradition of recruiting and shaping visionary artists to lend and subordinate their talents to the expression of the holy. Thus, Michelangelo and Bach were powerful visionary artists of considerable expressive freedom but also humble servants of God. Their counterparts were the artistic geniuses who worked on mosques, Hindu temples, Buddhist shrines, and etc. And in the early yrs of Soviet Union, formidable artistic talents were recruited to making propaganda in service of the revolution. No matter how singular their talent, they created art in the name of something ‘bigger than themselves’. The profound change wrought by modernism was the unmooring of the individual artist from any larger meaning, message, or goal. For the modern artist, creativity was not merely an instrument--a gift from God to glorify His image or a privileged opportunity to serve mankind and justice--but a kind of personal drug opening up new possibilities according to one’s eccentricities, foibles, obsessions, etc. Though some modernists did dabble in political art, it seemed strained and false. Picasso’s ‘Guernica’ is memorable more as expression than message.)
Drug Culture has facilitated a venturing into the Other World without a priori taboos and rules. One can play an Adam who keeps returning to the Tree of Knowledge. One can discover or express one’s own truth, create one’s own gods, or even discover the ‘god within’. But the danger of drug culture is the anarchy and chaos often resulting from the unloosening of man’s code of conduct from established rules. Certain aspects of any religion may be crazy, but religions have codes and dogma, reminding their followers of their duties and warning of the dangers of creative nihilism.
The fashionable New Age has its roots in the drug culture of the 60s, but the sheer Oprah-esque blandness and toothlessness of the movement suggest a certain trepidation about pushing the envelope. The New Age movement--‘Ex-Hippie Knows Best’--, with its wholesomeness, political correctness, and feely-goody-ness, may be acknowledging(though loathed to admit)the excesses of the now much mythologized 60s, when controversy had been welcome, so unlike today’s New Agers for whom anything that upsets the feely-goodiness of their community is a bad bad thing. This is also true of Gay Culture, which, at one time, defined itself in opposition to the mainstream culture, but now peddles the squeaky clean image and message of ‘Gayboy Knows Best’ instead of ‘Gayboy Blows Best’.
Spiritualist/creative drug culture in the 20th century has mostly been associated with ‘progressive’ neo-paganism, but in some ways, neo-paganism was more a feature of the modern right than the left. Generally, the liberals and the Left in the first half of the 20th century were divided into three groups: Christian, secular-rational, and communist(or radical materialist). Christian liberals revised but remained true to Christian values. Secular-rationalists tended to be optimistic liberals with faith in social sciences and social programs to solve the problems of society. Communists were radical atheist-materialists who zealously created a secular religion with the ideals of Christianity fueled with the righteous rage of the Old Testament God. The Right also had its spiritualists--Christian traditionalists--, secularists--skeptics pessimistic about human nature and over-zealous idealism--, and materialists--libertarians and capitalists. It was the modern/fascist right that stood apart as the dark horse of the 20th century intellectual thought and spiritual culture. By all rights, neo-paganism should have belonged to them, and indeed many of the great scholars of mythology, paganism, and culture(or Kultur)were on the Right. Inspired by the ideas/works of Nietzsche, Jung, Spengler, Heidegger, Eliade, etc, the modern right could have provided the creative basis for a new kind of culture for Western Man. So, what happened? Mussolini turned Italy into his private megalosseum, and Hitler reduced all of Western Culture into stiff rigid form of ‘Aryan nobility and beauty’ and then unleashed a war pitting Europeans against Europeans.
Neo-paganism of the modern right could have forged new spiritual visions, opened new avenues of creativity in arts and expression, redefined the meaning of life. But instead of unleashing the talents, dreams, and visions of a thousand artists, Hitler favored untalented hacks and programmed millions of Germans into robots without originality, individuality, or personality. Hitler transformed Germany in a nation of militant Gumps.
The real potential of the modern right was thus steamrolled by the sub-artistic thuggery of a degenerate gangster. The saddest part of this sordid tale involves many people who should have known better--and indeed knew better--but threw their lot with Hitler.
But maybe there is something self-defeating in the whole idea of the ‘modern right’. Yukio Mishima was a modern rightist artist who understood the creative/spiritual potential of modern rightism, but he too succumbed to the nihilism of destruction as pathetic as mad.
In a way, the problem exists in Nietzscheanism itself, which not only romanticizes the artistic-visionary but extols him as the sorcerer-ruler of the world--artist king than philosopher king. Though Hitler wasn’t much of an artist, his lust for power, charisma, and ability to cast a spell on the people would have awed even Nietzsche. In this narrow sense, one can say Hitler was a great diabolical artist. Though a third-rate studio artist, he was a first rank stadium artist. And it was power-as-talisman that ultimately drove Mishima over the edge. Modern Right, like the Modern Left, is naturally political, and politics means power. So, it wasn’t enough for Mishima to be master of the pen; he also had to be master of the sword, to prove to Japan and himself that he wasn’t merely an aesthete writing in ink but an agent painting in blood.
Anyway, drug culture, like film culture(also prominent in the 60s), is still alive, but it no longer generates the kind of excitement, hope, and controversy it once did. Drugs are still very much in the news, but mostly in crime reports or cultural reporting, e.g. drugs of choice among party-goers and clubbers. In the 60s, Drugs and Film(and rock music)were regarded almost spiritually, as if imbued with the power to change the world. But the world didn’t really change, or at least not in the way that the counterculture romantics and radicals had hoped.
Even so, it was a time when people were bold and daring in their plunge into the unknown.
When much of the world was still unknown or uninhabited--at least from the perspective of the West--, man could quench his thirst for adventure and discovery by setting sail across the seas. But once the world became mapped and known, new hopes were expressed through utopian schemes to create the New Man. When those enterprises turned into nightmares and created hell on Earth, the next hope was to discover new truths and meanings by looking inward to the soul/mind with the neo-spiritualist aid of magic drugs and the art of film and rock music. When that didn’t save the world, what was left to engage, energize, and excite us?
Perhaps the key concept today isn’t exploration or discovery but connection; and it is happening so fast and smoothly that we don’t yet realize the full significance of the revolution. Of course, I’m talking of the internet, not least social-networking sites like Facebook, which have changed the way we live, think, communicate, and define/establish our identities. We are all curious about the new technology not only revolutionizing news, business, and communication but directing the course of man’s future evolution.
The internet makes for greater individuality than ever before: anyone with a YouTube vlog can play news commentator; anyone with a MySpace page can pose as a musical artist. But the internet also pulls us into shared cyber-communities where we become part of the general buzz, often remaining anonymous, by choice or imposition. And constant connectedness makes us feel fused with other people, places, and times--and other minds--, especially if one’s an avid user of cellphones, ipads, social networking sites(connected with people in different time zones), comment sections on various news sites, blogs, vlogs, etc. For some, this can become a kind of addiction, or connectitis. Thus, individualism via the internet is a new phenomenon: an intervidualism.
Indeed, psycho-social problems associated with or arising from internet use might tell us something about human nature. Libertarians tell us people are naturally selfish and self-centered individuals, but the connectitis among many young people suggests people feel a constant need to feel fused and merged with other people. And yet dualities abound when we speak of the internet. Communication via internet or cellphone increases the quantity of contact, yet the very ease of communication encourages physical isolation. Why go out and meet people if you can communicate with anyone by clicking or pushing a few buttons?
We’ve never felt as mobile as when surfing the internet but also never as stationary. Some people sit in front of a computer all day. The sensation of surfing makes them blind to their sinking. And unlike movies or TV shows, internet never ends but goes on 24/7. And instead of just receiving(downloading), the sensation of sending(uploading)makes people even more engaged and addicted.
And though the internet allows us to search anything and roam just about anywhere, we are often blind to the fact that all the information are channeled through machines owned and controlled by a few. With billions of users of Amazon, Google, and Facebook, the internet may be the domain of both the greatest democratization and greatest monopolization. Who are the controllers? Do they control us too in ways that are far more insidious than we realize? Zuckerberg is no Big Brother archetype; if anything, he looks like a little brother. But there’s an irksome feeling about ‘Little Brother Is Friending You’. Can we say that the internet is really making us freer when our supposedly expanding freedom is becoming ever more dependent on a technology most of us know nothing about? In a way, these are some of the questions that are raised by David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ.
In an interview Cronenberg gave to SIGHT AND SOUND magazine upon the release of EASTERN PROMISES, one of his worst films in my estimation, a key topic was Jewishness and the persistence of murderous antisemitism in the world. Iran was mentioned as one of the centers of this insane and irrational hatred based on an anti-Jewish paranoia that seems ineradicable in the world. Cronenberg stated he doesn’t necessarily see himself as a ‘Jewish artist’ but has been keenly aware--lately becoming more so--of his identity as a Jew and its historical/cultural significance. (Similarly, Atom Egoyan, in films like CALENDAR and ARARAT, seems to be revisiting and reestablishing his sense of Armenian-ness. Interesting that two of Canada’s most prominent directors identify more with their cultural origins than with ‘bland’ Anglo-Canada itself.) Anyone familiar with the political or cultural writings of David Mamet will have noticed a similar concern--even obsession--with Jewishness. In a sense, though most of their works don’t directly deal with Jewish problems, both Cronenberg and Mamet are profoundly Jewish artists in their anxieties. HOUSE OF GAMES, for instance, has Jewishness written all over it though there’s no indication that its characters are Jewish. Even so, the psychological character, tone, and concerns are undoubtedly Jewish, i.e. Mamet has dramatized his Jewish neurosis through his characters and scenarios. In HOMICIDE, the cover is blown, the mask removed to explore--even half-heartedly explode--some of the obsessions that define and mark Mamet as a Jew. In a sense, one could say Cronenberg and Mamet are working in the similar vein as Kafka, another Jewish artist who expressed his Jewish fears, loathing(of self and others), and anxieties as psycho-universal neurosis. Of course, this could be said of any artist in the sense that every creative person projects his personal obsessions on the larger canvas of universal humanity. Ingmar Bergman’s obsessions about God, sex, and family relationships served as a template for his view of the human condition. Even so, there is a difference between certain Jewish artists like Mamet and Cronenberg and most non-Jewish artists. Most gentile artists are either blatantly(honestly) ethno-conscious, profoundly individualist, or sincerely universalist, whereas many Jewish artists pose as universalist arch-individualists, all the while expressing and presenting a set of emotions and values that are distinctly and even aggressively Jewish.
There’s no doubt that Rap music and much of black poetry is ‘Afro-centric’, and Nazi art was decidedly pro-‘Aryan’. And most modern works of Western gentile artists are devoid of strong ethnic/national content, especially following WWII. The films of Claude Chabrol are not about Frenchness, French interests, or French power. Jan Troell doesn’t make films from a Swedish nationalist perspective. This isn’t to say that works of art can ever be devoid of cultural or ethnic content. Even the most individualist Irish poet expresses something uniquely Irish. All people belong to a culture with a certain common language, set of values, and shared beliefs and symbols. So, even a self-loathing Western artist is working in the Western cultural vein.
Or, consider the case of Louis Armstrong who, though devoid of racial sensibility or ideology in his music(like some later black artists), was expressing something that was unique to the black American experience. But being something is not necessarily being pro-something. Also, one can be highly critical of the identity one clings to; consider Graham Greene’s conflicted relations with the Catholic Church. Jewish artists like Mamet and Cronenberg are different because, for the most part, their works don’t touch directly on Jewish issues. But, scratch the surface and we gain a glimpse not only of teeming infestations of Jewish anxiety but deliriums of ultra-Jewish pride, paranoia, power-lust, and contempt(mostly of goyim).
There is a certain disingenuousness when Jews like Mamet and Cronenberg gripe, shrug their shoulders, and pretend not to understand why antisemitism has had such a long pedigree, and why new mutations keep cropping up, on both the Left and the Right. For one thing, both are deeply psychological artists who’ve probed into the dark areas of the soul, the irrationality at the core of consciousness and behavior. Their works penetrate surface reality in search of exotic/erotic creatures that animate our thoughts and feelings. Given their fascination with the mind and behavior, you’d expect them to have some insights as to why antisemitism continues to appeal to gentiles--and in a way, even to Jews, for if Evil Jews are a convenient scapegoat for antisemites, Evil Antisemites serve the same purpose for Jews. Though the history of antisemitism is real enough, ‘antisemitism’ is something that would have been invented by Jews if it didn’t exist, and in a way, much of what goes by the name of ‘antisemitism’ is a concoction of Jews. For while antisemitism could be defined as a virulent and irrational hatred of Jews, the fear of antisemitism--real or imagined(mostly imagined or vastly exaggerated today)--on the part of Jews serves as an excuse for Jews to hate and loathe everybody who doesn’t kiss Jewish ass; but then, some Jews say even philosemites are antisemites because philosemites tend to see Jews as pure saints, i.e. holding Jews to a higher standard. The European Left is often accused of philosemitic-antisemitism. Having sanctified Jews as a saintly victim-race of the Holocaust--supposedly the ‘greatest crime of all time’--, the European Left expects Jews to embrace the role of noble victims and forsake the power, wealth, and privileged accumulated by American and Israeli Jews(who are routinely denounced by the European Left as cultural imperialists of Hollywood, financial imperialists of Wall Street, and Zionist ‘racists’ oppressing Palestinians).
Though it’s true enough that extreme philo-something is really the circular inverse of anti-something--just as the extreme left and the extreme right tend to converge at the other end of the circle--, the real problem is Jews are arguing in bad faith. Jews are, after all, the biggest purveyors of philosemitism, what with the Holocaust Industry baking from its ovens endless batches of Holocaustianity cookies, bagels, and fruitcakes. Some of those biggest Holocaustianity tales have been outright fabrications by cunning and devious Jews looking to cash in on what has become a worldwide cult, spread by the likes of Oprah and MSM owned and controlled by filthy Jews. Jews say they wanna be regarded as ‘just like you and me’, but who is kidding whom? If anyone criticizes Jews like any other group, he would be labeled as an ‘antisemite’ or ‘crypto-Nazi’, and his career would be up in smoke. Indeed, many universities, organizations, and institutions--even ones not controlled by Jews--are afraid of hiring anyone who might displease Jews. Today, one doesn’t get very far in political, social, cultural, or political fields if one harbors views critical gays, blacks, and especially Jews. The main reason for the current state of affairs, at least in the United States, is the Jewish lock on nearly all the power centers and financial sectors. Jews decide who is good and who is evil, who gets funded and who gets defunded--and if Jews can help it, the internet in America will be controlled and censored by the(Jewish-controlled)state just as in China. The truth is Jews pretend to be good egalitarians who are ‘just like you or me’ or ‘wanna be just like you and me’, but in fact, their pride and power are based on a strong conviction--tribal and private--that they are better or more special than other peoples.
Secular Jews may not believe they are the Chosen of God, but they see themselves as the Chosen of History(which they now control as their Bible; notice how the history of goyim--white, Arab, black, Asian, Hispanic, etc--have largely been written by Jews from a Judeo-centric perspective or funded/approved by Jews even when written by non-Jews). Of course, part of the problem is the cult of ignorance, laziness, and stupidity on the part of goyim, especially among conservatives of all stripes. Conservatives, for the most part, are loathe to engage in critique, but modern history isn’t only about remembering the ‘official’ past but revisiting events, trends, and key figures to shed new light and gain deeper understanding. Such intellectual will and passion seem lacking in most Latin American nations, Arab nations, Asian nations, and even among most white nations, with the exception of France. Western gentiles have become so apologetic and ashamed of their own histories that they seem inclined toward only two modes: digging up past ancestors to spit on them and smash their bones OR bury the past so as to suppress, conceal, and forget white evil(which may explain American conservative penchant for ahistoricalism, e.g. Evangelicalism with its timeless emphasis on Jesus as beer buddy, OR for futurism and its fanatasies of a brave new world maximizing freedom and happiness for everyone brought to you by the engines of capitalism at full throttle). Jews, on the other hand, have powerful reasons to study, remember, and remold history. Other than the fact of higher intelligence and intellectual curiosity among Jews, history for Jews is the moral advantageous discovery/recovery of Jewish nobility, victimization, martyrdom, sainthood, suffering, and survival under the iron boots of evil antisemites through the ages.
The irony is that Jewish sainthood has been made possible by the noble conscience of a religion, namely Christianity, that came to be associated with the longest suffering of the Jews. Most non-Christian cultures and civilizations didn’t associate defeat-and-victimization with nobility, and fewer yet burdened the victorious with moral shame and guilt. This isn’t to say victim-narrative was invented by Christianity but only that it was reformulated and revolutionized by Christianity with radical implications. Prior to Christianity, victim-narrative was essentially a revenge-narrative. If another people beat your people, the nobility was not in the suffering or victimization. The nobility was in the dream of revenge. So, ancient Hebrews sought vengeance against people who crushed them, Greeks sought revenge against Persians who’d threatened and conquered parts of Greek lands, and Russian pagans sought to throw off the yoke of Mongol rule. Muslims highlight their suffering and victimization to prepare for revenge. The pride and joy are not in the suffering per se but in the will, courage, and power to make the other side suffer many times worse than your side. The ideal of Christianity radically altered the moral dynamics of suffering. Vengeance belonged to the Lord, God Himself. For man, suffering itself was good and noble. Being victimized and accepting the role of victim was spiritually ennobling. Vengeful rage and hatred are, ideally at least, taboos in Christian morality.
Perversely enough, even as Jews continue to reject Christianity, it is their cunning exploitation of Christian mentality that perpetuates their status as eternal noble victims. For much of Jewish history(especially prior to the coming of Christianity), Jews didn’t think or feel this way. They were a vengeful people, just as their God was a vengeful God. Jews hoped that their Messiah would arrive and totally destroy everyone who gave Jews a hard time. This Messiah was to be a Warrior-Prophet-Angel, the Jewish Terminator.
But, especially with the secularization of their community, it must have dawned on Jews that their Messiah wasn’t going to arrive. If there is a modern Jewish Messiah narrative, it is the arrival of Jews in America. After all, the exodus-immigration to America has become the source of Jewish power, which is now surely the greatest power the world has ever seen. The great Jewish media controllers, Wall Street tycoons, Hollywood moguls, Silicon Valley giants, top lawyers, and political operatives are something immeasurably more than ‘fellow Americans’, ‘successful businessmen’, or ‘public servants’. They rule over us almost as a race of god-men. Jews no longer a need a Messiah to save them since they themselves have become the secular messiahs of Jewish power, supremacy, and revenge. To be sure, there was an alternate-messiah narrative in modern Jewish history that took root in Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution inspired by the prophecy of Karl Marx the radical Jew, but it failed and Jews eventually lost the power. One thing Jews learned from the Russian experience is they cannot win in the long run with brute force(unless they comprise the majority, as they do in the Israel-Palestinian territories). In nations where Jews the minority, the strategy of brutal ruthlessness can, in time, be adopted by non-Jews and used against Jews. It doesn’t take too much brains or cunning to be brutal and ruthless. Though Jewish communists rapidly gained power through the whip, it soon dawned on non-Jews that they too could wield the whip, first against enemies of communism and Russia, and then against Jews(at the behest of Stalin, who grew suspicious of Jews). For Jews to remain in power, the rationale and tools of their power must be something that only they can create, understand, control, and manipulate. The state bureaucracy, police, military, and labor camps can pretty much be managed and operated by anyone with a modicum of intelligence. After all, Irish-Americans ably controlled and ran many big city governments. And even brutish Negroes can do pretty well in the military. Since communism didn’t allow free enterprise and emphasized equality, Jews could not use their talents to maximum potential and gain supremacy over the populace. Even so, Soviet Jews stood out sufficiently--gaining disproportionate positions in prestigious institutions and centers--to be resented and envied by non-Jews. And despite communism’s emphasis on universalism, Soviet Jews tended to favor one another, just as communists of other ethnic backgrounds tended to favor their own, which explains why the various republics of the Soviet Union never really came together as one big happy workers’ paradise. In order for Jews to gain supremacy, they need lots of freedom to create a world of their own, a world that isn’t explicitly but implicitly Jewish. Since Jews are the smartest, a world created for the smartest, cleverest, most brilliant, and most original minds will not only be largely Jewish but irreplaceably Jewish. If you replace Jews in a local bureaucracy with less intelligent non-Jews, things will function more or less as before(unless the new employees are crazy Negroes) since it doesn’t take a lot of brains to shuffle paper in government offices. But if you remove the top Jews in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and academia(especially in hard sciences, math, and medicine), and replace them with less intelligent non-Jews, things ain’t gonna be the same. Look what happened to German physics after Jewish scientists were exiled to other countries. It’s like if you replace all the Negroes in the NBA with non-blacks, it’s not gonna much of a league.
Even when Jews, filled with hubris, act reckless and make a mess of things--as they did with Wall Street recently--, the financial instruments created by Jews are so intricate, complex, and mind-boggling that Jews are the only people who can understand what went wrong and fix the problem(though, for all we know, they are most certainly rigging it to their favor even more). It’s like the specialist-doctor knows everything whereas the layman-patient knows nothing. So, even when it’s the doctor’s fault, only he can fix the problem. We now live in a globalist New World Order of hyper-finance, hyper-technology, hyper-trade, and hyper-rules-and-regulations--mostly created by Jews exercising ultra-freedom in the West--where most of us have no idea as to how and why things work the way they do. As most things are above our heads--even the heads of reasonably smart people--, we have no choice but to trust our future in the hands of the super-elite(made up mostly of super-smart Jews). Jews in Soviet Russia knew they were not indispensable. Though the Soviet system was elaborate and complicated, the ideas and principles governing it weren’t very sophisticated or smart. Something as thick-skulled as a command economy could be managed even by not-so-smarties. Government gave orders to produce this or that, and various sectors simply tried to comply; they did so in a dysfunctional manner but without a free media to call foul, what did it matter? Soviet economy was mostly all muscle and no brains. It was the state driving the people like cattle. It survived as long as it did despite great inefficiencies due to the vast natural resources of the USSR. Working inefficiently and wastefully in a nation blessed with abundant natural resources is something lots of people can do.
Capitalism, on the other hand, seeks to allocate capital, goods, and services in ways that are most efficient, cost-effective, productive, innovative, and competitive. A Soviet-style restaurant couldn’t survive in the US with great number of restaurants offering better food at lower cost. Indeed, even McDonalds items would be gourmet by the standards of most communist restaurants. Negroes are badly off in many American communities because many of them are simply no good at effective, efficient, competitive, disciplined, and orderly behavior that creates and manages enterprises producing goods and providing services. Not only are Negroes lower in intelligence, but they’re higher in jive-ass aggression, which is why so many businesses in black neighborhoods close shop or burn down. A Negro is a creature who’d rather steal and rob than produce or pay for things. Evolution in the African wild made them that way. They see the world in terms of the hunter and the hunted.
American Jews, in contrast, are by far the richest, most influential, and most powerful people that ever lived. Jews are not only industrious, disciplined, focused, and ambitious--like Germans and Chinese--, but wily, original, and highly intelligent, which enables Jews to calculate risks and rewards faster than any other people, which is why even goy-owned businesses often rely on Jewish brains to set up the systems, networks, and operations. The Jewish duality of ultra-individualism and tribalism also work in their favor. So many famous Jews--Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg, Alan Dershowitz, Sergei Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Aaron Sorkin, Larry David, Barbra Streisand, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Philip Roth, Harold Bloom, Howard Stern, Norman Finkelstein, Pauline Kael, Ayn Rand, David Mamet, Paul Newman, Bob Dylan, David Cronenberg, Philip Glass, Ira Glass, etc--are known for their strong and indeed genuine individuality, but they all share, on some level despite mutual hostilities, a strong sense of Jewishness(which today tends to be political, nationalist, historical, cultural, and/or existential than religious). When Jews like George Soros say they have little sense of Jewishness(or when fools like Glenn Beck says Soros is a ‘self-loathing Jewish antisemite’), DON’T YOU BELIEVE IT! Some of the reasons for the persistence of Jewish Identity is defensive, some are offensive. Defensiveness could be political or psychological. Politically, Jews really do feel threatened by the goy white majority(or goy Palestinian minority in Israel)due to the still fresh memories of past events. Psychologically, Jews may feel defensive because they feel themselves to be uglier and/or weaker than goyim; a bunch of ugly Jewish geeks may prefer the company of one another, safe from the world of big strong healthy and hale goyim whose very presence makes Jews feel inadequate and inferior. But Jewish Identity also has its offensive aspect, historically and spiritually owing to the notion that the Jews are a special/superior people chosen by the supposedly one and only God among all the races of the world. This has been the source of Jewish spiritual-supremacism. In the modern era, it wasn’t long before it dawned on Jews that they are many times smarter than most goyim. Jews, with their naturally pushy and nasty personality, began to delight sadistically in belittling, insulting, mocking, trashing, taunting, and laughing at stupid dumb goyim. Heinrich Heine’s contempt for Germanness owed something to his personal view that German people needed the crutch of iron discipline, conformism, social order, and militarism because most Germans were to dumb to think and act as free individuals; they were mostly cattle to be herded one way or another. (Ironically, Hitler and the Nazis, who claimed to raise Germans to their full greatness and human-hood, turned them into mindless cattle marching toward slaughter. And Mao, who said the ‘Chinese people finally stood up’, used them as cattle, in effect treating them worse than Western imperialists had before the ‘liberation’ of China under communism.) Though SOCIAL NETWORK is a bullshit movie, it does get one thing right, which is the unrelenting and insufferable arrogance and nastiness of Jews, as evinced in the fictionalized character of Zuckerburg. Sometimes, this nastiness is out in the open, especially among chutzpah-stic Jews who just can’t hold it in. When chutzpah-stic Jews hold in their true nature and pretend to be ‘nice’--like that scum asshole David Remnick--, you can sense their true desire to spit in your eye and laugh in your dimwit goy face. Or, if you’re an highly talented goy with an intelligence to match or surpass that of the Jew, the Jew will try to own you by giving you the VIP treatment ON CONDITION that you suck up to Jewish power; if you dare to challenge Jewish power, the entire Jewish community will unite to pound you into the ground.
The relationship between white gentiles and Jews makes for an inverted universe fraught with all manner of prickly problems. Many Jews look and often act clownish. Clownishness is something to hold in laughing contempt. Consider the pathetic clown in Ingmar Bergman’s SAWDUST AND TINSEL. Clowns are supposed to be stupid, dumb, ridiculous. They make us feel naturally superior; indeed, even the dumbest amongst us feel superior to clowns; even children laugh and look down on clowns. And the whole idea is we laugh AT THE EXPENSE of clowns. But, there’s a kind of inverse relation in Jewish comedy, where the Jewish clown mocks and laughs at the straight goy character, denuding him of his dignity, nobility, superiority, and worthiness, all of which are exposed as hypocrisies and conceits.
Before REVENGE OF THE NERDS, there was the Revenge of the Clowns in the movies of the Marx Brothers among others. (Interesting that Marxbrotherism proved more effective than Marxism in destroying goy power.) In Marx Brothers movies, all the figures of goy authority, though taller and better-looking than Groucho, Harpo, and Chico, are grist for the Jewish mill. Jewish clowns run circles around the straight goyim who never have a grasp of what’s being done to them. The Jewish clowns are too fast, witty, and slippery. Even when the Marx Brothers seemingly act stupid and dumb, they are actually pulling off some brilliant trick at the expense of goyim. So, even though we think we are laughing at the Jewish clowns, we are actually laughing with the Jewish clowns who are making a mockery of straight goyim, and since the goyim are us, we are, in effect, being made to laugh at ourselves. There’s a famous scene in NIGHT AT THE OPERA where the Marx Brothers drive a big fat goy cop crazy by literally running circles around him. The cop thinks he’s chasing after the clowns, but he is in effect being dragged by the nose and nailed in the ass. When a white goy laughs at a Mexican clown, he feels superior to a self-debasing inferior and pathetic creature deserving of mockery. But when a white goy is confronted with a Jewish clown, the joke is really on him. The Jewish clown has reversed the dynamic; the clown is laughing at the straight goy who’s outwitted and denuded at every turn by Jewish wit, venom, and trickery. (The Jewish clown is different from the Holy Fool or the Shakespearean jester with special insights--or Sancho character of DON QUIXOTE. The Jewish clown is a laughing version of Shylock with an hidden agenda to destroy the goyim.) To be sure, the clown getting the upper-hand against the superior is nothing new. We naturally sympathize with the underdog, which clowns or clownish characters often play. But the level of venom and contempt in Jewish comedy is extraordinary, for it’s not enough that the Jew get the last laugh. He must, Shylock-like, vengefully reduce the goy to nothingness. Shylock demanded nothing less than the heart, and the Jewish clown demands nothing less than the castrated balls of white males and the pornified pussies of white females. This is something instinctively sensed by many goyim and one of the reasons for the phenomenon called ‘antisemitism’. Though antisemitism can get out-of-control in extreme personalities like Hitler, it is a natural reaction to the putrid ugliness and contempt of so much of Jewish culture and attitude. It is made all the more offensive by the fact ugly Jewish behavior matches their ugly features. Though there are plenty of attractive and even beautiful Jewish people, the ugly ones are really really ugly, and it’s the ugly ones who generally gravitate towards arts, ideas, and culture. Good-looking Jews tend to be better adjusted and less vicious, even though many of them are also plenty vicious and nasty--just consider that foul bitch Natalie Portman, a good-looking Jewess but as disgusting as the vile members of her tribe. Because of their high intelligence, ugly Jews tend to be more sensitive and neurotic about their ugliness. If an ugly goy just accepts his or her ugliness and gets on with life, an ugly Jew looks for intellectual or moral reasons to blame society, history, goyim, or whatever for his or her ugliness. Ugly Jewish feminists will even say ‘beauty is just a myth’ to shame the more attractive goyesses. If beauty is just a social construct, then the superiority of European beauty over Jewish looks have no basis in fact. Not surprisingly, Jews also insist that ‘race is just a myth or social construct’ to undermine and prevent any unified identity among white goyim. If both white race and white beauty are myths, then white people have much less to be proud of. It also means that to the extent that the Nazis waged world war in the name of race and beauty, there is no greater evil delusion than white pride and white beauty. (The insanity of Nazism is proof that even valid ideas and values can be perverted by radicals to bring forth hell on earth, providing radicals on the other side with a golden opportunity to discredit the ideas and values in their entirety, i.e. throw the baby out with the bathwater. But if the monstrous failures of communism didn’t discredit every facet of socialism, there is no reason to believe Nazism discredited everything pertaining to race-ism and bio-aesthetics.) Or hideously ugly Jewesses will downgrade and degrade good-looking goy women as ‘bimbos’ or slaves of men. Or, Woody Allen will pretend that the cause of his neurosis is anything but his own nauseating ugliness. Jews have essentially been scapegoating the entire world for their own ugliness, vileness, and hideousness, and this goes for political and economic matters as well as physical ones. Why is American foreign policy messed up? Because it’s mostly been run by liberal Zionists and Neocons in the interests of the international Jewish agenda, but Jews blame everyone and everything but themselves. Jews did more than anyone else to bring down the economic system during and following the dot.com bubble yrs, but Jews blame everyone but themselves. Even when Wall Street and Washington are blamed, there’s hardly any discussion of Jewish control of those institutions.
Jews have many fine qualities, but nobility, dignity, or responsibility is not a part of them, which is why, even with their great power in the US and the world, Jews refuse to accept any responsibility or accountability for things they’ve done. The Wasp elite in America had many flaws, but it did try to live up to the ideal of being accountable to their power. But dirty cunning Jews are now many times more powerful than wasps ever were but carry on like they’re helpless ghetto Jews being hunted down by Nazis. Jews have the thousand times the power of Palestinians, but the Zionist-controlled media would have us believe that Jews are living under mortal threat from the very people they oppress and treat like dirt. Though Jews run all the Ivy League schools and dominate most of the elite institutions and centers in America, movies like SOCIAL NETWORK and ACCEPTED will have you believe that weakling/geekling Jews are still being belittled, mocked, and dragged through the mud by big, tall, handsome, empty-headed, and ‘popular’ Aryans. No people in history have been so full of both power-lust and self-pity, so capable of unearthing/exposing hidden truths and so given to spinning lies and bullshit. (It seems Hitler’s popularity didn’t merely rest on his antisemitism but his ability to out-Jew the Jew. Just as many ‘nigger-hating’ whites embraced Elvis because he could ‘out-nigger the nigger’, many Germans found Hitler’s Jew-esque qualities appealing because such were needed to do to the Jew what the Jew were doing to the Germans. Hitler was a liar, a cheat, a mad clown, and a conman, but he used those dirty tricks to get back at and hurt the Jew--at least before he went too far. To an extent, the German hatred for Jews and white hatred for Negroes had something to do with their envy of Jew and Negroes. Though many Germans found Jews--at least ones from Eastern Europe--quite loathsome, they were also fascinated and envious of Jewish cunning, brilliance, originality, and bold two-facedness; unlike Germans who generally stuck to their duties or stations in life, Jews seem willing to do or pull just about anything to rise in the world; Germans envied Jewish chutzpah and ingenuity, their unmoored freedom. And though many white American males found Negroes gross and animal-like, the badass hipster mofo image of blacks also had a certain macho appeal. So, Germans wanted the power to out-Jew the Jew, and white American males wanted the prowess to out-nigger the nigger. Though it’s often been commented that Hitler didn’t look, sound, nor act like the Ideal Aryan but came across as a vile sewage rat, that very facet was the secret to his appeal. The Noble Ideal Aryan could not defeat the Jew since the Jew was dirty and played dirty. The Noble Ideal Aryan would only get muddied and infected with rabies by wrestling and grappling with the slimy diseased Jew; only Hitler could take on the dirty stinking Jew to save the Noble Ideal Aryan since he’d risen from the sewage himself and had grown immune to the filth of the Jew. Similarly, Elvis Presley was popular with white males--despite the initial defamation of him as a ‘white nigger’--because he could out-nigger the nigger, which meant a white guy could outdo the ‘nigger’ in ‘niggerishness’ sexually so appealing to womenfolk. With Elvis as the King of Rock n Roll, it meant white women would be masturbating to his music than to the music of some hip-shaking groin-pumping ‘nigger’, and indeed one could argue that the template set by Elvis did stave off jungle-fever-ism for at least another thirty years: though blacks were gaining in pop music and sports, the rise of the great white rock star meant that most white women looked to white stars as main sexual studs and heroes. Things all changed with the rise of hip-hop, which couldn’t be copped by whites as easily as rock n roll had been, thereby leading to a whole generation of white girls growing up thinking of Negroes as their main/ideal sexual stud-heroes.)
In our Inverted Order, funny-looking, funny-talking, and funny-acting Jewish clowns have become the ringmasters of the circus that is today’s America. But no matter how much wealth, influence, and power they’ve amassed, the culture of Jewish resentment and revenge carries on because there’s a certain insecurity and self-loathing in being a clown. When a Jew that looks and acts like Woody Allen makes a lot of money or gains tremendous power, at the end of the day he still stares into the mirror and sees a funny-looking Jew, which fills him with anger and envy. And in the lust of Jewish men for the blonde bimbo goddess and in the envy among Jewish women of the prettier shikse is the unquenchable murderous desire to both possess and destroy the nobler and higher qualities of the white race, which explains why both Jewish men and Jewish women now support both rap music and porn since the interracism inherent in both promotes the Negro male’s taking of white female(while the white male has been reduced to a secondary status as metrosexualized pussyboy).
Indeed, the Inverted Order of things accounts for the meeting of the souls between Jews and Negroes. Muhammad Ali and Marx Brothers have something in common as clown subversives/thugs who turned everything upside down in the white goy order. If Marx Brothers were the all-too-clever Jewish clowns who pulled down the pants of the white goyboy and dickslapped the white goy-girl with their cunning trickery and antics, Muhammad Ali was the black-ape-clown who reduced white proud white man into a pathetic sack of lard. To be sure, there were many great black boxers before Ali, most notable among them being Jack Johnson who destroyed a whole bunch of white guys and Joe Louis who avenged his first loss to the ‘Aryan’ Max Schmeling by pummeling him into oblivion in the first round of the rematch. But Johnson, in his washed-out state, was finally defeated by a Great White Hope and, for a time, pretty much brushed out of history, not least because white champions like Jack Dempsey refused to fight black boxers. When Joe Louis was finally given a chance, he too destroyed a whole bunch of white guys, but Joe Louis put on a dignified Nice Negro act, so it didn’t hurt white pride as badly as in the day of Jack Johnson. Also, in his washed out state, he was defeated by the white Rocky Marciano, so whites could again make-believe that the white man is the greatest. But the Ali phenomenon took on a whole new shading, not least because of the great social, cultural, and political changes in the 60s. Also, unlike Joe Louis or Floyd Patterson, Ali didn’t care for nor put on the Nice Negro act. He acted like a African monkey ape jiveass clown motherfuc*er. Though it was painful for whites to lose to guys like Joe Louis and Patterson, at least the ‘dignity’ of the ring--as devised by Western culture--had been maintained. Though black, Louis and Patterson respected and adhered to white standards, at least publicly, and so even their victory didn’t mean necessarily mean the victory of the ‘nigger’ ape clown over white civilization. But Ali was different. He was very much a loud, brash, jive-talking, ugabuga, bugaboo, punkass, and shameless mofo ‘nigger’. He had no use for sportsmanship nor any respect for the dignity of the sport of boxing. Boxing for him meant ass-whupping, dancing like a jungle ‘nigger’, gloating and showing off, taunting his opponents, and etc. Of course, plenty of fighters, white and black, had been boorish thugs long before Ali, but most of them still respected some modicum of what came to be defined as Western sportsmanship based on the ideals of chivalry and gentleman-liness. This became especially important when blacks won because black victory over the white man naturally offended the sensibility of proud white males. The unspoken bargain was, ‘blacks could beat up whites in the ring but could not gloat about it.’ Whites, having lost the fight, tried to maintain a modicum of superiority through higher rules of conduct. This way, even though Joe Louis was the champion, he could be seen as a ‘credit to his race’, a ‘house nigger’, someone culturally owned by whites.
Blacks could win but still had to ‘play by the rules’ in and out of the ring. He could win as a respectable Nice Negro but not as a wildass ‘nigger’. Ali not only won as a wildass ‘nigger’ but played the punkass clown. This was doubly humiliating for whites since they were not only beaten by a vicious ‘nigger’ but by a monkeyass mofo who made fun of their pitiful whuppings at his hands. Of course, most of Ali’s greatest fights were against other black fighters, but even this fact was humiliating for whites since some of Ali’s black opponents fit the bill of the Nice Negro. Since whites couldn’t beat him, whites hoped that a Nice Negro(a ‘house nigger’)would kick his wild ‘nigger’(dancing-and-taunting-and-burning-down-the-field-‘nigger’)ass. Though Frazier and Norton did each defeat Ali once, Ali kept on coming back and winning, and by the 1970s, he had become the template of the New Great American Hero.
What’s of interest to us is the Inversion of Values and Ideals that took place as a result and how it was similar to what happened between Wasps and Jews. Though Wasps appeared more naturally dignified and noble as leaders of men while the Jews looked funnier and more clownish(more suited for serving, pleasing, and following), the end-result was that the smarter, more cunning and ruthless Jews gained power over the Wasps who, in time, became the second-class elites servilely sucking up to Jews; Wasps are now Barbie and Ken dolls for Jews to toy with. (Even so, Jews must have understood that the Wasp look and style are more suited for leadership--at least in terms of image--, which explains why Jews often funded, recruited, hired, and used pretty boy Wasp goys--and girls, in the case of Sarah Palin--to do their errands. With interracist black charisma becoming the hot thing--largely because of Jewish control of MSM--, Jews are now using the likes of Obama as the mask to conceal their power and to push their agenda. And recall that a clever leftist Jew wrote the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech to be delivered by a bellowing Negro with a soulful voice.) If upright, dignified, and proud Wasp ringleaders came to be outwitted and outmaneuvered by witty and devious Jewish clowns who became the new overlords and masters, then something quite similar happened between whites and blacks in the fields of sports, popular culture, and sex. If the original Western Ideal was for the proud, dignified, upright, and near-invincible white man to subjugate and tame the wild savage ‘nigger’(who be learned to ho-de-do before the white massuh who done raise him from jungle savagery to bit of civilization) and to retain/win the respect of his white woman who’d admire him as the greatest and manliest of all men and spread her legs for his masterful cock to plant seeds inside her to produce a new generation of the superior race--in strength, beauty, temperament, and demeanor--, such ideal was dashed and trashed by the likes of Muhammad Ali who not only handily beat the living daylights of white guys but danced over their pitifully limp bodies like some jungle warrior. It was the Revenge of the ‘Nigger’ Savage, and it made the penis of white males shrivel into something like a clitoris, which may explain why so many SWPL males today almost act like girls when they wet their pants in Obama worship. It was bad enough that a white man had to lose to a Negro but immeasurably worse when that Negro was a wildass clown ‘nigger’ who not only beat the white guy but toyed with him, as if the pitifully slow white boy had no right to even be in the same ring. It wasn’t just a case of a Noble White Man losing to a Nice Negro but losing to a ‘Nigger’ Clown Ape. This must have doubly driven white males crazy in the 60s cuz all the while the likes of Muhammad Ali was kicking and taunting white ass(and acting aggressive and militant), the other famous Negro, Michael King(aka Martin Luther King)was preaching the sermon of peace, harmony, love, and anti-violence(though in private King was no better than Ali or Al Sharpton). One black guy was celebrating the fact that he was kicking the asses of white boys and Uncle Tom Nice Negro boxers while another black guy, King, was assuring white folks that black folks only wanted peace and brotherhood. (Indeed, this accounts for the neurosis at the core of white liberalism. On the one hand, it worships King as the new messiah of peace, but on the other hand, it glorifies Muhammad Ali as the great warrior of black power. Are white people supposed to seek peace with Negroes--message of King--or submit to Negro supremacy--the message of Ali? To be sure, the element of Negro supremacy is also implicit in the style of King who bellowed in his charismatic soulful voice, which seemed not so much to say that all races were equal but that the black race/soul was more moral and spiritual--closer to God--than the cold limp white soul.)
The main focus of eXistenZ is the neurotic zone of friction where Jewish consciousness rubs against white goy consciousness. It explores how the two realities have become, in the modern world, one and the same while also remaining apart--hostile and distrusting of the other, even if at the subconscious level. Since Jews and goyim are both human, they share fundamental similarities in their psychic dynamics, but there are differences too, which though seemingly slight in general terms, can take on profound tangential differences within particular psycho-social dimensions. It’s like we all understand the basic principles of numbers--adding, subtracting, dividing, etc--, but things get really strange in the advanced world of calculus and higher math. The higher realms of math--and science, technology, psychology, philosophy, art, and intellectualism--are not accessible to all. These are realms into which Jews disproportionately have access-keys while most goyim don’t. For example, Jews understand advanced algorithms which make stuff like Google and Facebook possible whereas most goyim do not. Most goyim can only consume and use those stuff, like dogs don’t know how to make canned dog food but only how to eat them. Both Jews and goyim are linked in the modern world because Jews create the stuff that shape and determine modernity, in which all of us take part. But Jews control the strings in the puppet play while we dummies sit as audiences and stare at the magic like children. Hollywood Jews create the dreams and we live in them. Look at Oprah and her audiences. Oprah plays god and toys with her audience, but as rich and ‘powerful’ as she is, she too is a property and puppet of Jews.
Part of the Jewish/goy friction can be found in the tensions between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Now, physicists will say that Einstein’s discoveries were merely an extension of the implications of Newton’s theories than a refutation, and this is probably true since I don’t know much about physics beyond what I saw on Carl Sagan’s COSMOS and some NOVA specials. But from a Cultural point of view, there is the assumption that Einstein didn’t merely change the way we look at time and space but cultures, society, history, and psychology. The theory of relativity has been applied to just about every discipline. Also, the concept of ‘relativity’ has become synonymous with Jewishness. Scientifically--in the world of math and physics--, none of this should make any difference since many of Einstein’s theories have been proven to be correct. But politics cannot be divorced from culture, and it is here, in the realms of psychology and power politics, that relativity and Jewishness have special meanings.
How do we define and distinguish Jewishness vis-a-vis white gentileness? We associate Jewishness with curvature--nose, hair, lips, weasel-ishness, deviousness. Klezmer music is very curvy. And Yiddish is funny-sounding, bouncy and moist, sticky and icky. A common Jewish expression is ‘oy’. There is also the image of the hunched-over Jew--like Marty Feldman--, always concealing something, always looking to evaluate the value of something to his own advantage. Jews are creatures of the shadows, middlemen between the light and darkness. In contrast, we associate white gentiles with straightness, earnestness, solidity, hardness, clear angles, lightness(rationality) or darkness(spirituality), etc. Gentiles prefer clear borderlines between concepts, values, and peoples. Jews, or at least modern Jews, prefer porous boundaries between ideas, values, and peoples because their power and advantages come from the space between things through which they can squeeze through with their curvy nature.
In a way, though Jews wrote the Old Testament, the first man and woman in the Bible--Adam and Eve--are not Jewishy. They are gentile-like in their earnest devotion to God. The first truly Jewishy character in the Bible is the serpent, a curvy flexible creature who comes between man and God and between man and woman. The serpent divides Eve from Adam and then convinces Eve to eat the fruit, and then Eve, having been won over by the Serpent, convinces Adam to do likewise. This complicates matters, and it leads to the destruction of the Garden of Eden. Though the Serpent is made out to be the bad guy, it could be said that the Serpent is the first truly Jewishy character in the Old Testament. It is the Jewishy force that brings about the end of the perfect union and order of the goyish world of Adam and Eve. Though the ancestry of Abraham, the first Jew, is traced back to Adam and Eve, he is as much the spiritual descendant of the Serpent. God tells Abraham that Jews will be a great people living amongst non-Jews to gain great power and wealth. In other words, just as the Serpent came into the world of Adam and Eve(and came between Adam and Eve and between Adam/Eve and God), Jews shall go among--and ‘between’--goy populations and use Jewish cunning and smarts to gain wealth from them and power over them. Just as the Serpent enchanted and seduced Eve and Adam with the promise of special pleasure and knowledge and then gained control over their souls, Jews are to play this Serpent-like role among goyim by seducing, enchanting, and addicting them to the skills, wares, goods, services, and ideas of Jews. The modern Jew has been depicted as an octopus. What is an octopus but a fluid, moist, and flexible creature with eight serpentine/sucking tentacles? In America, Jewish tentacles or snaky contours have permeated every level of American ideas, values, images, and sounds. The corridors of American finance, music, movies, books, politics, psychology, medicine, science, technology, and law are crawling with the hissing and slithering power of the Jew. In eXistenZ, the Jew has gained direct access into the minds of goyim through videogame technology where consciousness is downloaded/uploaded. It is a great power and control mechanism marketed as fun-and-games to the masses of goyim who are too stupid to understand the full implications of the applications.
Of course, there is a friction and contradiction within Judaism and Jewishness itself. Though God essentially tells Abraham that his people shall move around the world like devious and cunning serpents and gain an advantage over goyim, He also expects the Jews to be good loyal servants to Him--as Adam and Eve were supposed to be but failed. It’s the Serpent/Servant Complex at the core of Judaism. Jews are supposed to thrive as serpents among goyim but survive as servants of the one and only God. Jews are supposed to be devious snakes among fellow men--or at least among goyim--, but they are supposed to be earnest true-believers before God. In the modern world, no people worship the altar of justice and equality more than Jews do, but no people are as cunning, devious, dishonest, exploitative, and low-down as the Jews. Just as ancient Jews worshiped God as theology but acted the serpent in reality, modern Jews uphold universal justice and equality as theory but act the weasel in reality.
Anyway, though in the field of hard science Einstein’s theories were an extension of Newtonianism, in the field of culture Jewish relativity was seen as an affront to goy clarity and fixedness. To goyim, the Jewish challenge sounded like Bob Dylan’s prophecy in IT’S ALL OVER NOW BABY BLUE where the ground is ‘shifting under you’. Nothing is for certain, there is no fixed point, there is no center, no true hierarchy; everything is in a state of flux. What is up could be down, what is down could be up--psychologically, morally, socially, culturally, politically. To be sure, one could argue Jews were not the pioneers of this but instead came to be its main practitioners. After all, it wasn’t Jews who set sail to discover and circumnavigate the world. It wasn’t Jews who busted the Chinese national ego bubble as the Middle Kingdom, supposedly the center of the cosmos. Nietzsche wasn’t Jewish, to be sure, he was a great admirer of certain facets of Jewishness. Before Jews pricked the Western bubble, the West had already pricked the bubble of cultural certainty among non-Westerners and among themselves. So, what Jews eventually did to the West was akin to what the West had pioneered doing to non-Westerners. It could also be said that long before the theory of relativity, goy scientists like Galileo and Copernicus had pointed out that Earth was not at the center of the universe, and that Earth revolved around the Sun than otherwise. Even so, the laws of nature seemed more accessible and clearly defined under stuff like Newtonianism than Einsteinianism.
In the modern world, antisemites couldn’t resist finding links between ‘Jewish science’ and Jewish reality. (If Darwin had been Jewish, his ideas might have been resisted much more by the goy community.) They argued that ‘Jewish science’ was just a perverted extension of Jewish neurosis, perversion, deviousness, and corrupt imagination. So, Einstein’s theories were to physics what abstract painting was to art. It was a degenerate depiction or distortion of reality to serve the Jew’s vain ego and to confuse the goy and corrupt his values. If this charge became meaningless in the realm of physics, especially with the validation of Einstein’s theories via experimentation, it could not be entirely dismissed in the world of philosophy, psychology, sociology, and culture, which are not clear-cut hard sciences. It is for this reason that we still hear white right-wing criticism of Jewish psychology--Freudianism--, Jewish values--cultural relativism--, Jewish art--cultural degeneracy, not least in online sites like OCCIDENTAL OBSERVER, which, sorry to say, is mostly a den of second-rate dimwits. And is it any wonder that the gay agenda is closely allied with Jewish power, and indeed some of the most influential and powerful gays are Jewish gays.
Einstein’s theories studied curvatures in space, even the possibility of black holes. As physics or hard science, it is what it is. But transplanted, metamorphosed, or metaphor-ized into the social/cultural realm, it begins to undermine and upset what we assume to be our stable views of reality, our eternal set of values. Sexually, the equivalent of the black hole is the anus, and this is where the Jewish support of homosexuality becomes relevant. For most of us, true sexuality is between man and woman, and real sexual organs are the penis and the vagina. This is our normal view of sexuality. But sexual relativity can make sex out to be different things, with no fixed or ‘normal’ sexual behavior or value system. Thus, the anus-as-sexual-organ becomes as culturally valid as the black hole is valid in the realm of physics. (Jews are also the main purveyors of interracism, which is also a form of sexual relativity since it suggests that a black penis has as much right--or even more right--as a white penis to enter the white poon.) In eXistenZ, the portal to the subconsciousness is located in the spine and shaped like a rectum. What’s the significance of this? It is an attack on the spine, the backbone, something we associate with uprightness, solidity, hardness. Jews, being serpentine(or octopus-mollusk-like), have more flexible mental structures whereas goyim(or white goyim)are defined by the stiff-upper-lip and tough backs. (Negroes also a pose a challenge to white goy backbone-ness for the Negro loves to do funky dances where their backbones and booties be shaking and bending in all sorts of unpredictable ways.) And what is implanted in the backbone of goyim in eXistenZ? A rectum or anus! In modern society, Jews have been trying to the break the white goy spine of normal/healthy values by promoting the gay agenda, the sick notion that buggery between two men is the biological and moral equivalent to real sexuality. Indeed, the scene when Ted Pikul(Jude Law) gets a portal installed is presented like having anal sex for the first time. In another scene, Pikul licks his tongue into the anus-portal of Allegra Geller(Jennifer Jason Leigh), a kind of a cyber-rimjob. It’s not something he wants to do but something he feels compelled to do inside the game world of eXistenZ created by some Jewish tech-wizard. The Jewish game genius not only installed an anus into the spine of Pikul but made him want to lick the rectum-portal of another player.
We are also shown a factory where game parts are made from the mutated organ parts of snake-like and amphibious creatures. It’s as if the bodies and souls of man and woman are being remade and reconfigured into something murky, unclear, and strange unto themselves. If the science of the goy was to understand things more clearly and to establish clearer boundaries between knowledge and ignorance, truth and falsehood, and to gain greater confidence in his control of self and the world, science of the Jew seems to foster greater uncertainty, doubt, confusion, and disturbance. It’s not that Jews favor darkness over light or willful ignorance over knowledge, but in their search for deeper knowledge(as opposed to the ‘higher’ knowledge of goyim), they delved into the undiscovered realms with ‘subversive’ truths with profound implications. Again, we must keep in mind that there wasn’t a clear-cut difference between ‘goy science’ and ‘Jewish science’. After all, Darwin was not Jewish, and neither was Heisenberg, an ‘Aryan’ scientist lionized by the Nazis. Also, if a German scientist had come up with the Theory of Relativity, he might have been endorsed by Nazis. Also, the fascination with the dark, disturbing, irrational, and mysterious had a place on the modern right, not least in the Romantic movement. Wagner’s music was dark and brooding, and both Hess and Himmler were obsessed with the occult. So, it would be misleading to overly generalize Jewish culture and attitudes--whether modern Jews were on the side of rationalism or irrationalism, light or darkness, spirituality or science. Jews were a special people because they navigated between both sets of realms. In one way, Jews were modern rationalists at war with traditional and irrational ‘superstitions’ of the goy Christian Order(as well as against the orthodoxy of Jewish elders), but in another way, Jews were deep thinkers or devious subversives setting out to demolish the rational, scientific, and moral frameworks of the goyim. Take a movie like THE ILLUSIONIST which, like eXistenZ, is essentially an expression of Jewish anxiety. In that movie, the Jewish-like figure(played by Edward Norton)uses ‘irrational’ magic to destroy a vicious woman-abusing aristocratic goy who’s an ardent defender of modern science. (According to the grand narrative of the Jews, white women should run away from their abusive white goy boyfriends or husbands and shack up with loving and considerate Jews or Negroes! Never mind that Negro men are the most violent in America and that Jews use and abuse white shikses as sex-toys in porn and as sex slaves in Israel. It’s part of the Jewish strategy to drive a sexual wedge between white men and white women. Also, via pro-gay agenda, the media have turned many white women into fag-hags who won’t date any white guy who opposes garbage like ‘gay marriage’. Jewish cunning and vileness know no bounds.) Notice how the Jew seeks to gain power over the goyim by controlling the means of Illusion, which also goes for the Dream Factory of Hollywood and Mass Media, which have cast a spell over us. And consider the control of Illusions via virtual reality in eXistenZ where the Jew toys with the minds of less intelligent goyim.
Jews are indeed a cunning lot. Sometimes, they pose as Prometheans giving us the gift of rational truth and justice and banishing darkness and ignorance from the world. Other times, they pose as agents of mystery, magic, and music who ‘liberate’ us from the repressed and repressive logical system of cold Western rationality. Jews promote science over superstition but also voodoo Negro funky music over the more orderly white forms of culture and expression. Jews claim to work for greater clarity and factuality in science, medicine, and technology but promote greater confusion, chaos, and disorder in the arts. Jews admonish us to be more rational and less irrational, but the Jewish idea of social/moral rationality is defined in terms of ‘gay marriage is rational and healthy’ and ‘opposition to gay marriage is irrational and phobic, or mentally sick’. Jewish rationality tells us that there is no such thing as race, that all people are equal, and that all hard evidence to the contrary is ‘irrational’. No wonder then that increasing numbers of people believe that Jews are acting in bad faith to fool and control dumb goyim. Jews, as avant-garde thinkers, push the envelope and seek deeper truths, but the implications of those truths are carefully controlled and monitored by Jews so as to discourage or penalize any ‘incorrect’ thought. So, on the one hand, Jews are for more studies into genetics and biology to know more about the human species but when discoveries lead to evidence of racial differences, we are kept in the dark about them--or only scientists are supposed to broach the topic via terminology too obscure for the masses. Jews fear that masses of dumb goyim are too dumb to handle the truth. After all, Darwinism begat Social Darwinism that later degenerated into something like Nazism. So, Jews worry about idiots misinterpreting newly discovered facts about race to construct new theories leading to virulent hatred and prejudice against Jews. But the bigger fear by Jews is that the new discoveries about race will be understood correctly, rationally, and responsibly by goyim, especially white goyim. If most white goyim understood racial differences rationally and truthfully, what would their conclusion be? Jews are smarter and Negroes are stronger. What would the rational implication of this be? Blacks are a dangerous race for integrating with, and white fears of blacks through the ages were entirely justified. And what would the responsible action be for dealing with the problems of black violence/thuggery and Jewish intellect/power? The best thing would be do drive out the Negroes from white lands and give them a world of their own. As for Jews, there should be quotas on the amount of law, finance, politics, culture, and media they can control. Does it make sense for white interest/survival to have Jews--mere 2% of the population--to control most of Wall Street and 90% of Big Media? This is what the Jews don’t want white goyim to find out. So, even as blacks dominate sports, whites are supposed to believe that all races are athletically equal. So, even as Jews dominate finance, government, law, and media, we are supposed to believe that Jews have no special power or natural advantage over us. (To be sure, fools at Castefootball and Occidental Observer unwittingly give credence to such lies because they explain black success in sports and Jewish success in business/media/law in terms of affirmative action and social networking. While blacks are beneficiaries of AA in many fields in life, sports is not one of them. And does anyone believe Jews, even with their social networking, would have the power they do if their average IQ was that of Mexicans?)
Though Einstein’s science was genuine science, was the nature of his curiosity and discovery due to his Jewishness and Jewish outlook? Are Jewish thoughts and emotions naturally more curvy, therefore more adept at searching around the contours of the mind, space, and time? I don’t know. Maybe not, but consider the development of music. White people were more likely to come up with something like classical music due to their natural emotions, and blacks were more likely to come up with funky music because due to their jivey and ugabuga nature. And Japanese music and American Indian music are probably more haya haya stiff because of certain Asiatic emotional attributes--a certain stiffness and rigidity(due to missing emotional-and-sensory lubricating genes). Human thought is colored, shaped, and guided by emotions and personalities. For example, even if Woody Allen and Robert Redford had the same IQ--let’s say 150--, they would feel and think differently. Allen, with his Jewish weasel-ish slipperiness, might see things differently than Redford, with his upright and uptight wasp-ish straightness, would be inclined to.
The thing that sticks out about Einstein wasn’t merely his high intelligence--after all, there were other geniuses in the world, ones even smarter than he--but his obsessions and neuroses. He wasn’t just interested in but obsessed with certain aspects of time and space. And even before he figured out math formulas to explain his theories, his inner-mind visualized and imagined the exploration of the curvatures of time and space, the speed of light and its effect on time and mass and all that. Though his science was true science, he may have been better able to gain certain insights because of his curvy-Jewish personality with a knack for things outside the purview of goy curiosities. Similarly, the greatness of Jazz owes to something other than mere musical talent, passion, or practice. Though Jazz is the product of both white and black contributions, the black element is crucial for it is the nature of the Negro to be improvisational and charismusical in a slickity-slack, flippity-flack, and yakkity-yak way. So, there is an element of ‘black music’ to Jazz, just like there is an element of ‘Jewish science’ to much of modern physics. To label something as ‘black music’ or ‘Jewish science’ in this context isn’t to ghetto-ize or devalue it but to give it special recognition as something discovered or created with the unique talents/skills/ability/insights of a certain people. This is also true of the meaning behind ‘Western Art’. Contrary to PC cliches, it couldn’t have been created by just any race since certain imaginative and visionary tendencies are more prevalent among European races who made Western Civilization possible. Even when the West took ideas from non-Western peoples, they were remolded and revitalized by Western personalities and eccentricities, just like blacks took elements of Western music and created their own ‘black music’. And what blacks did with Christianity is strikingly different that what Germans or Russians did. Why do white people look stupid and ridiculous when they try to sing and dance like black Christians? Because they don’t have natural rhythm and funky soul. Of courses, whites can appropriate elements of black music/expression and make them their own--like Van Morrison with his blend of Irish folk and black soul--, but racial differences exist, and it would be foolish for a white person to pretend he could be totally black or vice versa.
The ability/tendency to think and feel in a curved manner--or psycurvedly--may explain why Jews are good at things like chess and poker. Of course, the capacity for memory and the ability to think logically are paramount, but there could be an X-factor to Jewish genius. A great chess player not only has a great memory and the ability to see and interlink many moves--Newtonian thinking--but to navigate through the curved psychological terrain of chess. Just as Einstein explored the curvatures in dimensions of time and space, a great chess player may be able to understand the psychological curvatures of his opponents. In boxing, there’s a saying, ‘the style makes the fight’. In other words, it’s not only about speed, strength, and stamina--simple and straightforward factors--, but the ability to coordinate one’s advantages/disadvantages in a way as to confuse, befuddle, and defeat the opponent. Style, like a signature, is curved, organic, and psychological than merely physical and mechanical. One reason why Japanese martial arts like karate and kendo are limited is the over-emphasis on clean straight lines. As such, they’re no match for something like Thai Boxing which relies on flexibility and unpredictability. A boxer cannot simply rely on straight lines of attack since they’re predictable and easily anticipated by the opponent . He must develop the fighter’s equivalent of the curve ball. He must move in a style that makes his opponent feels out of rhythm, i.e. trapped in a Newtonian dimension where Einsteinian punches seem to come from nowhere in the hidden curvatures of time and space. This is why blacks are so good at boxing. Their bodies are not only more muscular and faster but more flexible, unpredictable, and oscillatory. Consider the fights between Sugar Ray Robinson and Jake LaMotta. Two tough guys to be sure. But LaMotta only knew how to move forward; he had a chin hard enough to take the blows, but he was a predictable fighter who just overwhelmed his opponents. Robinson, on the other hand, wasn’t only fast and tough but could move in infinite number of ways--forward, backward, sideways, and combinations thereof--, which is why in the six fights between the two men, Robinson won five while LaMotta won only one(and because Robinson had been weakened by a flu).
In one respect, boxing and poker have something in common. The art of the ‘tell’. Not being an expert in the field--my main experience with Poker comes from playing Texas Hold Em on Yahoo Games--I don’t know if the ‘tell’ works or whether it even exists. The first, last, and only time I heard of it was in David Mamet’s HOUSE OF GAMES. Anyway, the ‘tell’ is supposedly a psychological trick whereby one player astutely gains psychological advantage over his opponents by locating subtle signals that betray what their hidden anxieties. There is something like the ‘tell’ in boxing too. A great boxer, by instantaneously noticing the smallest signals, can instinctively tell if the opponent is about to throw a jab, a right across, an uppercut, or left hook. The footwork, the facial expression, or a certain vibe acts as the ‘tell’, signaling what to expect and how to counter-punch. And in both boxing and poker, the bluff is the other crucial factor. A boxer may fake with a right across, only to throw a left hook. Similarly, a card player may pretend to have a good or bad hand to trick other players.
Chess is of course a far more cerebral game than boxing, a contact sport, and poker, a game determined largely by chance. My experience with chess is limited--I joined the chess club in high school for one semester and got beaten by a whole bunch of Jews. It is my suspicion that Jews are brilliant at chess not only due to excellent memory and logical ability but the ability to psycurvedly map out the game. This may be why the top Jewish chess player in the world beaten Deep Blue, the highly advanced computer program. The computer has even greater ‘memory’ and can logically calculate more permutations of possible movements than any human. It can beat anyone except the top Jews. Why not? It could be that the great Jewish chess-masters can think psycurvedly while the computer, no matter how powerful and advanced, cannot. The Jew can ‘read’ the mind of the computer, but not vice versa.
Returning to the motif of the rectum(or maybe it should be called ‘erectum’ given the homo-eroticism), consider the significance and implications of its curvatures. Indeed, the rectum looks kinda like a warped hole in a two-dimensional representation of three dimensional space. Though conventionally we envision the brain/mind and the anus/rectum as being polar opposites on the human body(minus the limbs), Cronenberg presents a cyber-dimension where the pathway to the mind is the portal-anus(planted in the lower spine). At first glance, this looks perverse, but an examination of the human body reveals the connection of the mind via the spine to the lower areas of the body, which is why a broken spine leads to paralysis. Maybe there’s something to the term ANAL-YSIS, a notion toyed with Godard in WEEKEND.
It has often been the compunction of Jews to seek connections and relations among things that most people take to be opposites or separate entities. It was Einstein who proved that energy is a form of matter and vice versa. It was Kafka who saw the lowly insect in the man--a concept exploited by Cronenberg in his trashy remake of THE FLY--, and vice versa. So, maybe Cronenberg was onto something with his idea of the butt-head-connection in eXistenZ. And of course, it was Freud who explicitly connected the mind with the genitalia, an idea that was rather unsettling for a civilization that preferred to think of the mind as something rational and lofty and removed from forces of base animal drives and instincts. Freud, in contrast, argued that many of our ‘higher’ ideals, values, taboos, expressions, and symbols of higher civilization actually have origins in the basic sexual instinct and attained their sophisticated and complex forms by the multi-faceted repression of sexual energies. Kubrick pursued a similar idea in films such as DR. STRANGELOVE and EYES WIDE SHUT which probe and expose the links between the most ‘advanced’ manifestations of civilization--government, modern military, wealth and art--and the dark forces of primal/animal instincts--sexuality and territoriality. To be sure, there is a Jungian/spiritualist aspect to Kubrick’s films, especially in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, which imagined the possibility of man transcending his biological blueprint. Even so, consider the matching shot between the bone thrown into the air by an ape and the spaceship of the 21st century. In a way, it parallels the point Cronenberg is making about the connection between biology and technology. We tend to categorize biology and technology--life and machines--separately, but among the first tools used by higher animals may have been the bone. Archaeological sites have uncovered various uses of bones for the primitive man: hair comb, arrowhead, needle, scraping instrument, etc. Also, one could argue that life is essentially biological technology, i.e. life itself is an organic set of tools, an idea not lost on Cronenberg. Finger bones are machine-like. The backbone is architectural; consider giant whale bones at natural science museums. In many ways, our machines are extension of our biological tools; they’re bigger and more powerful hands for heavy lifting or smaller and more precise hands for fine-tuning. And consider how the drum is made with the stretched skin of animals, or how piano keys used to be made of ivory. Over the yrs, mankind found more synthetic, plastic, and inorganic means of creating technology, one far less reliant on the harvested materials of life, but there’s no getting around the fact that human civilization is a combination platter of animal and machine products. (Even in the future scenario of A.I. where Earth is virtually a lifeless planet inhabited by robots, the future beings have a longing to know their origins, the life forms, humans especially, who created the robots in the first place. The future beings, like the scientists in JURASSIC PARK with the dinosaurs, try to revive an extinct species, namely the humans. In the less gentle vision of James Cameron, the future robots of TERMINATOR movies try to make sure all humans are dead once and for all. TERMINATOR robots are like Nazis with the policy of total extermination. The future robots of A.I. are more like modern Jews; they obviously want to maintain control over everything, but they have an acute intellectual curiosity and a moral sense that, however manipulative, is genuine on some level.)
We often speak of the subconscious, not least because the human mind is the most complex, mysterious, and elusive phenomenon known to us. It is especially elusive because we can study the human mind only through the human mind; the subject is the object and vice versa. We cannot effectuate a clear division between the studier and the studied. This is one reason why philosophy has always found itself running in circles. It’s easier for the mind to study and learn something outside the mind that something inside the mind, which is of course the mind itself. Psychologists understandably prefer to study the minds of OTHER people through psycho-analysis and/or computer-imaging. Even so, when we try to piece all the findings together into one unified theory of the mind, conclusions elude us because the mind never holds still. A mind trying to objectively arrive at the truth about the mind is like trying to measure the movements of subatomic particles. We think through the mind, but it is always one step ahead, behind, or side of us. Because of the elusive strangeness of the mind, the concept of the ‘subconscious’ has been useful.
But what is often overlooked is what might be called the sub-physical or sub-body. Though we know all about the heart, lungs, stomach, intestines, bones, blood vessels, and etc, our image, ideal, and concept of the ‘human’ deals mainly with what lies on the outside. Even thinkers who are obsessed about the hidden corridors of the mind overlook the implications of the hidden areas of the human organism, which actually comprise most of the person. The skin, after all, is only an ‘outer shell’. Cronenberg, along with David Lynch, is a film artist who is as interested in the sub-body as the subconscious. His approach is both psycho-analytical and surgico-clinical. At his worst, he can be one sick puppy, as with the trashy THE FLY. But films like DEAD RINGERS and eXistenZ provoke thoughts about what it means to be a human, an organism in all its mental and physical meanings and permutations. The graphic physicalism of a movie like VIDEODROME makes us feel as if we’re being turned inside out. (There is an aspect of this in THE THING by John Carpenter but with less ‘intellectual’ ambition.) If Freud was eager to tap into the dark undercurrents beneath the seemingly spiritual or rational/enlightened facade of the conscious mind, Cronenberg is no less obsessed with the underside of human physicality, sometimes sadistically rubbing our faces in the ugliness. Why such fascination? It’s partly an interest in the irrational, the chaotic, the ‘degenerate’, and the disturbing that are the hallmarks of modern art. One can find Cronenbergian elements in the works of many 20th century painters, from Surrealists to German Expressionists. But could there also be a Jewish element--keep in mind that Jews played a significant(financial if not creative)role in the development of Modern Art? Photos of the young Cronenberg show a rather geeky unpleasant looking Jewish guy. Naturally, like many physically unappealing Jews--or non-Jews for that matter--, Cronenberg had a problem with surface reality since he looked uglier than most people. A person who is disadvantaged in the bright realm of physical beauty searches for meaning, worth, and significance elsewhere. It’s like Alberich in NIBELUNGEN who, after being taunted for being ugly and rejected by the Rhine Maidens, steals the gold and then goes into the dark underworld and conspires to discover the secret that will give him control of the world. He creates a magic ring from the gold, but then the gold is stolen by Wotan the handsome ‘Aryan’ god. (The fear of less intelligent but better-looking goy stealing from Jewish genius is a recurrent theme in Jewish Anxiety movies: SPANISH PRISONER, eXistenZ, and SOCIAL NETWORK--which, while admitting that Zuckerberg got the basic idea for Facebook from dimwit goyim, argues that it was really his baby since his Jewish brilliance realized its full potential; Sorkin and Zuckerberg, Jews sure stick together.) Cronenberg the ugly geeky Jew, unable to score points in the world of surface beauty, sought meaning in the realm beneath the skin. In that realm, everyone is equally gross and ugly; and the advantage goes to those with more knowledge of how things work. When it comes to faces, the one with the pretty face beats the one with an ugly face. But in the realm of inner organs, the one with more knowledge beats one with less knowledge. (Paradoxically, Jewish facial ugliness may be more sexual in nature than the prettier faces of white goyim. This may sound strange given prettiness is a sexual turn-on. But human genitalia is gross and primitive looking; they look less human and more like primordial or primitive life-forms. The penis and scrotum look like mollusks, and the vagina looks like a slimy sea creature. Humanness is defined by bone structure, which is why most people prefer the angular facial structures of ‘Aryans’. Jews, with their long hooked noses, sloped foreheads, rubbery lips, and curly hair, have faces that look gross and misshapen; their faces look more like the genitalia themselves. Jewish penises and vaginas are especially known for their hairiness. So, even as Jewish faces are grosser and uglier, they seem more the expression of raw animal lust. Just look at Ron Jeremy. His whole being from head to toe looks like one gross sex organ. Look at Sarah Jessica Parker. Her face is as gross-looking as her vagina. ‘Aryans’, in contrast, have faces that look more ‘perfect’ and ‘pure’. It’s almost as if their faces represent a humanness transcending animal forms and passions, which may be why Greeks represented their gods in perfect human form. Also, white men have smaller penises than Jewish men with their fat chunky puds. The classical Greek penis is ideally small; the Greeks emphasized beauty defined by symmetry and bone structure and didn’t care for the shapeless penis. Jews were obsessed with the penis and vagina. Male penises had to be circumcised as part of the Covenant with God, and Jewish identity revolved around being born of a Jewish vagina. Because the ‘Aryan’ face is more transcendentally beautiful and less animal-sexual, it led to a unique kind of neurosis. ‘Aryan’ beauty seemed ‘too good and pure for fucking’, but this aspect made it all the more tantalizing as an object of lust; sexually is charged with the desire to defile what is ‘innocent and pure’. When a guy sees a Jewess, he doesn’t put her looks on a pedestal. Her face and pussy seem to exist for grubby and gross fucking. But when a guy sees a ‘Aryan’ woman, he feels he should worship her beauty, but this fixation on her beauty fires up his lust even more in a Madonna/Whore complex. As for Jews, they’ve long wanted to possess and fuck ‘Aryan’ beauty, making them suffer something like a goddess/whore complex. Jewish men find ‘Aryan-looking’ women possessed of beauty worthy of goddess worship, but Jewish men also feel self-loathing as ugly Jews; Jews also feel that ‘Aryans’ look down on them as filthy horny Jews. Also, Jewish tradition of worshiping the one-and-only God and destroying all false idols makes them loathe the grip that ‘Aryan’ beauty has on them. A ‘jealous’ people--just like their God--, Jews wanna destroy or violate the idol of ‘Aryan’ beauty that has such hold on them. Jews feel that no human beauty should be so beautiful so as to transcend the lowly status of humans vis-a-vis God or ‘higher truth’, which for Jews today is radical egalitarianism. So, Jews have waged a sexual war on ‘Aryan’ beauty by turning white women into whores for Jewish men to fuck left and right with the help of beastly ape-like Negroes. Gross Jews and ape-like Negroes are thus laying waste to white sexual unity and pride.)
Even the most beautiful woman and the most handsome man have rectums that lead to the shit tunnel called an anus, and the anus leads to the shit bag called large intestines. Liver, lungs, bones, hearts, blood vessels, ovaries, womb, and all that stuff are pretty gross. In THE FLY, it’s almost as if the primordial interior of the man is taking over the entire man.(The fly has a strange relation to man and other animal. It’s both a blessing and a curse. Flies are essential to ecology for laying eggs that hatch into maggots, which devour feces and rotting carcasses of animals. Maggots, or fly larvae, clean up and recycle nature--and indeed have also been known to be useful to people with gangrene, as maggots eat rotting flesh but leave living flesh alone. But flies, while laying eggs on feces and rotting carcass, also carry and spread their germs. Worse, some flies, such as the tse-tse flies, suck on blood of other animals. As agents that both clean up nature and spread fecal filth, flies are indeed a mixed blessing to man. Coincidentally, ‘maggot’ rhymes with ‘faggot’ and there is something fly-like about gays. In some ways, gays--some of them anyway--are the most antiseptic of people. They are grossed out by the whole sexual thing between man and woman, and indeed the gay image of the female is more idealistic than sensual/biological. And many gays have been known for their impeccable love of order and cleanliness. Yet, what do gay men do? The stick their sexual organs up the poop-holes of other men, which is about the most disgusting sexual thing possible--other than a white woman having a sex with a Negro.) Though we distinguish the noble image of man from the beastly images of animals, the innards of man aren’t much different from those of a lion, horse, warthog, goat, or even a frog. This may partly explain why Christianity once forbade the dissection of man. Other than violating the flesh molded in the image of God, the gutted insides of a man rendered him indistinct from animals. There was nothing ‘noble’ or ‘beautiful’ about the gall bladder. To be human means to tightly seal inside the organs containing bile, urine, feces, saliva, blood, slime, booger, etc. Of course, certain holes are necessary to inhale or imbibe some stuff while other holes are necessary to exhale or excrete other stuff; existing and exiting are one and the same. Mouth is an opening to the interior for food and drink. There are also holes for pissing and taking a dump. Nose takes in oxygen and smells. Ears, thinly covered with eardrums, take in sounds. The penis squirts semen, and the vagina is the pathway to the womb. These holes are both gratifying and grotesque. Penis and vaginas have orgasms and produce new life. Mouths enjoy flavors of food and drink. They are also used to communicate, sing, emote. Noses take in fragrances. It feels good to urinate and defecate. But piss smells funny and shit smells shitty. Nasty flavors and odors are sensed by mouths and noses. There’s music for the ears but also hideous sound, like Negroes talking too loud or Southern Chinese speaking Cantonese. Also, the testicles, attached to the penis, looks gross and ugly, and the vagina looks kinda gross too, like some alien creature from another planet or a primordial being. And some smell fishy too, which may account for some of the fishy imagery in Cronenberg’s movies. (To be sure, even what appears to us as smooth skin has lots of pores which are tiny holes secreting trace amounts of liquids.) There are also the eyes, which are the strangest holes on a person. Eyes may be the subtlest of sensory holes. They take in the element of light, and in higher creatures, they shed what are called ‘tears’, the purified salt-of-the-earth liquid produced from the deep well of emotions(though, to be sure, there’s a thing called ‘tears of laughter’ too.) Strangely, it is through the tears from our eyes, the most divine of senses, that we are reminded of our origins--the salty ocean from which life originated. Eyes are also the most beautiful of all the sensory organs, maybe the most beautiful parts of the body. Even ugly people can have beautiful eyes, and even ‘ugly’ animals can have the most striking eyes. Of course, in some ways, the ears are special organs too. The outer ear has an odd shape, maybe the strangest of all the body parts. It kinda looks like an embryo. Perhaps the most famous use of the eye was in BLADE RUNNER(and maybe the most interesting use of the ear was in BLUE VELVET), especially with the opening scene, presumably the blue-eye of Roy Batty(Rutger Hauer). The scene where Batty confronts the Chinese guy who made his synthetic eye is also memorable, and of course, Roy’s last words recounting the wonders he’s seen and how they’ll be lost like ‘tears in the rain’ are one of the highlights of science fiction cinema. (Among sensory holes, eyes are special for their relation to other eyes. It makes no sense for ears to listen to other ears or noses to smell other noses. An anus has no use for another anus. Also, a penis seeks a hole, not another penis. A vagina and a vagina are meaningless, though lesbians might disagree. But eyes look into other eyes, and indeed looking into the eyes of another person--or even animal--produces the strangest emotions in both the looker and the looked, who is also the looker of the looker who is also the looked. I suppose a mouth can kiss another mouth, but not all cultures are into kissing. Dogs sometimes sniff nose-to-nose, but they prefer to sniff each other’s butt.) From the outside, eyes are beautiful; but on the inside, the eye is a gooey organ, and for this reason, perhaps it is fitting that the maker of eyes in BLADE RUNNER is some Chinese guy--just like there is a Chinese restaurant guy in eXistenZ who serves a dish that assembles into a weapon. There is something grossly fascinating about Chinese culture with both its high levels of sophistication/artificiality and low levels of cruelty/naturalness. This is obvious when you visit any Chinatown where elements of advanced civilization and lowly behavior co-exist side by side. Chinese cooking is an art, but Chinese are novices when it comes to hygiene compared to Anglos, Germans, and Japanese. Also, Chinese like to eat all sorts of strange stuff. Generally, we think of civilized people eating higher forms of food while primitive/poor people eating stuff like snakes, insects, intestines, and all sorts of weird sea creatures. There’s a saying that Chinese, especially Southern ones, will eat anything with four legs except a table and anything that flies except airplanes. All cultures have their culinary eccentricities. French like snails, Japanese like puffer fish, Swedes like fish soaked in Liquid Drano, and Coloradans go for goat testicles. But Chinese really take the cake when it comes to culinary weirdness. Also, they’re utterly cruel and hideous in boiling cats alive, torturing and skinning dogs alive, cooking tiger penises, eating all sorts of insects, barbecuing rats, and etc. Especially for someone on a kosher diet--keep in mind that Cronenberg is a Jew--, Chinese culinary culture must be as fascinating as gross. As hideous as much of Chinese cooking is, it serves on some level as a kind of portal to our innards and interiors, for despite our ‘human’ surfaces, our insides are pretty primordial and gross. There is also the art of Chinese language. Chinese writing system is, at once, highly sophisticated--Chinese calligraphy is an artform in its own right--and chaotic. For a high culture, Chinese never developed the kind of efficient phonetic system prevailing in most advanced civilizations throughout history. Also, Chinese calligraphy is both refined and cumbersome; it has both the features of art and bureaucratism. And spoken Chinese is both highly mannered and ugly-sounding(especially the Cantonese dialect). Listening to Cantonese is the aural equivalent to smelling cat shit. If Western concept of civilization is associated with light--clarity, truth, rationality, etc--, the Chinese concept of civilization has been more shadowy, somewhere between light and darkness. Consider the figure of Fu Man Chu or Ming the Merciless or General Yen(in Frank Capra’s movie). They are always up to some secretive something-or-the-other and trying to seduce and imprison white women one way or another. (It’s almost as if Oriental males, lacking in robust masculinity, must resort to some dark magic or dirty tricks to get what they want. Jews too have been identified with ‘The Orient’.) Indeed, the allure of the Orient for Westerners has been the mystery and mysticism--fascinating even in their sinisterness--than the truth and light. This goes for Hindu Asia too, though what with Hindus being more easy-going and solipsism-oriented than the more bureaucratic and worldly-oriented Chinese, there hasn’t been the Asian-Indian counterpart of Fu Man Chu. Negative Western stereotypes about Asian-Indians center around wily gurus, like Maharishi Yogi, who seek fame and fortune by playing spiritual Barnum & Bailey. Though annoying and despicable, Asian-Indian villains in the Western imagination are rarely menacing like the Yellow Peril ones emanating from Japan or China. I suppose it also has something to do with the fact that India was under British rule for over two centuries, and its national hero was Gandhi. East Asians, in contrast, had mortally threatened the West during the era of the Mongol Empire. And Japan was a major enemy in the 20th century, Chinese ‘liberation’ was led by the violent Mao Zedong, and US fought terrible wars in Korea and Vietnam.
Though Jews traditionally disdained/despised the Jesus myth as a rebellious heresy that spread like wildfire among goyim who then hurt the Jews, modern Jews have come to appreciate the myth with greater nuance, insight, and fascination. As the Son of God, Jesus is said to have been the purest Man that ever lived. Yet, He is also the impure product of the synthesis of Hebraic and Hellenic-Pagan cultures. Though there’s no dearth of violence and hideousness in the Old Testament, it is the New Testament that turns gore and violence into a great fetish--and perhaps more in Western visual art than in the Biblical Texts themselves. Lots of people get hurt in the Old Testament, but rarely does it dwell on the details. It says God smote this bunch of people here, that bunch of people there. This guy killed that guy, that guy killed this guy. This guy lay with that woman, that woman lay with this guy. Or this guy lay with that guy, and they were stoned. The exceptions are what God does to Egyptians and the Book of Job. But the calamities that befall the Egyptians involve the entire population, so they’re more a matter of statistics than personal suffering. The Book of Job is pretty grim, but Jewish forbiddance of visual representation of man left the details in words. (We wonder why Christian artists didn’t produce much art on the theme of Job’s troubles. Maybe they felt the images of a Jewish person’s torments long before the coming of Christ would have stolen some of the thunder of sacred suffering from the Christ Himself. Christians prefer to believe no one suffered as much as Jesus did in the service of God, but the example of Job poses a challenge. Another disturbing aspect of the Book of Job is God Himself instigated the horrors, a detail bordering on nihilism, which is avoided at the last moment--not too satisfactorily, one might add--when God, out of His mysterious goodness, restores the blessings to Job. In some ways, the Book of Job seems a precursor to the story of Jesus. Job and Jesus undergo terrible ordeals but triumph over their suffering. But the contrasts are no less striking than the similarities. In the end, Job, though ‘wronged’ by God, learns to be even more humble, obedient, and trusting of God. He realizes that the distance between God and man is greater than he’d ever imagined; God is not only infinitely more powerful than man but infinitely more mysterious and unfathomable than man could possibly imagine. Man is a mere ant and God is the infinite sky; man must simply have faith in God. God, in His ultimate goodness, doesn’t have to play by conventional rules of goodness. In the case of Adam and Eve, God sent the punishment because Adam and Eve disobeyed Him--something anyone can understand. But in the case of the faithful Job, God’s actions seemingly make no moral sense. But maybe, God sensed a hubris in Job’s humble goodness, something that might be called HUMBRIS. After all, Job isn’t living in the Garden of Eden but the fallen world long after Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin. Job may be good, but he’s too good--radically good--in a fallen world. Being so flawless and angelic in a world that is no longer Eden, could there be an element of hubris on his part, as if he fully understood God’s intentions for and expectations of mankind? Job’s goodness is also delusional for the world is a dangerous place filled with invaders and disease. He needs to be toughened up. For him to expect the protection and blessings from God in a fallen and forsaken world just because he’s so good smacks not only of naivete but a certain sense of entitlement. Job also makes the mistake of linking material happiness with spiritual goodness, as if being good is supposed to guarantee worldly happiness. Furthermore, Job is a spiritual individualist, as if the Covenant exists between him and God than between God and the Jews. God promised the Jews the blessings of the world on condition that they obey Him; He didn’t make the promise to Jews as individuals but as a people; rewards and punishments can be collective. For Job to stick out as a better man--or even the best man among the Jews--and expect the blessings to keep on coming may be presumptuous on his part. The Book of Job suggests that even extreme goodness can conceal a certain assumptive arrogance. The paradox of the Book of Job is Job’s questions brings him closer to God, but God’s admonishment makes him sense the insurmountable and unbridgeable space between God and man. In contrast, though humility is a spiritual cornerstone of Christianity, the story of Jesus is about a Perfect Man who not only triumphs over worldly suffering but ascends to Heaven and becomes nearer to God--and even becomes one with God. Of course, being the Son of God made it easier for Him, but the examples of Jesus, His Disciples, and the long line of saints have given assurance to Christians that they too can close the gap between God and themselves. They cannot be God but can be nearer to Him. This difference between Job-ism and Jesus-ism may account for the different intellectual styles between secular Jews--who still retain a Jewish mentality--and Christian conservatives. Jews, like Job, are convinced that there are always more questions than answers--and that an answer only leads to more questions--, whereas Christian conservatives are eager to embrace the pure simplicity of certain ideas/values as if there’s nothing more to think about.) Old Testament is mostly a narrative of what happened than a (poetic/graphic)description of what happened. Also, since the narrative is stretched over innumerable generations, we are given general impressions of key events that took place. New Testament, on the other hand, tells the story of a single life, that of the Son of God. Also, the story is retold from four perspectives(or even more if we consider other Gospels, such as that of Tomas) to produce a multiple, if not exactly Rashomon-istic, effect. There are many parts of the Old Testament that feature multiple perspectives of a single ‘event’--most tellingly the two separate stories of how man and woman were created in the Genesis--; even so, the priestly authors who put the finishing touch on the ‘definitive’ canon tried their best to smooth over the discrepancies and contradictions.
Though there are poetic elements in the Old Testament--especially the Garden of Eden story, which tragically ends too quickly--and Song of Solomon(heavily influenced by the sensuality of pagan culture)--, most of the Old Testament unfolds mostly as either chronicles/records or spiritual philosophy/morality. The New Testament has more of the sense of what Greeks called Drama--though, to be sure, the story of King David and few other narratives come rather close. The Gospels are like plays, and this dramatic form may owe to the fact that their writers were influenced by Hellenic-Pagan culture even in their spiritual resistance to it--just like the late 19th century Japanese appropriated things from the West even as they resisted the West. As such, the Gospels are more than simple narratives; they are examples of aesthetic storytelling. And since the story of Jesus is a cruel one of torture, degradation, and murder, the portrayal of violence goes into greater detail than anything in the Old Testament. Had the story of Jesus been told in Old Testament style, it might have taken up a page or two; it would have taken up no more length than the story of Samson. We would have learned that he was punished and then killed. But the Gospels aren’t content to tell us the basic narrative. We are told of the whipping, the crown of thorns, the jeering masses, Jesus’s collapse along the trail, some guy named Simon helping Him out, His clothes being torn off, Him being nailed to the cross, the words He exchanges with two other crucified men, spear piercing His side and water pouring from it, His excruciating torment on the cross, His despair, and His acceptance of fate. And finally, His Resurrection and verification of His identity to the Disciples by showing nail marks on His hands. I don’t mean to suggest the New Testament is Cronenbergian, but it is a very strange story, which explains why most Hollywood movies about Jesus aren’t very interesting. They cleaned it all up and gave us a uplifting feel-good tale, the most ludicrous of them all being George Stevens’ THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD. The more interesting films about Jesus were made by more eccentric personalities: Pasolini with THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, Scorsese with THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, and Gibson with PASSION OF THE CHRIST, though, to be sure, only the one by Pasolini qualifies as art. It’s also true that many of the greatest Christian Art through the centuries have been disturbing--not suitable for postcards or Sunday School brochures. The impression of Jesus--and the suffering, pain, and wounds--they depict are come close to morbidity and grotesqueness, even bordering on the pathological. But through all the ugliness, horror, and suffering, there is the sense of hope, redemption, and higher beauty, or sanctity--the spiritual dawning of light that shall, finally and once and for all, vanquish the evil spirits from the world. It should also be noted that holes are holy in Christianity. The wounds of Jesus are not merely punctures but fetish-ized portals to higher states of holiness. Take the holes created by the nails on the feet and especially the hands, and the hole on the side of Jesus caused by the spear. They don’t merely signify the physical suffering of Jesus but an entry to another spiritual dimension. What might seem gross or hideous take on a certain beauty. Most of Greek Art depict man and woman in their ideal form, as models of perfection. And the Greeks saw their gods this way. Greek sculptures and statues portray gods of firm built, perfect proportions, and clarity. And representations of the female are no less idealized, radiating with beauty and grace. Depictions of Athena, on the other hand, convey qualities that are male and female. Given these ideals, Greeks(and Pagan Romans)aspired to be men of great power and courage or women of great beauty and grace.
Since depictions of human forms, or idol-worship, was banned by Judaism, Jews followed the moral model based on words. And since these words reminded Jews of how rough and tough life was, a certain pessimism prevailed among the Jews. This was especially problematic for Jews since their religion said Yahweh was the ONLY/GREATEST God yet, Jews kept getting beaten by other tribes and peoples who worshiped false gods(that were furthermore depicted in idolatrous forms). How could it be that the Chosen People could be so unlucky. Thus, Jews were both the most arrogant of peoples and the most humble. Most arrogant because they insisted their God was the only true God. Most humble because their troubles in the world meant that God must be displeased with Jews most of the time.
With Christianity, the vibrant idolatry of Greco-Romans fused with the gloomy pessimism of Jewish culture. Thus, Jesus, as the Son of God, was depicted as a both a handsome and noble figure--like Hellenic ideals--and a degraded/humiliated creature. The image presented by Christianity is often that of beauty defiled(or beauty spiritualized-through-triumph-over-suffering; it should be noted Christianity never said suffering = nobility. The reason and the manner of suffering are crucial to rising above suffering, and only then is it possible to attain spiritual enlightenment; after all, Jesus was crucified along with two other men; both men suffered equally on the cross, but one reached out to Jesus for salvation whereas the other person only suffered with angry bitterness and was thereby unable to transcend suffering, which meant he was unfit for Heaven. The idiotic left has spread the silly gospel that being poor and suffering in and of itself imbues people with nobility; if so, Jesus would have forgiven both men on the cross, not just one; as far as Jesus was concerned, suffering without the will to rise above suffering was insufferable). In the case of Jesus, we see a handsome and noble-looking man, denuded, tortured, and nailed to the cross. It is not an image of a god like Zeus or Apollo who is in full control of the world but of a God who has been dragged, whupped, and defiled. It says the world of man is not sacred; it is unworthy of something so pure and noble as a god(or God)since mankind, in its baseness, will defile and trash anything and everything. Yet, even so, Jesus came to the world of man because He was filled with profound love and caring. Though He knew that man would misunderstand Him, torment Him, and kill Him, He did it because men do have souls, and there is gold to be mined in souls. So, the Christian iconography is a combination of Hellenic aesthetic idealism and Hebraic moral pessimism. The image of Jesus on the Cross shows a figure of beauty/nobility crucified, impaled, and degraded. And the image of Virgin Mary is that of beauty softened into spiritual purity. Though images of Greek goddesses are not pornographic(or even ‘hot’ by modern standards), they do come across as sensually attractive beings. But Virgin Mary, no matter how beautifully depicted, doesn’t around sexual interest. It certainly helps that Virgin Mary almost always has something over her head and is draped under several layers of fabric.
Anyway, the quasi-Christian fascination with body and spirituality crops up in the eXistenZ. Though the bodily holes in the movie aren’t exactly holy, they do serve as portals to different dimensions, a virtual reality world, a video game heaven that might actually be a kind of hell. Some of the Christian allusions are obvious. The movie begins inside a church, a rather odd place for a gathering of video game freaks--though maybe not, since most YMCA & YWCA buildings in college campuses now serve as hang-outs for weirdos, freaks, radicals, and subversives. The game played on the stage involves twelve people from the audience(like the Twelve Disciples). Allegra Geller gets shot by an assassin on her shoulder, which may or may not refer to the crucifixion of Jesus. The ‘X’ in eXistenZ is actually written like a crucifix, with one slash longer than the other one. Also, the game works by uploading the subconsciousness of Allegra Geller(the supposedly genius game designer)into her fellow players, which is like Jesus sharing His flesh and blood through bread and wine and sacraments. Especially since the game designer is the blonde and ‘Aryan’-looking female genius named Allegra, we are apt to think that this is a gentile-dominated world--and also one of equality between the sexes. Also, the game console or ‘pod’, designed/shaped like a combination of womb, nipples, and vagina, looks essentially female-centric.
Yet, something strange happens when someone infiltrates this gaming session. A guy named Noel Dichter, the would-be assassin who looks like a young Adolf Hitler, makes an attempt on Allegra’s life. Why would someone try to kill a video game designer? And what is the strange gun he’s using that looks constructed of bone parts of various animals--including man? ‘Noel’ of course means Christmas. ‘Dichter’ for all I know could signify Dictator/Dickhead Hitler. Before he shoots her, he proclaims his allegiance to reality and charges her of subverting reality by creating an alternative universe that people have come to favor over reality, a false paradise that may be addictive and corrupting of the human soul. But why would Noel Dichter or Christmas Dictator Hitler be so riled up against an ‘Aryan’-looking woman? She aint no Jew. And if she’s the top video game designer, doesn’t it mean that gentiles, rather than Jews, control future technology? Well, more on that later.
But before we move on, consider the story of Jesus Himself. He was a Semite, most likely a hook-nosed Jew. What He and His Disciples(and St. Paul)--all Jews--brought into this world was mind-blowing and revolutionary--maybe too much so for it freaked out not only the Jews but Roman authorities as well. A vision so bold and new was bound to upset a lot of people steeped in old truths and realities. In fact, one could say Christianity was both appealing and appalling to many people because of its unreality. Reality is hard and harsh. Life is one long struggle. Even so, one who stoically accepts reality for what it is comes to terms with it.
But what if an idea says there is another reality beyond this one--a higher and truer reality? And this other reality, the Kingdom of Heaven, is accessible to every person if he or she plugs into the Game Plan Theology of Jesus. Given life is difficult and burdensome, imagine the allure of such an idea. But again, given the centrality of reality and truth, who wants to be misled by false promises, only to be rudely awakened to the disappointing fact that there is no escape from reality--and the suspicion that those promising salvation are either madmen or seekers of power selling opiates to the masses(and to elites as well)to gain control of mind and soul? Is religion a pathway to higher consciousness, reality, and salvation, OR, as Karl Marx said, is it an opiate of the masses that enslaves men to fairytales spun by the powers that be? (Though religions have been denigrated as opiates for the masses, they were no less the opiates for the elites who understood their power and privilege were always shaky. Religions especially became the opiates and/or crutches of fallen or overshadowed elites. Hindu elites, upon being conquered by foreign invaders, sought escapism through an intensified devotion to spiritual request; having lost in this world, they sought to control the cosmic forces in the other/hidden world. In Medieval Europe and Japan, former ruling elites often turned to religion after being toppled or sidestepped by new dynasties or conquerors. And it may have been no coincidence that the ancient Romans took to Christianity precisely at a time when their power began to wane; and Christianity became especially important for Latin elites after the sack of Rome by Germanic Barbarians. In the US, it could be that the Wasp elites, having lost to the Jews, are embracing the religion of political correctness to maintain some semblance of moral authority, having lost their political and economic dominance. The need for the elites to moralize their power hasn’t merely been a cynical ploy but a genuine desire for emotional equilibrium. Strictly speaking, today’s elites are generally not religious, but then secular save-the-world ideologies are the neo-religions and opiates of the current elites.) Yet, most religions were not created by the elite-powers-that-be but originated from eccentric or outcast visionaries. In some cases, the new spiritual idea empowered people without power(at the expense of existing elites) and supplied them with the morale, determination, organization, and discipline to gain power and mastery in the world. This was indeed the case of Muhammad and his men. But Jesus and His Disciples were powerless men who preached an idea that only later came to be adopted by the powers-that-be: none other than the greatest power in the world at that time, the Roman Empire, which enabled Christianity to spread like wildfire throughout all the territories held by or in contact with the Romans. (Buddhism also offers a pathway to higher truth, but the process dwells far more on mental than physical faculties. Though Buddhism demands of its devotees an adherence to extreme physical discipline and restrictions, the main thing is to sit and meditate in order to detach oneself entirely from the sensations and desires of one’s flesh and from one’s ego and its products. Though novices might find Buddhism uncomfortable, it is not a religion of pain. One doesn’t seek Nirvana through pain and suffering but by detaching oneself from the illusion of pain and suffering. Buddha was neither burned at the stake or nailed to a cross. Christianity, on the other hand, promises the pathway to Heaven by the way of pain and suffering, both that of Jesus--and His Disciples, saints, martyrs, etc--and your own. It won’t do for a Christian to just detach oneself from reality and seek Heaven on his or her own--though to be sure, some monks and nuns did just that; even so, some wore barbed belts around their bodies to punish their sinful flesh. Jesus preached to mankind not to strive for personal fame, power, and fortune but to be good, suffer with others, suffer in the act of helping others, and etc. In contrast, iconic image of Buddha is calm and dignified. He’s either perfectly poised in an elegant sitting position or tranquilly lying on his side drifting in the realm of Nirvana. If any organ is key in Buddhism, it’s the ears that, under proper states, allow the seeker to hear the Ohm, the holy sound of cosmic harmony. Whatever its profundity, Buddhism can lead to an overly passive view of life, or even to a kind of spiritual aristocrat-ism. Though Jesus has been called the King of Kings, His example was to go among people to help them, preach to them, heal them, to suffer with them and for them. Buddha, on the other hand, arrived at the conclusion that the only way out of suffering is to realize that suffering is part of the illusion of reality. In Christianity, reality is real even if neither the only nor the highest reality. But God did create the world and mankind. To deny its reality would be an affront to God, His Creation, and His gift of life to us. But reality is far from perfect, so God offers us an entry to another level of reality by the blood of His Son. Buddhism, in contrast, says reality itself is an illusion--and so are all the gods. In a way, all religions are mind games that we keep playing forever, pushing the barriers.)
Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the Jesus myth is He was too much for the world when alive but all too useful to the world when He died. This paradox is, of course, the fate of many great men, visionaries, innovators, revolutionary thinkers, and men who happen to be ahead-of-their-time while they were alive. Socrates was another. (Even so, Socrates never claimed to be the Son of God, and his death by poison, though surely painful, was nothing like the epic death of Jesus.) Oliver Stone’s ALEXANDER also surmises the great leader was poisoned by his own men because he was too big in life. His men couldn’t own up to what Alexander demanded, but they could own and manipulate his myth after he died. Dead man don’t speak, and so their words and deeds can be selectively chosen and distorted for the self-aggrandizement of future leaders. Many American conservatives loathed Michael King(aka Martin L. King), but he’s been lionized after his death even by the likes of William F. Buckley. And some liberals have tried to make Ronald Reagan out to be a relatively decent and tolerant conservative, presumably unlike extremists running the party today.
Similarly, for Jesus to be accepted by mankind, He had to die first, and His myth had to be selectively shaped, distorted, and owned by others. That way, people could interpret and bend His great truth and message to confirm their personal foibles and biases. Though Christians claimed to be spiritually owned by Jesus, they came to own Him too. Since He was long dead, He could not oppose, criticize, or condemn all the things that were said and done in His name. In time, many Christians came to regard and remake Him into an anti-Jew than a reformist Jew. Some even said He wasn’t Jewish at all but white or even ‘Aryan’. The character played by Jude Law is named Ted Pikul, and I wonder if it refers to Ted Pike, the radical antisemitic Christian preacher in America whose church maintains that Jesus and His Disciples were white folks. ‘Pikul’, sounding like ‘pike’, could also signify the pitchfork, symbol of populist rage of white Christian goyim that Jews fear and loathe.
Mankind naturally admires and appreciates greatness but feels nervous, uncomfortable, and even afraid to be near greatness. We think of greatness as so much th something godly, something beyond the comprehension of most men. The problem is less the idea of the Great Man per se as the feeling that someone amongst us can be great or greater than us. It’s one thing to regard Great Men as part of a special breed but quite another when he lives and breathes amongst us. Imagine two scenarios: (1) You hear of a great artist you’ve never known in person. (2) Someone you’ve known in life becomes a great artist. The second scenario would be more unnerving for upsetting your sense of equilibrium. It’s one thing to feel that great men exist in their own world while you, a humdrum person, lives in your own world with other humdrum people. But when a fellow humdrummer rises high above you, it makes you feel especially small. It also undermines your respect for ‘greatness’ since some schmoe you’d known in highschool or college now has great power, even over you. Jesus might have been troubling to both elites and masses because He was obviously a great man who arose from the world of nobodies. His ambiguity made both the masses and elites feel uncomfortable. He was like a bridge over troubled waters between social realms that preferred to remain separate(which may explain why David Remnick used the bridge as metaphor to sell the neo-messiah myth of Obama who’s supposed to be both profoundly humble in origin and a naturally superior as a visionary, and working tirelessly and inspirationally to unite the two realms racially, culturally, historically, intellectually, spiritually, etc--when, in fact, he’s little more than a Jews’ Boy.) It’s one thing to see tigers in a movie and quite another to see one in your neighborhood. It’s one thing to see mafia bosses in movies and quite another to see them on your own block. Because greatness carries a mythic aura, the world feels more stable when greatness is over there and we are over here. Perhaps, kings understood this through the ages, which is why they were careful to maintain a distance between themselves and the people. Also, many people want to believe in the aura of greatness around certain people; they don’t want to be disillusioned by reality. Obama worshipers wanna see him as starchild. Reagan admirers don’t wanna hear anything negative about the Gipper. MLK is regarded as an holy prophet by many Americans, and they wanna maintain the legend.
Death/decline provides a certain distance between the objects/figures of greatness and rest of humanity. When Muhammad Ali was riding high as the bad ‘nigger’ who gave the middle finger to white America, he was hated by many. But once his star began to fade, he could be mythified into an icon. When Nelson Mandela was a young radical resistance fighter, he scared the white community. But when he was an old man, whites had hoped to shape and bend him to their fantasy of racial reconciliation.
Jesus’s problem was that His greatness--intelligence, charisma, wisdom, courage, insight, etc--was undeniable, yet He chose to go amongst the people. Though He preached love and peace, He was dangerous and threatening--to both authorities and to the masses--because He didn’t hold His qualities of greatness over the heads of mediocre masses. In the Ancient World, ‘great men’ were supposed to rule over or administer to the masses. There was a clear-cut sense of high and low, noble and ignoble. In contrast, Jesus rubbed shoulders with the rabble.
But, it wasn’t just the rulers who felt threatened by Jesus. It was also the people. Though many people welcomed and honored Him, they couldn’t help feeling that He was upsetting the order of things. Life may have been harsh, but most people had gotten used to the routine. Slavery and oppression with food and daily certainties may have been preferable to rebellion and freedom with only uncertainties. In the minds of the rabble, greatness was something possessed by kings, noblemen, the very rich, the wisemen of the official church, etc. In the Jewish community, the Rabbis had their elevated place in community. Among the Romans, the military commanders and politicians were the great men. So, why was this figure named Jesus, a Man of so many superior qualities, rubbing shoulders with humdrum folks? If He was so great--and evidently He was--, why did He debase Himself so amongst ordinary people? To be sure, there had been many great men before Jesus who went amongst the people. Consider Alexander the Great who was close to his men, who loved and admired him as not just a great leader but a warrior’s warrior, a man of the people(at least by the standards of his day). He was like the rock star of his age. Even so, he wasn’t humbling himself before his men but giving them a glimpse of his divine superiority. He was a great warrior, he conquered other lands, he laid waste to many cities, he killed a lot of people, and people feared him as much as they admired him. Jesus, on the other hand, was a different kind of conqueror, one who conquered his will to rule over people and sought to live on equal terms--at least physically--with downtrodden people all around Him. The full impact and implications of His life could be revealed only across the full range of history that continues to this day--and not least because His myth has been altered and reshaped by so many others. Though Jesus had the qualities of a leader, He didn’t form an army. Though He might have excelled in business, He didn’t become a merchant. He might have done well as a rabbinical scholar, but He forwent that too. Instead, He wandered among the people and shared His ideas about life, goodness, truth, and God. As His popularity grew, the established leaders of both the Jewish and Roman communities felt nervous. Why was a Man of such superior qualities expending so much time and energies with the common people? And what might happen if His ideas took hold among the people? As for the masses, many wondered who is this guy who’s supposed to be so great but wanders from place to place, eats other people’s food, and has no worldly power or wealth? The common people may have feared and resented the ‘great men’ in the Jewish and Roman social orders, but at least their ‘greatness’ was clearly stamped and demarcated. The Rabbis had the Knowledge, and the Romans had the might. What did Jesus do or have that made Him great? Yet, it was impossible to dismiss Him because there was something so charismatic, magical, and magnetic about Him. And He preached ideas that many sensed could and maybe should inflame and change the world. Even so, most common people were accustomed to the brutal reality of life, and they couldn’t believe in the greatness of someone or something until they saw it with their own eyes. They’d heard rumors of Jesus healing the sick and bringing a dead man back to life, but for many people the only genuine proof of Jesus’s greatness would be how He’d overcome the traps set by Rabbis and Romans. They wanted Jesus to show that He had Houdini-like powers to counter the efforts of the Romans to expose, humiliate, and execute Him. If indeed He was the Man of God, surely He could at least do as much as Moses did in the Land of the Pharaohs where God had sent him to deliver the Hebrews from bondage. With the help of God, didn’t Moses pull one stunt after another and make it plain as day, to both Hebrews and Egyptians, that he was the conveyor of God’s wrath? So, where was such power when Jesus was captured and put on trial? Why couldn’t He demonstrate any sign of higher power? This may explain why even people who had admired Him came to mock Him and reject Him. The so-called great man wasn’t so great after all. On the one hand, one could indeed argue that Jesus was exposed as a phony. He had no magical or supernatural powers to triumph over the Romans. He was duly punished and then executed. Yet, the history of the Jews is, to a large measure, one of spin. It was this ability to spin events that Jews were able to hold onto the notion that their God was the only God and that He was on their side. After all, historical evidence was mounting up that Jews were not the most fortunate people on Earth and that maybe the gods of other peoples may be more powerful. Jews had to keep spinning their misfortunes to convince--or fool--themselves into believing that things were really going according to plan, and that God had a special destiny for them. And of course, it’s easier to spin past events than current events. The story of Moses and Houdini-like physical Exodus from Egypt was written by Jews long after the event--if it ever really took place--, and so Jews could make up a whole lot of stuff like in a Hollywood movie. But the Gospels were written decades after the life of Jesus, so it took greater skills of spin to salvage the myth. When the Gospels were written, there were still people who vividly remembered how Jesus died: He got beat up real bad and then was nailed to a cross, and that was that. Rather pitiful. Had the Gospels been written centuries after the event, there would have been greater leeway for imaginative spin, e.g. Jesus on the cross starts growling, leaps to the ground, receives a sword from an angel sent by God, and kills a whole bunch of bad guys. But, that kind of fabrication simply wasn’t doable only decades after His death. Too many people knew or heard it didn’t happen that way. Also, the Roman world around that time was too advanced and sophisticated for that kind of mythic fairytale. Indeed, many Romans didn’t even believe in their own gods. So, the people who promoted the Jesus myth in the yrs following Jesus’s death faced serious challenges. How do they turn the story of a man’s defeat into the greatest story ever told? How do they turn a helpless victim into the greatest being in the universe--not only the Messiah but the Son of God and maybe God Himself? This required the skills of imagination and creativity, a brilliant instinct for spin.
Since Jesus didn’t physically triumph or escape from His tormentors--like Moses or David had done--, His feat was turned into a spiritual-Houdini act, i.e. He didn’t escape with His body but with His spirit. Unable to free Himself from the Cross, He freed His soul and ascended to Heaven. Christianity is probably the greatest spiritual-Houdini-narrative ever invented by man.
But of course, it would be wrong to regard the founders of the Faith as mere cynical advertising men. Instead, it’s very possible that they believed in the myth they were spinning. Back then, when spirituality was very much a part of people’s lives, what might seem like ‘spin’ to us could have been regarded as divine inspiration(than merely clever inventions). Modern people tend to differentiate between religion/spirituality and art/creativity, but there was a time, especially in pagan cultures--keep in mind that many Early Christians were Hellenized Jews--, when there was no clear dividing line between creativity and spirituality. The muses were real. What one glimpsed through dreams, fantasies, imagination, or creativity could be interpreted as messages, gifts, portents, or manifestations of God or gods. Jewish prophets thought they were channeling the messages from God than merely conveying their own thoughts. Even so, Jews were more uneasy with the notion of creativity. God was the lone Creator of the world, and though man was gifted with mini-creativity--the ability to produce life--, man should not confuse or conflate his own creativity with that of God. In some ways, the ‘jealous’ Jewish God was also anti-art and anti-creativity since art produced things of beauty which may be preferred over His own Creation. It would lead to idol-worshiping, and indeed, art is a form of idolatry. For this reason, one could not play fast and loose with sacred texts in Jewish tradition. God and His Truth had been revealed in the Torah. It could not be toyed or played with. It could be studied and interpreted--as in the Talmud--, but it could not be re-invented or furthered via artistic creativity. It would have been blasphemous for a Jewish storyteller or artist to create fictional scenarios where God or Biblical figures did or said stuff that was not in the Torah. Greek artists, in contrast, could infuse their plays and art with their own dramatization of the gods and heroes, and in time, these fictional interpretations of the gods could become part of the myth. What’s interesting about Edith Hamilton’s book MYTHOLOGY is that so many of her accounts of the gods and stories have been taken from free-flowing stories and dramas written by Greek and Roman writers who took myths and spun new stories from them. As such, Greek mythology was a work-in-progress and very closely linked with art, creativity, and imagination. For example, there is no story of the Trojan Women in Homer’s ILIAD, but the play begins with words exchanged between Athena and Poseidon. Imagine an Hebrew dramatist writing a play about defeated and humiliated Canaanite women which begins with Yahweh talking to one of His angels--all invented by the author. It would have been blasphemous, and the fella would have been stoned. (I’m not even sure drama was an accepted art form among the ancient Hebrews. Maybe, maybe not.) To be sure, there are parts of the Old Testament which read almost like plays. This is especially true of the Book of Job which begins with Yahweh talking to ‘Satan’--which may or may not be the being we associate with Evil--and then unfolds into a story of Job getting whupped left and right and starting a conversation with God. But fittingly enough, the Book is Job is the closest thing in the Old Testament that comes closest to questioning the existence or goodness of God. If God is perfect, if God is just, how could He have allowed such ‘injustice’ against Job? Who knows? Maybe Jews were uneasy about the Job narrative, and it just barely made it into the canon and only because of the happy or Hollywood ending that didn’t make God out to be such a bad guy and restored the good things to Job. If Job’s fortunes hadn’t been restored at the end, Yahweh would have been a fearsome God but not a loving God. So, there is an element of spin in the Book of Job too, lending it an element of hope and reassurance about God. (One chilling aspect of the Book of Job is the manner in which God rights the ‘wrongs’, and Job carries on as if his good fortunes have been restored. But his new wife and family surely cannot replace the previous ones. His previous wife and children were distinct individuals, not mere a number that can be replaced with the same number of the new wife and children. So, why does the Book of Job pretend as though Job’s life and fortunes have been restored? The only way such would have been possible is if God turned back time and restored Job’s earlier wife and children. Maybe the meaning here is twofold: First, from God’s perspective, most people--even Jews--are interchangeable. So, if Job lost 10 people and gained 10 new people, it’s all the same within the larger framework. Secondly, maybe the sense of Jewishness counted for more than the sense of individuality. So, even if Job lost dear ones, the fact that he got another Jewish wife and raised another Jewish family means he’s still part of the Jewish community, and that’s what really counts, i.e. Jewishness is something far greater than individual existence; Jewishness is historical and spiritual in essence whereas individuality is a form of personal idolatry. A man should love his wife but not worship her as indispensable. If he loses her, he can still maintain his place in the Jewish community by finding another Jewish wife and having more Jewish kids. After all, King David’s attachment to his son Absalom is presented as rather excessive and ridiculous. Absalom was a bad son who violated the Law, but David shows more concern for him than for the sacrosanct importance of the Law. But then, this is what makes David a more human character than most in the Bible. He’s so ‘flawed’ and nakedly emotional, almost Greek. There is a greater sense of the specialness or idolatry of individuals in Greek mythology. Orpheus, after all, loves only Eurydice, and Penelope only lives for Odysseus. Jewish religion is very historical, and the emphasis is on generational survival than individual feats of heroism. Though lineage is important in THE ILIAD, men seek individual glory in war and adventure. Jews, measuring cultural worth in terms of generational survival, understood that no individual, however great he may be, lives forever. So, individual greatness matters far less than passing down the torch of life to successive generations, and in a way, Jews believed that people survived through their descendants; thus, though Jews couldn’t be immortal as individuals, they could be immortal as a race and culture. Greeks, believing that individuals ended up in Hades after death, had a more robust attitude to life as living individuals. Everyone had one life, and it had to be lived for glory. Greeks ideally sought immortality through individual feats that would be remembered through the ages, recounted by poets, illustrated by artists, and celebrated through song and dance. In SHANE, the father is like an ancient Hebrew patriarch while Shane is like an individual Greek hero. To the extent that Shane chooses to sacrifice his life not for self-glory but for the sake of the family makes him a Greco-Christian hero, i.e. Greek heroism transformed into selfless sacrifice.) The spin in the Book of Job, in some ways, anticipated the spin in the New Testament, which, in a larger sense, is itself a spin on the entire Old Testament. Remember that Job got whupped real bad, but things worked out okay for him in the end because he never lost faith in God. Jesus suffers like Job. Both Job and Jesus are said to be perfect people. Job is ever so devoted to and obedient before God. Jesus is full of love, devotion to God and to fellow man, and noblest of men. Yet, both get whupped real bad. But, there is one crucial difference. Job is taken aback by what happens. It was one thing to punish Adam, the disobedient first man who ate the Forbidden Fruit, but what did Job do? And so, Job wants God to tell him why he got whupped so bad. Jesus, on the other hand, knows He must suffer on this Earth. The mythology of Jesus is even weirder because He is supposed to be the Son of God--and therefore a manifestation of God Himself. If Job is a man who gets punished though he’s virtuous and loyal, Jesus is in some ways a test case of God Himself being punished though He’s supposed to be perfect and all-powerful. The unspoken secret of the Jesus myth is that God is being made to atone for the sins He committed. In a way, it’s a delayed revolt of Job. It’s as if to say, since Job the perfectly virtuous man maintained his faith in God despite God’s seemingly unjust punishment of him, God, in return, must not lose faith/hope in man even if man unjustly punishes and torments God. The story of Jesus has mankind humiliating, beating, and killing the Son of God, but the Son of God forgives man. He says “they do not know what they do”, which kinda echoes what God says to Job: something like, “You know not what I do.” Since Job the man isn’t supposed to judge God because mankind cannot possibly understand the real Him, God too shouldn’t condemn mankind(at least not too harshly)since man doesn’t know why he does what he does. Man can be a holy fool, a silly fool, a damned fool, or a rotten fool, but he’s also a mysterious fool; and God should feel compassion for creatures possessed of unfathomable foolishness.
The latent egotism of man in the Book of Job becomes more pronounced in the New Testament. When bad things happen to Job, he feels that he is important and significant enough to pose a moral question to God. Whether he has a valid moral case or not, what’s striking is the fact that a puny little man would dare ask a question to God in the first place. It would be like an ant asking a man why he stomped on the anthill. Whether stomping the anthill was justified or not, what is a tiny little ant to be posing a question to a mighty man? On the one hand, Job is indeed presumptuous. Whether he is a good man or not, what is he in the grand scale of things? He is just one man among others, a blip in the scale of time and space in the universe. Is he an egomaniac? Partly yes. But on the other hand, his question to God is relevant since the Jewish God made faith, morality, and justice the central core of the universe. And God made a covenant with the Jews whereby good Jews would receive His blessings. Job was faithful, moral, and obeyed the laws, so why did he have to get whupped so bad? And since morality isn’t about might-is-right but right-is-might, why shouldn’t he matter in the universe? (Some of this unease is also to be found in the works of Kafka, maybe the modern Job, though the modern telling has an alienated character confronting an amoral universe.) In the end, there is a kind of a compromise between God and Job. Though God does demonstrate His great mastery over the universe and His unfathomable mystery--with Job fully bowing down to His authority--, He does take the trouble to restore all the good things to Job again. God completely wins the game but slips some hush money under the table. God settles the suit whereby He’s completely cleared of all charges, but Job comes out ahead too. It’s like Mark Zuckerberg in the movie SOCIAL NETWORK settles the lawsuits and accepts no blame while conceding tens of millions to the plaintiffs. God doesn’t have to obey speed limits but He has to pay the speeding tickets. It’s no wonder Jews make such good lawyers. They know the art of mixing and fixing morality and money.
The New Testament poses a greater challenge to both God and man, especially given the duality of Jesus. Is He God demanding more of man, or is He Man demanding more of God? Jesus is both the humblest manifestation of God and most megalomaniacal manifestation of man. It’s God suffering and feeling the pain of Job the man, and it’s man professing to be the Son of God.
Anyway, consider the love/hate dynamic at the core of Christianity. Jesus is a much beloved figure among goyim, but He had once been much loathed. Indeed, He is much loved precisely because He was once so reviled. There’s a sense that He was too great and truthful for mankind when He was alive. He had to be killed and turned into a safe myth in order for mankind to embrace Him. Few men were as reviled in their times as Jesus, but then fewer came to be as revered after their deaths as Jesus. Perhaps in a similar vein, it could be said no people have been so reviled(before WWII)but then revered(after WWII)as the Jews, at least in the West. (Maybe Jews will invent a new calendar with 1945 as the beginning of the new era: B.H. and A.J, or Before Holocaust and Anno Jewmini.)
To be sure, one could argue that Euro-Christians hated Muslims, despised Negroes, and dreaded the yellow horde even more than they hated Jews. Also, Christians were far more violent to pagans than to Jews. Jews, though reviled as Christ-killer and tax collectors, were still regarded as the people of the book whereas pagans who resisted conversion were ruthlessly burnt at the stake. Even so, due to the long survival/history of the Jews and their creative relations with the West, their historical role has been of greater fascination.
In this sense, Jesus and Jews have something in common in their respective relations to the Gentile West, but there remains the historical irony of so much anti-Jewish passions having been inspired by gentile acceptance of the Jewish Jesus. Jesus, though Jewish and killed by Roman gentiles in Ancient Times, came to be appropriated by gentiles as their own. And then, the religion founded in His name came to be the hammer with which gentiles battled other peoples, including the Jews. (Perhaps, gentiles, in their shame of having adopted the God of another people, needed the crutch of Paul’s anti-Jewish-ism to justify their new faith. If Jesus is the Son of God, then Christians are the new Jews or the true Jews--the real Chosen--whereas the original Jews are relegated to the status of false Jews or once-chosen-but-now-rejected-people-no-longer-favored-by-God. Similarly, Muhammad had to reformulate both the Old and New Testaments in order to own their spiritual contents. Whenever a people take a cultural idea from another people, there’s an element of shame in not having come up with it in the first place. There are two strategies for assuaging such feelings: fanaticism or revisionism. A fanatic tries to be the true believer, more Jew than Jew, more Christian than Christian, more Muslim that Muslim, more communist than communist; converts sometimes make the biggest fanatics. A revisionist, in contrast, claims to have fixed the fundamental flaws in the original and arrived at the much improved product. Thus, there were two kind of white Rockers. The fanatics tried to be more black than black--Eric Burdon of the Animals for instance--, whereas revisionists ‘improved’ elements of black music to create something more ‘advanced’ called white rock. While some peoples, at the very least, acknowledge the alien/foreign origins of their own cultures--Christian awareness of Jewish history and Islam’s respect for Jewish and Christian sources--, other peoples have purified their origin myths of all traces of foreign influences. Jews, for instance, borrowed heavily from other cultures--especially the Babylonian--in the creation of their religion, but the Old Testament credits everything directly to God, who supposedly chose Jews as His favorite people. Greeks likewise borrowed from neighboring ‘barbarian’ cultures, but their vanity and pride led to an insistence of uniqueness in most things. Romans did give credit to the Greeks, but then maybe it was unavoidable since the connections were too obvious. In America, Jews have borrowed heavily from the Anglo-American political and legal tradition, but their Chosen-People-ist pride and vanity have made them unwilling to give much credit to Wasps. Instead, even as Jews take Wasp ideas, the values and concepts have been given a Judeocentric twist whereby all of American history prior to massive Jewish immigration are to be seen as merely a prelude to the Real America, the so-called Proposition Nation Fulfilled. In a way, it is a variation of the Old Testament/New Testament dynamic. Christians said Jews laid the groundwork for Godliness in the world, but Jews committed too many sins: too arrogant, tribal, dogmatic, murderous, intolerant, etc. As such, the true proposition put forth by God could only be fulfilled by Christians. So, Hebrews were the Founding Fathers but hypocrites who failed to fully live up the true ideals of God; rather, it was the Christians, the new immigrants to the Monotheistic God faith, who would establish the Kingdom of Heaven. In America, Jews have taken on the role of historical New Testamenters realizing the full vision of the Wasp Founding Fathers--historical Old Testamenters--who put forth a great proposition but failed to live up to it due to ‘racism’ and white tribalism.) The Jewish-gentile relations, in both the West and the Near East, were also complicated by the fact of their mutual hostility yet dependence. Though Jews held goyim in utter contempt, Jews needed the large number of goyim to do business with. Also, at a time when Jews were culturally trapped in their orthodoxy, it was often the gentiles who produced the greater thinkers and innovators. Though Jews had higher intelligence, their taboo-ridden culture(in tandem with gentile restrictions on Jewish freedom)prevented the full utilization of their intelligence. But, it wasn’t just that the Jews who needed the goyim. The goyim needed the Jews because the former had their own taboos, especially against usury. Since goyim were not supposed to indulge in money-lending, it fell upon the Jews to provide the service--to gentile merchants, noblemen, and even kings.
Eventually, with the full emancipation of Jews in Europe, the Jewish community began to produce thousands of Jesuses, by which I mean revolutionary innovators, geniuses, prophets, intellectuals, artists, musicians, scientists, etc. This cultural phenomenon was both thrilling and frightening to the goyim. Prior to the Emancipation, Jews had been seen as a gifted people who might do well if given an equal chance. Sure, they were smart, but how much difference could they possibly make? But almost instantly, Jews produced Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, Emil Durkheim, Franz Kafka, Heinrich Heine, and many others. These figures didn’t merely contribute something to the whole of Western Civilization but seemed poised to overturn all the accepted truths and orders in every field, system, station, and department.
Some goyim tried to resist all these ‘Jewish’ changes while others tried to appropriate and make them their own. (Something similar happened with the Japanese in the late 19th century and most of 20th century--and perhaps even now. Japanese felt disoriented and anxious about the new world of ideas, values, science, technology, and arts opened up by the West but also fascinated and intrigued. So, even as the Japanese resisted Western power and influence, they wanted to adopt and own the qualities and forces that made the West so powerful.) White goyim, both appalled and awed(and threatened and thrilled) by Jewish achievement, weren’t really quite sure what course to take. Though following WWII, there has been nothing but profound admiration and praise of everything Jewish--contemporaneously and retrospectively--in the West, it hadn’t always been so, to put it mildly. Prior to the Holocaust, Jews were seen as a special people but not necessarily a specially good people. Also, while Jews were credited with revolutionary changes and breakthroughs, their impacts were as often condemned as confirmed. After WWII, it has been unfashionable, even unspeakable, to point to any flaws in Jewish history, religion, character, or cultural/intellectual/political involvement. Even Karl Marx is admired as a prophet who meant well for humanity but whose ideas were misunderstood and perverted by those who came later--mostly goyim. So, we blame Stalin or Mao than Marx. And given Lenin was 1/4 Jewish, he gets a pass, and Trotsky, the full-bloodied Jew, is still a much revered figured in many intellectual circles. Even after the fall of communism, the narrative has been ‘Jewish communists: decent, well-meaning, intelligent, but maybe misguided in their blind idealism’ and ‘goy communists: stupid, brutal, murderous, oppressive, and betrayers of the shining ideals of Marxism.’ And despite new findings in psychology which have blown holes in Freud’s theories, he’s still a much-respected figure(and still held in awe in many circles, not least with the participation of the Jewish-controlled media.) And though many of the theories of Franz Boas have been disproved, he hasn’t met the same fate as people like Gobineau or Herbert Spencer. And even ideological psychopaths like Noam Chomsky are still held in high esteem. For much of the MSM and elite academia, Chomsky’s denial of the Cambodian Killing Fields and his apology of the Khmer Rouge regime has gone down the memory hole. Jews, with their vast media and academic power, decide what shall be remembered and what shall be forgotten, as well as HOW things shall be remembered. So, Hollywood hasn’t yet made a movie about the Jewish involvement in communism, and the mass killings that followed. And I don’t believe a single Hollywood movie has been made about the suffering of Palestinians under Jewish occupation. When it comes to political truth, Jews are among the dirtiest and most hypocritical scumbags on Earth. We need to admire Jewish intelligence and acknowledge Jewish achievements, but as Frank Pentangeli said to Michael Corleone in GODFATHER II of a Jewish gangster, “Your father did business with Hyman Roth, your father respected Hyman Roth, but your father never trusted Hyman Roth.” Any goy who trusts a Jew is a dead man. Sometimes, proud and aggressive Jews sometimes validate the wisdom of Frank Pentageli. Take David Mamet, many of whose plays/films deal with the con-artist or con-man(confidence man). How do con-artists work? They win your confidence--trust and honor--, all the while setting you in a trap where you lose everything. Jews understand power as a game, and those who can’t play lose. Earnest goodwill alone won’t get you very far, especially if you’re up against master-hucksters like the Jews. Even when Jews are consciously trying to be good, decent, and moral, there is another side to them that simply can’t resist pulling a congame on goyim. Many Jews may consciously believe that their ‘progressive politics’ is well-meaning, but there is another mechanism--known to smarter Jews while perhaps not so much to less intelligent Jews--that makes Jews exploit ‘progressive’ values to undermine the power of goyim so as to maximize Jewish power. In the end, it’s always about the Jews. In HOUSE OF GAMES, GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, and THE SPANISH PRISONER, you always gotta be on the lookout for the ‘tell’, for the angles, for the hints. This can drive a person paranoid, especially if one’s out of the league in the game of power; but if one knows how to play the game, one gains immeasurable advantage over others. The problem with Jews is that they don’t just go for their enemies but take some perverse pleasure in duping and dumping on everyone, even people who are most supportive of Jews. This is partly a legacy of their long history of haggling, cheating, and pulling a fast one on goyim economically and of despising and spitting on ‘filthy’ goyim spiritually. Since Jews didn’t like goyim and since Jews made themselves unlikable to goyim--plus the fact that so many of them looked like Noam Chomsky, Woody Allen, Elena Kagan, and other hideous Jews--, they developed a group personality that was not conducive to good-will or good-faith. Even when the Jew was smiling, he or she was secretly grimacing and hissing with venom. Even when the Jew shook your hand, he or she was looking to stab you in the back(or anxious about you stabbing him/her in the back). Jews knew that non-Jews would never trust Jews for long since Jews specialized in professions where cheating and pulling a fast one were integral to success. Also, since Jewish culture/personality became defined by the power of wit and cunning to survive and thrive--to gain the advantage over the other guy--, Jews came to despise earnestness, goodwill, and trust, which were seen as befitting only children and dimwits. Does a brilliant conman respect his dimwit victims? Of course not. No matter how trusting or decent the victim, he is seen as dumb and ‘easy’. In fact, the trusting decency of the goy makes the Jew despise the good goy even more. So, even as the Jew urges and cons the goy into loving and revering the Jew unconditionally--because the goy might otherwise become an ‘anti-Semite’--this blind faith in the Jew only increases the Jew’s contempt for goyim. Unlike Christianity, Judaism never idealized man-as-lamb. Judaism demands that Jews be worshipful to God but never ever trusting of fellow man, especially of the damn goyim. Jewish religion favored the Rabbinical scholar of great erudition, wit, and debating skills. Jewish economics favored the Jew who could haggle, wheel-and-deal, wheedle and needle. So, Jews have no respect for people who blindly and stupidly respect the Jews. This isn’t to say Jews prefer goyim who are just as witty, devious, ruthless, and cunning as they themselves are--if anything, Jews would greatly fear and hate them--, but Jews would at least RESPECT them even while working to undermine their power. As it stands today, Jews don’t even respect the dimwit white goy running-dogs who are slobbering all over the Jews. Jews will throw them a doggy biscuit and play fetch, but Jews don’t really want them to get too close and spread their doggy hair and odor all over the Jews.
In the film OLEANNA, the academic seems to be a intelligent guy, but in another way, he’s a foolish earnest goy. He is more a man of ideas and ideals than a man with an instinct and radar for power. He is wasp-ish, and it is for this fact that he is so helpless against the dimwit leftist-feminist woman. The woman, though her ethnicity is not specified, is a strange creature: almost a hypothetical of a dumb Jewess. She gains power over him not only because of the feminist organization backing her but because she is driven by power, resentment, vengefulness, and fanaticism. She may lack Jewish wits, but she something like a mad Jewish inner-drive. He’s like the smart lamb while she’s like a dumb wolverine. It is the guy who’s on the defensive because he’s all intelligence and no instinct. The woman may be shit-for-brains, but she has emotionally been Jew-ized by a radical feminist organization. (Keep in mind that modern radical feminism was the creation of vile, fanatical, and hideous Jewish hags.) Jews are formidable because they have both the intelligence of the academic and the fanaticism of the crazy woman in OLEANNA. Jews are rational radicals. The intelligent academic earns our contempt(as well as a bit of sympathy)because he’s foolish enough to think he can rationally bargain with a nutjob, and the nutjob woman exasperates us because she doesn’t even know what the game is about. She takes everything literally. The difference between radical Jews and radical dummies(like the woman)is that Jews, wink wink, know that the politics of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ is really a game of power. Jew want more influence, wealth, and power; and they’ll use whatever means--political, cultural, intellectual, etc--to get them. So, Jewish fanaticism is partly a game, a put-on act. Jews are less fanatical about the agenda they’re pushing than about the amount of wealth and power they will gain by pushing that agenda. The Holocaust is secondary to what Abe Foxman and ADL are really about. Holocaust is the Ace and Joker in the Poker game of power. But, the dumb woman in OLEANNA has swallowed, hook-line-and-sinker, all the radical bullshit fed to her by Jewish radical bitches. But even as a mindless and dumb fanatic, she is more than a match for the professor who, whatever his flaws, tries to be a ‘nice guy’.
In one way, OLEANNA could be seen as a warning to the Jewish community of the dangers of radicalism and fanaticism. What is an ACT among smart Jews can morph into a FACT for dimwit goyim. In time, this can be used against the Jews. Consider Christianity and Communism. Christianity was a religion cooked up by clever and creative deviant Jews to gain greater power and glory in the world. In some ways, it was meant to be a game-of-power. But when it was finally adopted by goyim, they turned it into iron-faith to be accepted and employed without a shred of irony, shading, or complexity. It turned into a simple narrative of “Jews killed Jesus, Jew are bad, Jesus is our guy, and let’s get the Jews.” Similarly, Jews invented and pushed communism partly as a power-game to make the world better and safer to Jews. Even Karl Marx, who didn’t consider himself Jewish despite his bloodline and who often condemned capitalist Jews, thought the problem of antisemitism would go away if capitalism went away; capitalism had turned so many smart/cunning Jews into super-capitalists, thereby becoming the object of resentment, envy, and hatred among goyim. But if there was no more capitalism, Jews could not economically ‘exploit’ other people, and there would no need for people to hate Jews. Of course, Jews being smarter, they would still gain elite control of society as managers, leaders, theorists, etc. So, communism was partly a game-of-power for Jews. But what happened when dimwit goyim accepted communism? It became a iron-clad religious faith with no room for doubt. All ‘class enemies’ had to be killed, and if Comrade Stalin said it was time to get the Zionist Jews, well, it was time to get the Zionist Jews. You cannot play games with fanatical dimwits. The con game works with people who are open-minded enough to play the game--only to lose to the masters of the game. Dimwits don’t play games. They are merely the hammer used to smash others. The woman in OLEANNA is such a thick-skulled fanatic that even the greatest con-man couldn’t trick her. Her mind is fixed one thing only, and that is ‘the professor is a sexist pig and must be punished’. One could argue that she has been conned by the Big Jewish Feminist Sisters to serve as their running dog, but she’s too dumb to ever realize the con. And when fanatical dummies take over and outnumber the radical con-artists, the latter are likely to lose. This could be one of the reasons why David Mamet feels uneasy about modern leftism. It has created the politically correct culture of fanaticism, which, like Stalinism, may eventually come to hurt the Jews. Jewish liberals pushed the ‘progressive’ agenda among American youths so as to weaken white gentile power--by playing on ‘racism’--and to maximize Jewish power. But what if the ‘progressive’ agenda--a congame of power employed by Jews--are taken absolutely literally and fanatically by dimwit goyim? What if it leads to the call for ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ in Israel, in which case Jews might end up like whites in South Africa? And what if the spread of ‘egalitarianism’ leads to masses of dimwit goyim waking up one day and denouncing Jewish wealth, power, and privilege? Jews used ‘progressivism’ and ‘egalitarianism’ as games in order to become ‘more equal than others’. Do Jews want goyim to take those values so literally to the point where the latter demand that Jews be literally on equal terms with the rest of the population? What may be played as a game by Jews could be used by goyim to defame the Jews. Smart Jews are gamers, dimwit goyim are hammers. Compare the Jewish Left with the non-Jewish Left. Many on the Jewish Left are actually affluent--usually richer and more privileged than pro-free-market goyim. They aren’t suffering from want or poverty. For them, Leftism is really a game to gain power and influence. Some Jews care more about the profit while other Jews wanna play the prophet. Since those who go the prophet-path don’t make the kind of money of people who choose the profit-path, they seek compensation by power and influence--politics and academia. They compensate their relative lack of money with the power of morality. So, Jewish leftists are not poor starving people seeking equal justice or a piece of bread to eat(though that may have been the case with poor working class Jews in pre-Revolutionary Russia and even in early 20th century America with their slums filled with immigrant Jews). Jewish leftists are well-fed and well-bred privileged people seeking higher status in life, and they use issues such as poverty, ‘social injustice’, and inequality around the world to play the game of power. Whenever Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein goes blah blah about the poor ‘people of color’ around the world, they are really stoking their own egos as the great truth-telling prophets of the age(when, in fact, they are two-faced weasels who will tell any lie and distort any fact to promote themselves). There is both a confrontation and convergence between rich capitalist Jews and radical leftist Jews. In the case of George Soros and Armand Hammer, we see the funny dichotomy within the same person. But there is even a link between seemingly ‘conservative’ rich Jews and leftist radical Jews who, though affluent, are not superrich. To superrich Jews, radical Jews are useful as enemies of ‘racism’, which means breaking down national barriers for ‘free trade’ and ‘open borders’. Such policies not only undermine the power of the white goy competitors but maximize the profits of Jewish globalists the world over. Prominent leftist Jews also lend the impression that Jews are a socially conscientious people who are not all about money and gold. Though rich Jews wanna be even richer, they wanna be associated morally with the ‘champions of social justice’. So, we have filthy rich Hollywood Jews with their radical chic shenanigans. And of course, to radical Jews, rich Jews are a source of funds and support. Just as for thousands of years, Jewish merchants supported the rabbis and scholars, today’s secular rich Jews support the Jewish intellectuals and radicals.
Also, leftist Jews and rightist Jews share certain misgivings about goyim. Of course, leftist Jews are ideologically not supposed to admit that Jews are smarter and cleverer than goyim since that would be ‘racist’. Leftist Jews are supposed to pretend that white goy, a Latino, a Negro, or Asian has the same innate qualities as the Jew; and that when we finally remove all the vestiges of ‘racism’ and oppression instituted and embedded at all levels of society by white goy evildoers, there shall come a day when everyone can have equal access to success, happiness, power, and wealth. So, a super-smart Jew like Jared Diamond pretends that New Guinean Negroes are just as smart as he is, or even smarter. But, deep down inside, no leftist Jew--unless he or she is really dumb--really believes something so ridiculous. It would be like a Negro saying that one day Mexicans will be just as good at basketball; or, it’d be like men saying women will day make just as good weight-lifters. Deep down inside, both leftist and rightist Jews know that Jews have the edge. Also, both groups want Jews to succeed more than others. Of course, leftist Jews may want to believe that they are egalitarians of good-will, but they can afford to feel this way because they have so much power. If their power and position were to be threatened by other peoples, would liberal and leftist Jews really feel this way? Would they be as graceful(or wussy)as American wasps had been in moving aside and making way for non-Wasps in the name of ‘fairness’? It seems that while Jews accept tokenism--like Linda Chavez at COMMENTARY--, they really wanna maintain control of most things.
And so, we return to the problem that Jews have with radicalism. Though radical ideas, positive or negative, are very often the products of people of high intelligence, they almost invariably become stupid when applied and accepted by the thick-skulled masses. Eastern European Jews, who feared Russian goyim with pitch folks, may have sought refuge in communism, but it wasn’t long before communism produced its own Russian goyim with pitchfolks, albeit with different reasons for coming after Jews. If Russians prior to the Revolution came after Jews because Jews were seen as leftist agitators and leeches, Russians after the Revolution came after Jews because Jews were seen as elitist, capitalist, or Zionist pigs. Obviously, Jews in the West--even leftist ones--don’t want communism since they remember very well what happened in Eastern Europe. Yet, Jews don’t wanna be exposed as rich capitalists either, since people will say Jews are a stinking bunch of rich bankers and tycoons and etc. For Jews to maintain their power, they must keep playing the ‘game’, and this requires freedom that Jews can exploit. Freedom doesn’t mean everyone is equally free or has equal access to power. It means smarter people shall use freedom more cunningly and ruthlessly to amass great power and then use that power to play other people every which way and then some. So, Jews play left, Jews play right, Jews pander to white Christians, Jews piss on white Christians, etc, etc. Jewish advantage over goyim is Jewish wit, but the problem of a radical order is it doesn’t allow much wit. Radicalism limits choices and favors simple truths. Over time, it favors the mindless fanatics over the creative thinkers. Eventually, the likes of Stalin and Mao win over the likes of Marx and Trotsky. In both HOUSE OF GAMES and eXistenZ, there are characters who are tired of the game because they can never win. They’ll always be outwitted, always be outmaneuvered. And even if they win the game, the game is not theirs but belongs to someone else; the victory of the gamer is hollow compared to the triumph of the game designer who makes the rules. No matter how much they are in awe of the game and no matter how much they are eager to learn, gamers are puppets of the game designer, the true winner of the game of power. The only thing goy gamers can do to win the game is to kill the Jew. So, the woman in HOUSE OF GAMES finally shoots the Jewishy figure played by Joe Mantegna. And so the Aryanish couple in eXistenZ decide to kill the Jewish game designer. But the question still lingers in the final scene: Are they real people who killed a super-genius-radical Jew, or are they still duped goyim within the Jewish maze whose minds are being examined by the Jewish gamer who is still alive and pulling the strings from another layer of reality? Never underestimate the Jew.
The Jewish Anxiety at the core of eXistenZ has to do with the notion that goyim both admire the Jew and want to kill the Jew, indeed paradoxically want to kill the Jew precisely because they admire the Jew. The intellectual and creative power of the Jew is indeed awesome, and this power can construct new worlds in which goyim want to live. But in the process, Jews gain power over goyim. Jews become the aquarium designers, and goyim become the fish. It is for this reason that Jews seek to tame or domesticate the Passion of the Goy. A wild wolf may want the food of man but it doesn’t wanna be tamed by man. The goy may want the goods/ideas produced by Jews, but he doesn’t want to be a running dog owned by Jews. From the Jewish perspective, goyim are dimwit ingrates that bite the hand that feeds them. Remember the story of Jesus handing fish and bread to the masses, but the masses laughed and jeered when He was nailed to the cross. As far as Jews are concerned, they are the Promethean creators of the Modern World. Their genius did so much to make the world a better place. Yet, goyim cannot accept the masterful greatness of the Jews; goyim feels resentful and envious and want to bite the hand of the Jews. And so, the goyim must be tamed and neutered, which is why Jews seek to metro-sexualize white males by pushing the Gay Agenda and promoting interracism. If white males accept fruiters as their equal and accept white women going for Negroes, white males might as well be a bunch of ‘faggot-maggot pussy-boys’. To Jews, white males are nothing but a bunch of wolves to be tamed into dogs and then dogs to be turned into guinea pigs and then guinea pigs to be turned into castrated guinea pigs. It’s the way of the Jews.
It’s duly been noted that much of what we’ve come to use and rely on have been created by Jews. Consider Google, Craigslist, Facebook, and many other online services. Facebook has lots of conservatives and even anti-Semites, but they’ve come to rely on Jewish Genius. Thus, like Ted Pikul and Allegra Geller, they both admire and fear the Jew. People who’ve seen eXistenZ know about the various levels of reality in the narrative. We first see gamers in a church entering into virtual reality space, but it’s cut short by Noel Dichter’s assassination attempt of Allegra, the great gamer-designer. She then escapes with Ted Pikul, and together they enter into virtual reality game-space, from which they enter into yet another level of game-space. It’s like a movie in a movie in a movie, or a dream in a dream in a dream(like in INCEPTION). But the real twist comes near the end when we discover that even what we’d originally assumed as reality--gamers gathered at the church in the opening scene--was just another level of virtual reality game-space. So, we are not in real reality until the final scene when we learn that the Allegra Geller and Ted Pikul are lovers/partners in real life and that Allegra is not the game designer but only played one in virtual reality game-space. The real game designer, the genius behind the whole thing, turns out to be a guy named Yevgeny Nourish(whom we encountered earlier as one of the characters in the virtual reality game-space)who is obviously Jewish. (People who’ve seen the movie will also note that even the reality in the final scene may not be real reality but merely another level of virtual reality, a possibility with a double-meaning: Meaning (1) Our minds/lives have become so interwoven with technology that we no longer have a firm grasp of the borderline between reality and fantasy. If we could realize our fantasies through technology, why would we not prefer them to reality, and if we become fully immersed in our fantasies(enabled by game-designers who gain control over our lives), could we ever regain the true sense of what it is to be real? Cinema has already had this effect on people, becoming a kind of hyper-reality for some people, like in Woody Allen’s PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO, which was a kind of remake of Fellini’s WHITE SHEIK. But in some ways, the concern posed by Cronenberg has been with mankind since the development of elevated consciousness. After all, mankind has lived with myths, superstitions, fantasies, and religions from the beginning. In some ways, one could argue that the rise of fantasy-reality, or fantality, returns man to his original psychological state before the rise of rationalism and science. It was rationalism and science that awakened man from fantasy to reality, drawing a clear line between the actual and the imagined. But prior to methods of logical clarity and rational classification, man lived in a world in which reality co-existed with fantasy. He believed in the spirits, magic, forces, and strange powers swirling all around him. A rock wasn’t just a rock and a tree wasn’t just a tree. They could have spiritual powers or some sacred essence. The wind and rain weren’t merely elements of nature but forces of or messages from God or gods. It was the rise of reason which made man aware of verifiable reality as opposed to imagined unreality. The monotheism of Judaism, later spreading via Christianity, also probably had a role in making man more aware of real reality. Since there is only one God according to Judaism/Christianity, it is blasphemous to say that nature is animated by a million other gods or spirits. Thus, the spirit is something within souls of man and in Heaven with the one and only God. It is not part of the material objects all around us, an animistic notion that comes close to idolatry. This Jewish/Christian notion probably had the effect of making man see reality around him with greater detachment and even clarity. Judaism/Christianity, by spiritually linking man closer to Heaven and distancing him further from the world around him, allowed and encouraged a more cold-eyed inspection of material reality. Since God was in Heaven and not in things of this world, the things could be seen for what they are--as matter or organisms. And given the prohibition of idolatry, man was not allowed to use his imagination to invest things of this world with spiritual/magical powers. With advanced science/technology and modern man’s obsession with consumerist gratification, mankind had been able to lose himself into the world of imagination once again. And though sold as a science, psychology itself is a kind of opiate. Psychologists(many of them Jewish)don’t just study the mind to attain clarity on how the mind works but to create a new kind of mystery cult. It becomes a kind of an addiction too, which is why Freudianism, though sold as science, had all the appeal of a new theology. There is also the availability of drugs, legal and illegal, for increasing numbers of people, altering their conscious and/or dream states. If the whole point of the Enlightenment and Rationalism was to favor truth and reality over mystery and fantasy, the perverse irony is that the very product of science--advanced technology--is making it possible for more people to lose themselves in a world of fantasy. Modern technology has made possible such things as electronic instruments, videogames, movies, and the internet; and it’s fervently at work on forms of virtual reality. Have these innovative products made people want to know more about reality or lose themselves deeper into blissful fantasies?
Meaning (2). The other possible meaning of the final scene is that the brains control all. Suppose that the final scene is not taking place in real reality but is yet another level of virtual reality. In that case, Ted Pikul and Allegra Geller did not kill Yevgeny Nourish, the super-genius Jew; they only think they did while still being immersed in the game designed by Nourish(whatever his real name may be). So, just when the gentile duo reveal their hidden desire/secret agenda to kill the Jew, they’ve only killed a phantom while the real Jew, somewhere in real reality, is observing their subconscious urges. Since Jews are the brains of society, they control all. We dimwit goyim may use stuff like Facebook and create our virtual political space of ‘white power’, but the fact is Jews who own and control Facebook are now reading and finding out what we are really thinking--and using their knowledge to formulate new policies to control us even more.
Another interpretation of the final scene of eXistenZ is not so much that goyim really want to kill the Jew but that the paranoid Jew thinks they do. As such, the question remains as to whether what happens at the end is the manifestation of goy fear/hatred of the Jew or the Jewish fear/anxiety about the goy. Who’s psycho-drama is it primarily? That of the Jew or that of the goyim? Or is it the fusion of both, with the goyim taking on Jewish traits and the Jew taking on goy traits?
Indeed, one of the strange things about the video game narrative is that Allegra Geller is presented as the great designer when the real designer is a Jew named Yevgeny Nourish. Why not a play a game where the actual designer plays the designer in the game-space? Why has the honor been bestowed to Allegra, a blond ‘Aryan’-looking woman? One possibility is that the Jew wants to ‘hide’ his power since Jewish prominence has often been the cause of goy envy and resentment of the Jew. So, perhaps the smart Jew Nourish ‘gracefully’ and cunningly allows a goyess to play the role of the super-smart person. Another possibility is that the goy, envious and resentful of the smarter Jew, wants to appropriate and possess the Jew’s power. The strange thing about the game of eXistenZ is it’s played subconsciously(in a kind of dream state)than consciously as all of today’s videogames. So, it’s more than virtual reality as we know understand it. It’s more like virtual dream-reality. As such, the game takes shape and spins a narrative by exploring and reading the hidden psychological interiors of the players--perhaps desires and passions unknown on the conscious level even to the very people who harbor them. The game psychologically, almost psychically, links together a number of players who enter into a kind of collective/interactive consciousness. So, the Jew can enter into the mind of the goy and vice versa. But since the Jew invented the game, he probably has a firmer grasp of what’s really going on than the other players do. He alone could be the lucid-dreamer-player of the game. (By the way, Nourish, other than the obvious meaning of ‘to nourish’, could also be a play on ‘noir-ish’. It’s like the Jew is feeding and feeding on the minds of goyim in the dark nocturnal space of dreams.) In some ways, it seems Yevgeny Nourish designed the game not only to get rich and famous but to know and gain greater control of goyim. Ever since the time of Freud, through the Frankfurt School and others, Jews have been trying to gain greater knowledge of the goyim. What dark secrets and passions lurk beneath the veneer of order and civilization in the goyim? This question became even more important with WWI and WWII. In WWI, the most civilized peoples on Earth slaughtered one another, piling up around 17 million dead bodies. And then in WWII, Germany, one of the most advanced nations on Earth, followed a madman named Hitler to a catastrophe that may have cost Europe some 50 million lives. And for the Jews especially, there was the matter of the Holocaust. How did Germans, who were considered among the less antisemitic people in Europe(and among the most educated and enlightened peoples), turn overnight into blind followers of a visionary madman and become the biggest oppressors/killers of Jews? What happened after WWII was as alarming as assuring. Germans quickly rejected and denounced their Nazi past and became good people once again. Just how did a people who’d acted so crazily suddenly become so sane? Were Germans fooling the world? Or even if Germans were consciously sincere and penitent, were they still infected with the irrational virus and only fooling themselves? Were post-war Germans primarily motivated by conscience or by fear and humiliation? Since they lost the war and all sense of honor, could it be that their only way of reclaiming normalcy and pride was by pulling their hair and acting holier-than-thou as repentant sinners? There is undoubtedly an element of moral narcissism in the German display of remorse. There is a preening self-serving sanctimony in their self-debasement as garish spectacle. When Berlin builds a huge Holocaust Memorial in the center of the city, one cannot help but notice an element of shameless ashamedness. By casting not only WWII but all of German civilization/history as unremittingly evil, today’s Germans are shamelessly making the claim that they achieved something truly epic in transforming a world of pure evil into a world of high hope. Beware the man who casts himself the greatest sinner for he sets his sight on playing the greatest saint. Anyway, would Germans have become so decent if they’d won the war? Or, consider the German nuclear scientists who’d clearly been working to develop the Bomb but, when their side lost the war, spun a narrative where they’d allegedly sabotaged the project all along because their conscience wouldn’t allow them to build such a weapon(especially for a man like Hitler); having lost radioactively, they tried to redeem themselves retroactively. So, what really lurks in the secret corridors of the human mind? And how may Jews gain an understanding of the goy mind so as to engineer it to be more Jew-friendly and less threatening?
One way to keep the goy down is through infantilism or infantilization, something abundantly obvious in the Oprah phenomenon. (Nazism, on the other hand, sought to control the masses by treating them like little children. In a way, every Nazi German, whatever his or her age, was like a member of Hitler Youth. Childhood is a phase when young ones are taught to learn manners, follow orders, clean up their rooms, obey authority, and etc. Hitler didn’t want a nation of adults since mature critical minds would have questioned and challenged his authority on intellectual, political, and moral grounds. He wanted to be like a stern Boy Scout master to his people. In contrast, Jews--at least those in the entertainment industry--want to reduce the minds of goyim to those of infants.) To her fans, Oprah is like a big fat mammy with big fat milk-chocolate titties. She makes them laugh and cry and go goo-goo-gah-gah. Such creatures have no pride, no dignity, no discipline. They are emotionally vulnerable and dependent on some nanny figure, whether it be an entertainer like Oprah or cradle-to-grave big government state. (On the Right, there is Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as purveyors of infantilism despite their claims of upholding individuality and independence. Beck bawls like a baby even thinking of Michael King, aka Martin Luther King, and Limbaugh is an out-of-control fatboy who can’t even control his instincts for food and pleasure. And Michael Moore is radical leftist as fat baby.) The practice of raising children into adults is essentially a conservative process. Even though liberals are seriously involved in pedagogy and try to steer young minds toward ‘progressive’ or even radical ideas, it is still a process requiring the transformation of chaotic undisciplined young minds into orderly, responsible, and respectful minds. A teacher cannot teach unless the students have proper manners, attitudes, and self-control. The teacher must maintain power over the students, and the students must respect the teacher enough to learn from him. Whether the political system of society is Right or Left, fascist or communist, secular or religious, education involves turning the anarchic minds of children who prefer fun-and-play into adults willing to work, shoulder responsibilities, and take their places in society. Of course, Jews have been heavily involved in education as Jews are intellectually-oriented people who want to influence the thoughts and values of other peoples. But given the leftist or even radical leanings of many Jews, there has always existed the tension between the Jew-as-inciter-of-rebellion and Jew-as-demander-of-order in the classroom. Most Jewish academics have settled on a formula whereby students are supposed to be teacher’s pets to Jewish intellectuals but firebrand rabid dogs to the enemies/rivals/competitors of the Jews. So, gentile students who meekly suck up to Jewish professors are goaded to attack ‘white racists’. It’s kinda like Mao during the Cultural Revolution when he let loose youth rage against his enemies but of course not against himself. Mao said ‘To Rebel Is Justified’, but it was never acceptable to rebel against the Chairman. Similarly, while Jewish radical professors encourage their students to attack and bark at the ‘enemy’, the students are supposed to meekly kiss their Jewish professors’ ass. This way, Jewish radicals get to have the cake and eat it too. They pose as dangerous radicals who are committed to ‘progress’ while enjoying their privilege in safety and security. There was less of a tension in the educational modes of Nazis and Fascists since rebellion was not idealized as a social or historical good. Though Fascists and Nazis did come to power through acts of rebellion against the established order, their message and ideal were not to foment violent revolution but to create a harmonious state of affairs so that everyone would have a meaningful place in society. So, the ideal was to belong and to respect order. Communism, on the other hand, romanticized rebellion but could not tolerate rebellion against communism itself.
Anyway, if children are taught, through education, to obey or to rebel in the name of a cause--which is also a form of obedience since they’re pledging allegiance to a set of ideals, movement, or leaders ‘higher’ than themselves--, babies cannot be so guided and ordered. Babies are helpless babbling creatures who basically know how to cry or laugh. And it is to the advantage to the Jew to maintain a certain degree of infantilism among the goy populace. For one thing, Jews control most of the entertainment industry, and it’s much easier to make money with an infantile audience than a mature one. It’s easier to rake in tons of money with dumb blockbusters like TRANSFORMERS, SPIDER MAN movies, or IRON MAN sequels.
And why were so many people addicted to Oprah? She appealed to the infant in them all. Of course, she masked the essentially infantile nature of her show with stuff like Book of the Month and all that Jazz, but the real appeal was she was a nurturing big-titty mammy-mama who looked at the audience and went ‘ohhhhh, let me dote on baby-poo’. It was like going to heaven and waking up in a musical number from THE LION KING. There’s no other way to explain how so many people could fall for her nonsense. And the Magic Negro ideal is little more than the infantilization of spirituality. It’s Uncle Tom/Remus as god, with that warm smile with white teeth and sounding so loving and nurturing. And of course, one of the biggest movies of the 90s was none other than FORREST GUMP whose hero was some baby-man who lived life as a box of chocolates. And despite his intelligence, one wonders if Bill Clinton was really looking for a mama figure when he dilly-dallied with Monica Lewinsky, who looked like a big-tittied Jewish Oprah. He was followed by George W. Bush, one of the most baby-like president ever. And Barack Obama, though hyped as a cool and mature guy, has a baby-face with jug-ears that brings out the maternal instinct in women. It’s rather incestuous, white women seeing him as both cool sexy stud and their baby who needs to be breast-fed with white liberal milk of human kindness.
Perhaps, part of infantilism’s appeal is that it returns us to a time when everything was so simple. After all, kittens and puppies will play like they are members of the same species. Similarly, there is no ideology, race, politics, divisions, etc among babies. A white baby doesn’t know it’s a white baby, a black baby doesn’t know it’s black baby; a baby of conservative parents doesn’t know it’s supposed to be conservative, a baby of liberal parents doesn’t know it’s supposed to be liberal, and even a gay baby or gaby doesn’t know it’s gay(though to be sure, Jewsweek, aka Newsweek, is worried that even babies--white ones of course--could be ‘racist’.) So, when we lose ourselves in the infantile hopes and warmth of Oprah, the Magic Negro, Forrest Gump, or Bush Baby as the ‘compassionate conservative’, we can let go of all the complexities of the world. We can all just go goo-goo and gaga. Given the strong emotional appeal of infantilism, Jews can exploit it to make tons of cash, which is what they’ve done. It is also a good way for Jews to fool white goyim into accepting more diversity, since oh goo-goo gaga, it means more fun kids and toys to play with in Romper Room Land, which America has become ever since Jews gained elite power. While babies may be annoying when they’re crying, they can also be easily be satisfied with a suckle on the teat or a huggy-wuggy. In eXistenZ, there seems to be nipple-like buds on game console pods. Though the game itself has been designed by a Jew of great intelligence, part of its appeal to the goyim is its fulfilling of infantile fantasies. When Allegra Geller, as game designer in opening scene, asks for volunteers for a trial game, we see hands shooting up among the audience in the ‘oh please, me me me!’ manner. They are so much like fans on Oprah about to wet their pants because they might win trinkets and prizes. Or they’re like fools who watch American Idol and get all weepy-eyed and caught up in the excitement. Jews fear mob passions of the goyim whooutnumber them, so it’s better to keep these passions infantilized, thus easier to manipulate in a cookie-or-crib manner.
By making Allegra Geller the brainy genius within the game-play, it’s as though Yevgeny Nourish is moving into the shadows to observe and study the minds of goyim. For one thing, it should be obvious by now that Jews have often felt nervous about too much exposure of their prominence, prowess, and power in elite fields. This was one reason why Trotsky didn’t take the top position as head of the Soviet Union after Lenin died. He believed it wouldn’t be good for the Revolution’s image to have a full-bloodied Jew--who also looked very Jewish--to be head of Soviet Russia that was mostly a land of gentiles. Jewish intellectuals and leaders were essential to the Russian Revolution, but they didn’t want to be too visible, for counter-revolutionaries were saying that Bolshevik rule was little more than a radical Jewish putsch. Trotsky probably came to regret what at the time seemed like a sensible and cautionary choice because the rise of Stalin spelled doom for not only him but many other communist Jews. Many smart Jews thought they would be able to control and manipulate the less intelligent Stalin, but Stalin confiscated the Revolution from the hands of Jews and then killed a whole bunch of them, especially the ones at the top. The rise of Stalin and the eventual demise of the Jews have been among the major subjects of Jewish Anxiety in the 20th century. Notice its parallel in eXistenZ when Allegra Geller and Ted Pikul, even while acknowledging the profound and revolutionary genius of the Jew Nourish, empty their bullets into him. It’s like the Jew must die since his power is just too great. If the Jew is allowed to remain among goyim, he will take over everything. It’s no wonder that the Exodus has been a repeating theme in Jewish history, with one society/civilization after another deciding it just about had enough of the Jews and kicking them out.
In some cases, the goyim want to kick out the Jews but keep the Jewish achievement, as in the case of communism. In some cases, the goyim want to kick out the Jew and be rid of everything Jewish since it reminds them of Jewish superiority. Nazism especially went out of its way to reject and root out everything that was Jewish, banning even the music of Mendelssohn and Mahler. The Spanish in the 15th century, in contrast, either wanted the Jews out or converted but still hoped to put the converts to good use since they were talented in many fields.
Anyway, it wasn’t just Trotsky who wanted to remain in the background, relatively speaking anyway. Sigmund Freud was also eager to find a goy partner because all of his early disciples were Jewish, a fact that led his critics to dismiss his theories as ‘Jewish science’. So when Freud met Jung, he was so relieved. He hoped to use Jung as the ‘Aryan’ face/mask to convey his ideas to the larger society. Thus, his theories would no longer just be regarded as ‘Jewish science’ but gain legitimacy. But of course, Jung had his own ideas even as he drew certain theories from Freud. In time, Jung would, more or less, be associated with the German Right and even with fascism. He became the Aryan enemy of Freud, just like Ted Pikul and Allegra Geller turn out to be Aryan enemies of Yevgeny Nourish. (Interestingly enough, the new film by David Cronenberg is about the troubled relationship between Jewish Freud and Aryan Jung.)
More recently, Jews have used both John McCain and Barack Obama to mask their power. McCain and Obama could be said to have been eMASKulated by the Jews. McCain is one of those Wasps whose main goal in life is to kiss Jewish ass. And Obama was politically created by the Jews from day one. So, in this context, it’s understandable why Yevgeny Nourish would have Allegra Geller play the genius videogame designer within the game-space. That way, the goyim is made to feel that one of their own kind holds the power; also, as the object of envy and resentment, the anger of the goyim is directed at an Aryan female than at the Jew who is the real puppet-master. Also, the Jew, Nourish, gets to observe from the shadows the whole dynamic of ‘get the genius’, which is a variation of ‘get the Jew’. Of course, ‘get the Jew’ has a double-meaning: hire/recruit the brilliant Jew with knack for cunning OR kill the Jew who is a blood-sucker or subversive freak.
Though Yevgeny isn’t a professional conman like Joe Mantegna in HOUSE OF GAMES, he meets the same fate at the hands of goyim. He is shot at point blank range. His superior intellectual gamesmanship is seen as an affront to the well-being and confidence of goyim. People have a natural admiration for excellence but also a natural affinity to their own tribe. So, even as whites were awed by the power of Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali, they were shaken by the fact that a jive-ass ‘nigger’ was whupping the white man. Simiarly, though Germans were awed by Jewish achievement, they were also frightened and offended by the fact that a bunch of funny-looking hook-nosers made the great Germans look dumb by contrast.
And so, it’s been the priority of the Jew to fill white goyim with white guilt. White guilt would lead to self-loathing. White self-loathing would lead to white admiration of non-white superiority without white pride being wounded into murderous resentment. Thus, the white acceptance of Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali as great heroes would lay the psychological foundation for white gentile acceptance of Jews as rightful masters of America. When white males believe that flabby, slow, faggoty-ass, and ‘racist’ white boys DESERVE to lose to charismatic, colorful, masterful, and noble black males, it means the white race has become toothless than ruthless. Today, Negro males not only whup white male ass but hump white female pussy, but where is white male rage? It’s nowhere to be found. In fact, when white women grind their booties against the crotches of Negro men at dance clubs, all that white guys can say is “well, what do you expect?”, which means Negroes are the ‘better men’ and deserve to get prime white pussy while white boys should wait around for crumbs. Such pussification of the white male was engineered by Jews in order to make whites psychologically more accepting of Jewish power. Jews understand that white power is centered in the white male. If white males lose their pride, power, and prestige as men, then the white race as a whole is finished. Once white males are pussified, white females will lose respect for them and go have sex with Negro males and give birth to mulatto kids; white females will become the playthings of Jewish men who will use them as cumbuckets in Hollywood, Ivy League universities, pop music, and porn.
Indeed, the bond that Jews have been trying hardest to break is the unity between white males and white females. Race is founded on sex. White race is created by white males mating with white females. White male power comes from white females standing by their men. And white females gain racial consciousness by respecting white males. But today, white females notice that Negro males are the masters of pop music and sports. White females notice that white males are political and economic slaves and puppets of the smarter Jews. How can white women respect white males as the kings of the hill when white males have been pussified and faggotized? White males were not even able to block open gayness in the military, which now puts up big posters of black guys having sexual liaisons with white females. This goes to show why libertarianism is as doomed as anything as a means to save the white race. Libertarianism means pure meritocracy, which means smarter Jews amassing most of the wealth and power, and it means tougher Negroes gaining prominence in sports and pop culture. The only thing that will work for the white race is Neo-Fascism, a creation of a World of Our Own, but the white race is so decrepit, infantilized, mudsharkized, lobotomized, and castrated that I doubt if it will ever wake up from the dangers it’s facing.
It is significant that eXistenZ has an ‘Aryan’ couple who, though lovers in real life, are turned into strangers and then into enemies in the video game realm. At the end, we learn that Allegra Geller and Ted Pikul are actually lovers, a couple. But in the world of the video game, they are first introduced as strangers--her as the video game designer and he as the lowly ‘security person’. Notice how the status of the ‘Aryan’ woman is higher than that of the ‘Aryan’ man, which upsets the right-wing ideal of man as the keeper/defender of the castle. In the video game world designed by Yevgeny Nourish the Jew, the woman is given advantage over the man. She is not a white woman who is loyal to her white man but an ‘independent’ woman who has essentially taken on the bogus identity of a genius game-designer. Gradually, we see the bonding between Allegra and Ted. There seems to be some hidden force at work that pulls them together, an energy that the Jew cannot control. But the game is ultimately rigged by the Jew to make Allegra and Ted enemies. We learn that Ted is one of the underground agents of radical realism who faked his sympathy for Allegra only to gain better understanding of her psychotronic technology. He tries to kill her, but she shoots him first after telling him she’d known his hostile agenda all along. And then, the players wake up to real reality. Ted and Allegra, though initially introduced as strangers in the video game world, actually turn out to be lovers. Contrary to being enemies, they are allies in real life, an ‘Aryan’ couple, whose agenda of radical realism obligates them to take out the genius Jew. (Keep in mind that race-ists call themselves ‘race realists’ and base their ideology on the facts of biology. Modern Jews, in contrast, prefer to create ideologies as social constructs. Indeed, Jews even insist that the reality of race is not a reality at all but a social myth. So, radical realism in eXistenZ can be seen as a metaphor for biological race-ism whereas the video-game-reality is like a social construct. Jews prefer the game of social construct since biological reality is what it is: simple and brutal. Since Jews must win by wit and brilliance, the brutal realism of biology is not to their advantage; they prefer social-construct-ism that allows all sorts of intellectual card tricks.) Inside the video game world, Yevgeny Nourish sought to create a division between the white male and the white female--just like Jews in the real world use feminism, ‘anti-racism’, and other means to drive a wedge between white males and white females--and succeeded, but in the real world, Allegra and Ted are united and committed to taking out the Jew. The united power of white man and white woman is the worst nightmare for the Jew. Among all races, the central unity is between man and woman. A man is nothing without the respect of his womenfolk. A woman loses something when she loses respect for her menfolk. When Jack Johnson felled all those white boys, white women were thrown into a psychological/psycho-sexual turmoil. White women had respected and loved their men as top of the heap, but white boys all got whupped by a foul-mouthed Negro. So, what was the white woman to do? For centuries, Western society had created the ideal of the white man as warrior and white woman as damsel, with damsel going with the top warrior. What if Negro was the new victor who toppled the white warrior reduced to a puddle of melted lard? This psychological crisis came to a head in the case of an elderly Southern woman in the early 70s--recounted in Ali’s autobiography THE GREATEST. After Muhammad Ali handedly defeated Jerry Quarry in their second fight, the white Southern woman confronted and screamed at Ali. Why? The night before, she had fantasized about having sex with Ali to sap him of his strength so that the white man could kick his ‘nigger’ ass and reclaim the title of top warrior. She had been brought up as a good Southern woman who was supposed to look up to white man as the top male and stand by his side. But this was premised on white males being kings of the hill. But the Negro Ali was whupping all the white males. What was she to do? The ideal she was brought up with was to remain loyal to white males as the king-lords of the Western world. She was brought up to put out to top males. But this ideal was violated by the fact that Ali the Negro was humiliating all the white males, reducing them to faggoty-ass white boys. This evidently led to some serious neurosis. A part of her wanted to have sex with Ali, the top stud male Negro, but another part of her wanted to remain loyal to the heroic white man as white knight and noble warrior. So, what was she to do? She would fantasize having sex with Ali to somehow weaken his strength via telepathy--she would thus gain both wild jungle fever pleasure and sacrifice her purity to serve the glory of the white race--and then hope that the white man, Jerry Quarry, would whup Ali’s ass. But it was not to be. In their second fight, Quarry was defeated worse than in the first fight(which was at least mercifully stopped on the count of Quarry’s cuts). So, the woman was crushed. She had psychically betrayed the white race in the name of higher loyalty to the white race. She had fantasized having sex with the Negro Ali so that the white knight warrior would kick his ‘nigger’ ass. But not only did she have a massive sinful orgasm with Ali through sexual fantasy but she had to witness the spectacle of the white man being punched around like a sack of potatoes. Of course, we’ve come a long time since then. Now, our society is so much more ‘liberated’ and ‘egalitarian’, which means even famous women like Madonna can openly get screwed in the pussy and ass by two Negroes while holding two dicks of two other Negro men, all the while sucking on the fifth Negro dick. This kind of behavior today is not a career-destroyer but something for public praise in the Jew-dominated order. (I wonder if Puritanism had taken hold in America, at least until the 1960s, because of white male’s fear of the Negro. If US had been all-white, open sexuality would mean white women screwing white men. But in a nation with lots of Negroes, open sexuality would mean white women coming to the realization that Negro men have broader shoulders, harder muscles, tighter butts, and bigger penises. Perhaps, this explains the taboo against male frontal nudity. If white guys show theirs, black guys will show theirs next, and it will be no contest that the Negro got the bigger dicks.)
Anyway, the nightmare of Jewish Anxiety comes true in eXistenZ because, despite the antagonism between Allegra and Pikul written into the game script by Nourish the Jew, the ‘Aryan’ couple remain united and execute their conspiracy to kill the genius Jew. Similarly, the Jewish elite’s main worry in America and Europe is that the emotional bonds may still be strong between white males and white females. Emotional bonds are the basis for political bonds, and if white women stand by their white men, Jewish power would be significantly reduced since one of the keys to Jewish power is divide-and-rule.
Even so, it’s fascinating how the thought-process unfolds in the game world of eXistenZ. As in dreams, people enter into profoundly different mental states where the familiar becomes strange and the strange becomes familiar. So, even though Ted and Allegra are real lovers in real reality, they really don’t seem to initially know one another in the game reality. In the game-dream-world, their real biographies have been replaced by alternate biographies. So, Allegra in the game really thinks she is the great game designer, and others see her that way. And she feels and acts as though she’s known certain people all her life when, in fact, they are co-gamer-strangers she met for the one-day game session. Though the game lasts only about 20 minutes in real time, it feels like several days have gone by in the game world. In a way, one could say Nourish is trying to do what the fellers in INCEPTION were trying to do: plant a psychic seed in the minds of others so that it may grow to fundamentally alter that person’s view of self, others, reality, history, etc. Nourish the Jew is trying to plant the seed of mutual distrust between the ‘Aryan’ man and the ‘Aryan’ woman. He is also projecting his Jewish arrogance, contempt, distrust, and anxiety onto the woman so that Geller in the video-game world takes on the qualities of the Jewish personality. And indeed, the effectiveness of feminism had something to do with making white women feel and think like vile, ugly, disgusting Jewesses. Radical feminists--many of whom were hateful, envious, and resentful Jewesses--spread and promoted the idea among non-Jewish women that the latter too were(or should be)as neurotic as the hideous Jewesses. So, we have ‘intellectual’ white women watching garbage like JEANNE DIELMANN, the radical feminist screed by the nutjob Chantal Akerman, a leftist-lesbian-Jewess. It’s no wonder that ‘hetero-normative’ values became ‘evil’ and ‘reactionary’ in our culture. Jews in the academia and media have ‘incepted’ seeds of anti-normativism in our psyches. Since Jews are a freakish, ugly, hideous, and alien elite, it is in their interest to make the normal goyim feel that abnormal is the new norm. (To be sure, ultra-normativism, as that of the Nazis, is ridiculous too.) Jews understand psychology, and they use its tricks like a conman doing the envelope-and-money trick(as in HOUSE OF GAMES). Jews know how to distract us, all the while switching our real values with their values. Consider all those stupid laugh-a-minute pro-gay sitcoms. Idiot goyim are too busy laughing at the ‘harmless’ jokes to catch onto the fact that the Jew is really slipping a gay agenda message into their minds.
The power of the Jews in the modern world illustrates how one doesn’t need virtual-dream-reality technology or inception-technology to gain control of people’s minds. Jewish control of the mass media and elite education(whose doctrines and dogmas trickle down to the kindergarten level)are enough. Movies, TV, music, books, news, and much else are indeed mind-control devices. Even many of the information channels and sources are geared more to manipulating us than teaching or encouraging us how to think and be skeptical. Though we tend to think in terms of ‘democracies speak the truth’ and ‘dictatorships spread lies’, the fact is even democracies are more about lies than truths. The difference is there is no monopoly on lies in a democracy. But the danger in America is that Jews, a vile alien elite, have gained a near-monopoly in the media and many other powerful institutions. With the exception of a few, all of Congress is a Jew-ass-kissing assembly. Even so-called conservative media sucks Jewish cock and licks Jewish rectum. It’s downright embarrassing and disgusting.
Near the end of the game, there is an infected pod that, when torched with a flame thrower, blows up and spews forth a cloud of black spores. In fact, infection is one of the main motifs in the movie. The fear of infection, of course, goes both ways. We tend to think in terms of purity versus infection, but every infection seeks a purity all its own. Wine is made with the infection of yeast, but the yeast must compete with infections by other organisms. When one makes cheese or yogurt, one kind of bacteria must dominate and take over the process. So, every infection seeks to be pure of other infections. It could be argued that every kind of life or organism is a germ, and that goes for humans too. Different organisms infect the world in different ways. Thus, the conflict between the Jew and goyim isn’t so much between infection/impurity vs perfection/purity but between infection vs infection. Though goy societies feared being infected by the Jewish virus, Jews also feared contamination by filthy goyim--in some ways, even more so, since Jews had many more taboos concerning marriage, food, practices, and etc. If the key to Christianity was to atone, the key to Judaism was to stone. Even a grave sinner could be forgiven by Christians, but a grave sinner had to be killed according to Judaic Law. Today, most Jews are secular and have transferred their ancient judgmentalism toward an unrelenting punishment and assault on white goyim.
There’s a certain irony in the Identity of the Jew. Though regarded by gentiles at times as sewer rats, leeches, germs, and carriers of disease, Jews more than reciprocated the contempt by seeing themselves as a holy people living by the laws of God while goyim were filthy, dirty, stinking, and disgusting peoples infected with idolatry or heresy. Also, Jews have traditionally been intolerant of Jews who didn’t get with the program. Given goy purism & hostility to the Jew and Jewish purism & hostility to the goy, it must have been interesting to be rejected by both communities. Jesus was just that kind of figure: a heretic to the Jews and a radical to the Romans. In the modern world, it could be said men like Marx and Freud took the position of Jesus. The ideas of Marx and Freud were offensive to traditional Jews and to many goyim. They were appealing to many modernist Jews and goyim who lost a clear sense of their place in the world. The slippery quality of the modern Jew is amphibious. It’s neither entirely aquatic nor wholly terrestrial. It is a ‘middle man’ form of life that both lives on earth and slips under the water. The psychological and medical Jews have what are essentially amphibious professions. The Jewish psycho-analyst meets a person face-to-face but then slowly seeks to submerge into the person’s wet subconsciousness. A Jewish surgeon--or any surgeon for that matter, but Jews make the best doctors--opens up the flesh and submerges his hands into the liquid world of blood, fluids, and organs. Cronenberg’s films are psycho-surgical where the graphic details often function as mental metaphors. Essential to both the surgeon and the psycho-analyst is the sensitive issue of ‘infection’. Infection during surgery can undermine the entire operation. The body, both inner and outer, is teeming with germs and bacteria; some are useful and necessary, others are not. For the psycho-analyst, the main challenge is penetrating through thickets of mental germs and impurities that cloud the view of the real source of one’s neurosis. Just like the pearl is buried somewhere inside an oyster, the core neurosis is hidden somewhere inside the psyche of every person, or so the theory goes.
In eXistenZ, there is a factory that cuts open mutant-amphibians to harvest their organs which are integral as components in the videogame pod. This seems like a dream-metaphor-ization of what is actually being done to the players during the playing of the game. The real game, as we realize in the final scene, doesn’t involve organ parts or strange pods. Instead, people wear electronic headgears connected by wires. But the players are electro-neurologically so intimately connected that it’s almost like they’re entering each other’s bodies. It’s like their brains have morphed into amphibians crawling and swimming into the minds and bodies of other players. So, inside the game world--where Geller finds herself to be the great game designer--, things get more fluid and organic, with people playing games with semi-organic pods.
The sexual theme here is important for Geller(in the video game)has an almost maternal attachment to her pod. It’s like a child within her womb. Yet, it’s not her womb or her child but the brainchild of a supersmart Jew. In essence, a white woman has been made to feel that she is impregnated with something special and alien, something that stands between her and the white male, like Ted Pikul. In the modern world, educated white women feel much less attachment or bond with white men than to the ideas/values/agendas fed to them by the Jew elite. Instead of ‘stand by your man’, it’s ‘suck on the Jew’. In a way, Ted Pikul is like the Joseph figure when Mary gets pregnant with the Son of God. His girlfriend in real life has been impregnated with the Jewish seed in the video game world. Just as God came to possess Mary and Joseph was reduced to being the servant of God and Holy Mother Mary, Pikul has been reduced to servant status in the game universe. At one point, Allegra asks Pikul to join her in the game(or game within the game), and this is like Eve asking Adam to eat the Forbidden Fruit. Remember that Eve was seduced by the Serpent and ate the fruit first. She became the servant of the serpent, and then made Adam join her. (The game pod tubes resemble both umbilical cords and the serpent.) There is the part of Pikul that is happy to play the loyal servant, but there is another side that wants to kill Geller who has become possessed by the Super Jew.
Of course, what is God and what is Satan, what is Good and what is Evil, and what is Holy and what is Unholy depends on one’s perspective. To Eve and then Adam, the Serpent seemed like a rather trustworthy fellow. When Jesus was killed, He was regarded as blasphemous or dangerous by most people. And Jews continued to hold Him in contempt, but He became the central figure to future Christians who would figure so large in world history.
Similarly, Yevgeny Nourish is both god and satan in the dynamics of eXistenZ depending on one’s perspective. He’s either the great genius who has opened up new dimensions of reality or a dangerous freak who is corrupting man’s sense of real(fixed)reality. Or maybe a bit of both. Cronenberg himself seems to be ambivalent about the game technology in the movie. Would such a technology be good or bad? Could it be bad even if the intentions of the maker are good? And what if the tools we create to use and to serve us end up swallowing us up to the point where we really do lose our sense of bearing of what is real and what is unreal? Indeed, even without such technology, modern people seem to be lost in some kind of meta-reality. Prior to rise of mass media and high-technology, we had a firmer sense of place. ‘Our’ place was where we were at the moment, and ‘their’ place was where they were at the moment. But with instant messaging, internet communication, and etc, we can almost feel connected consciously to different peoples and places all over the world. We have immediate/equal access to what’s happening in Morocco as around the next block. We don’t just end up with more information but develop a new kind of collective-connective consciousness. Our mental processes are almost being wired to gadgets like ipads, laptops, and lots of other stuff. How long before we develop brain implant technology, and then what?
The fear of infection or contamination in the movie may also refer to the Jewish Anxiety of the goyim stealing his secret. A Jew is to intellectualism what Chinese chefs are to cooking. A great Chinese chef wants people to eat his dishes and make a lot of money from them, but he’s always on the lookout for others stealing his secret recipe. Why does one chop suey taste better than others? It’s because the master chef of the great chop suey has some ancient Chinese secret he won’t share with anyone. The Chinese chef wants to sell his chop suey to as many people as possible, but he wants to keep the recipe to himself. Similarly, the Jew wants as many customers and clients for his products as possible so as to gain power, wealth, and influence, but the Jew doesn’t want to share his secrets with the masses, especially with dimwit goyim. (Of course, Jews even guard their secrets from one another.) Though Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud wanted to infect the entire world with their ideas, they also wanted to lay claim as the one-and-only founders/seers of those ideas. They wanted others to think, “only Karl Marx or Sigmund Freud could have come up with such great ideas, and only their chosen disciples could follow in their footsteps.” Jews wanna produce big ideas, agendas, and goods that the whole world wants, but they’re also eager to make sure that they’re ahead of the curve. So yes, communism was for all mankind, but its chosen leaders were to be intellectual Jews. And Freud wanted his ideas to be popularized through an elite group of intellectuals chosen by himself. Jews have the Jedi Knight complex. This is why Jews often get tired of certain ideas--even if created by them--and move to new ideas when goyim finally understand the older Jewish ideas. Jews don’t wanna be on equal terms with dimwit goyim. One of the reasons why Jews lost interest in communism was the fact that it turned into intellectual dogma, and dogma is for dimwits, not for active-creative minds. Jews prefer to be radical than dogmatic. Of course, radical ideas, once established, invariably turn into dogmas since the point of radicalism is to posit that the new theory is the One and Only Truth. Radical ideas have a creative life-span for a few decades, but once they become the common intellectual thread among the educated classes--and even the masses--, they are no longer special to Jews with insatiable intellectual vanity. This was why Susan Sontag took up one cause after another but then dropped it just when others were catching up to her. She always wanted to stay several steps ahead of the game, just like Jewish chess players take pride in being able to see many moves ahead. And Bob Dylan dropped something just when others were catching up to it. In 1965 and 1966, he created a new form of Art Rock, but when the rest of the field were going for the same in 1967, he turned to something else--a turn to ‘authenticity’. And when rockers followed Dylan to the return-to-roots thing in 1968 and early 70s, Dylan was moving to something new, eventually coming up with BLOOD ON THE TRACKS. This is why Jewish Egalitarianism can never work. Even in the struggle for equality, Jews wanna be ahead of everyone else in the theories and policies of egalitarianism. For thousands of years, Jewish rabbinical scholars and prophets took great pride in saying, “I see more than you, I see deeper than you, I speak the greater truth of God’s message, etc” and this spirit remains very much alive among modern Jews in just about every field. This makes Jewish creativity and achievement thrilling and awesome at times(when indeed the discoveries are of genuine value) and insane and obnoxious at other times(when Jew are clearly deluded with their monomania).
But the biggest danger for goyim is that Jews are often more interesting in their lies than goyim are in their truth. Why do we sometimes prefer fiction to non-fiction? Because fiction, though not real, can seem more real than real. And Jewish intellectualism, even when profoundly wrong or misguided, can impress a lot of people because of its sheer brilliance, erudition, insight, and originality. We now know that Marx was more wrong than right, but he was a powerful writer--take the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO--and a powerful mind with vast capacity for memory or organization. Many people were led to believe that Marx had to have been right since how could such eloquence, power, and brilliance as he possessed be on the side of falsehood?
Similarly, though many of Freud’s theories have been debunked, his brilliant mastery of the German language and the tantalizing aspects of his theories, right of wrong, were so impressive and provocative that many came to think “a man so original, intelligent, knowledgeable, and profound had to be correct..” A Jewish lie is more powerful than a goy truth. (If Jews impress goyim with the sheer power of his intellect even when the intellect is spinning half-truths, lies, or fantasies, then it could be said the Negro impresses whites with the sheer power of his Magic Negro charisma. MLK really spoke in trite banalities which would have sounded dull and boring coming from the mouths of non-blacks. But his soulful bellowing voice fooled a lot of people. Take Morgan Freeman. His voice is so nobly-rich-sounding that he could say, “suck my nigger cock, you honkey mothafucker”, and white folks would still be peeing in their pants in worship of him. Same goes for Samuel L. Jackson in PULP FICTION. His big speech at the end is horseshit, but it sounds cool simply because it’s spoken with Negro magnetism. Dimwit honkey gentiles, so awed by Jewish intellect and Negro charisma, is in big trouble. If a Jew brilliantly propounds a theory as to why white men should all be castrated and if a Negro soulfully expounds a sermon as to why white women should all suck black cock, I’ll bet good many white folks will do just that; indeed, they are doing so already.)
I suppose in a nutshell, it could be said Jews wanna ‘sell’ but don’t wanna ‘share’ their ideas. Or, they don’t wanna share their ideas until they’ve come up with something even better that will keep them ahead of the field yet once again. (This is also true with nuclear weapons. Israel wants to be the ONLY nation in the Middle East with nukes and throws a fit about other nations obtaining it. Zionist Jews, who sent bomb secrets to mass murderer Stalin, the mortal enemy of America and Western Europe, now demand that America and EU do everything to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Now, that’s chutzpah. What a disgusting people! Similarly, Ilana Mercer’s family aided and abetted ANC murderers and helped lay the ground for white genocide in South Africa, but she now wants white goyim in the West to stand by Israel against Palestinians. Jews are truly a hideous people. They spit in your face and then expect you to kiss their ass.)
One of the thorniest issues in post-war America was that Jewish scientists invented the atomic bomb, but control of it fell into the hands of white gentiles, especially conservatives(deemed to be closet anti-Semites by Jews). Though Jews wax romantic about Oppenheimer as a ‘man of peace’ who was ‘persecuted’ by paranoid Cold-War-Mongers, the real reason for Jewish rage was that they saw it as “The Jew inventeth but the Goy taketh away.” And of course, this also happened with modern communism, the father of which was Karl Marx and its main sons Jews or part-Jews like Trotsky, Lenin, Bela Kun, Zinoviev, and others. But Stalin and other goy goons took the great Russian prize away from the Jew. And today, American Jews are bitter over the fact that Putin and his gangster cronies took away the wealth ‘created’ by Jews in the post-Soviet order. If Jews learned one thing about communism, it’s ultimately bad for Jews because it offers little in the way of property rights--intellectual or material--and rule of law. Jewish ideas and wealth must be guarded by laws, and laws must be written and controlled by smart Jews; Jews need a democracy for that to be possible. Today, Jews control much of everything in the US, and they cannot be taken from the Jews because of the American rule of law, plus the fact that Jews control the brains and the arm of the law. Rule of law also means civilian control of the military, which means even an institution as conservative as the military must obey the command of the government paid for and dominated by Jewish influence. Of course, Jews have done much to change the military as well. Jewish feminists, by pushing for more women in the military, has created a culture of interracism and mudsharkdom among white female soldiers and officers, who routinely date and marry Negro officers and soldiers. Jewish power has also pushed the gay agenda in the military so that soldiers must now be lectured on sensitivity toward gays. White soldiers, as a result, must salute Negro officers and gay soldiers, and live with the shameful indignity of seeing white women go with Negro men and of having to cheer gay culture in the military. The political-correctization, feminization, Negro-ization, gay-ization, and interracialization of the military may be why Hollywood isn’t as anti-military as it used to be, when it had been much more the bastion of White Right power. Movies like SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, DR. STRANGELOVE, and FAIL SAFE had Americans believe that psychotic right-wing generals were about to launch nuclear missiles--made with atomic technology stolen from Jewish scientists--to destroy communism. Now that the American military is more seven gays in may and dr. gaylove, the Jewish elites are more prone to feel safe and be less anti-military(especially since the US military now mostly fights wars for Israel).
Yevgeny Nourish obviously feels anxiety about others stealing his technology, and this anxiety has been projected onto Allegra whose main worry is that radical realists are conspiring to destroy her technology while the competition is trying to steal her secrets for another game company. This whole aspect of the movie is very much like David Mamet’s SPANISH PRISONER where a smart guy with a corporate secret--unspecified as a Jew but very Jewishy--is surrounded by sharks, both inside and outside the company he works for, who wanna steal his ‘formula’. It’s also interesting that East Asians hover at the edges in both films. No doubt Jews feel a degree of uneasiness about East Asians. If Jews can play on white gentile Christian guilt, there is no easy psychological button to press on East Asians. Also, judging by Chinese culinary culture(especially with dogs, cats, and bears), East Asians can be a vile, vicious, and cruel people. If Jews can be ruthless, East Asians can be ruthless and cruel--and without a shred of conscience. Though in the game world of eXistenZ, the Chinese restaurant serves as a cover for the video game factory, there’s an uneasy sense that the Chinese guys might be spying on the technology. One never knows which side those inscrutable yellow bastards are on. Similarly, there seem to be Japanese corporate agents circling around the genius in THE SPANISH PRISONER. In both movies, we are told that the East Asians are actually on the side of the ‘good guys’, but their presence does add another layer of anxiety and uncertainty.
Jewish competitive spirit is double-edged, both individualist and tribal. In some ways, the biggest rival of a Jew is another Jew, just like the biggest rivals for Muhammad Ali were other tough blacks like Ken Norton, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, and Larry Holmes. There’s a saying that if you want Jews to be destroyed, leave them to themselves because they’ll be at each other’s throats. Indeed, one of the advantages of Stalin was that his dimwit goy followers were less dissentious than the smart Jews, who kept breaking into different factions. In America, leftist Jews fragmented into so many sects that a unified communist movement was impossible. What finally brought the Jews together was the unified threat of Nazism, and then the Holocaust was so horrible that Jews decided to come together and form an iron coalition against the goyim--and to institutionalize this unity, the Holocaust was made into a kind of secular religion for Jews(as a source of moral pride) and for white goyim(as the source of eternal guilt). Just like blacks love to call each other ‘nigger’ and wreak havoc, Jews are naturally bound to sling mud at one another. This is why Abraham realized the need for the Covenant to hold the bickering Jews together, and this is why Moses understood the need for Sacred Laws to keep Jews from acting like cheating lawyers. It was like a game theory on how to maintain a unified Jewish community. Since Jews are naturally filled with chutzpah and every Jew thinks he knows best, it was necessary to create the one and only God to whom all Jews would bow down. Without some fearsome higher authority, each Jew would go crazy with his or her own god complex. This is what makes Jews seem repulsive to some people, but this very quality is a huge turn-on for other people. Though Ayn Rand was no great looker, her iron zeal and mania turned on a whole bunch of men. A tough Jewish gal brings out some latent bisexualism in men. On the one hand, her toughness challenges the man to be even tougher, to pop a boner, and ram her real good. But her toughness also makes the guy take on the female role, to be overpowered by the crazy bitch, and fuc*ed in the ass by her dildo-strap. I think this was true enough of Ayn Rand’s marriage to some Wasp who was supposed to be a real-life Howard Roark but was really a Coward Dork.
The modern smart Jew is, in some ways, at war with the world. He not only holds goyim in contempt but also competes with other Jews. Though Jews will unite to preserve and expand their power against the goyim, they also fight for the prize as top Jew. So, even as Jews do everything to keep Hollywood and the media in Jewish hands, Jews try to out-jew one another. While Jews act oligopolistically against goyim--eventually undermining Ted Turner at CNN--, there is something in the Jewish personality that has to be the new one-and-only god. Jewish individualism and competitiveness are more extreme and radical than those of other advanced and intellectual peoples. In terms of personality, there wasn’t much difference between Karl Marx and Ayn Rand, between Milton Friedman and Naomi Klein, between Norman Podherotz and Noam Chomsky, between Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein. To be sure, some Jews have more integrity than others. Finkelstein may be politically deluded, but he is consistently committed to his leftist values, whereas the dirty Jew Dershowitz is ultra-liberal when it comes to America but ultra-Buchananite when it comes Israel. But one thing for sure, Jews are virulently fierce and feisty. This doesn’t mean all Jews are full of chutzpah, pushy, or in-your-face like Mark Levin or Michael Savage. Some Jews seem rather laid-back, polite, or genteel, like Henry Kissinger or Larry David. But even when Jews seem warm and fuzzy, they are not cuddly, mushy, and sentimental. Their minds are razor-sharp and aiming poison darts at their enemies. Similarly, though not all boxers fight in a wild and aggressive manner, they’re keenly angling to knock you out. The Jewish mind is so active--regardless of the Jew’s personality--that it’s never at rest. It’s always weighs options like in a chess game, always looking for angles and advantages. It’s like a haggler, even when he’s smiling and apparently letting down his guard, is fixing to arrive at HIS price. No matter how kind a Jew may seem, one should never ever put one’s guard down; a goy must never go into earnest mode with a Jew. Even a nice Jew almost never acts in good faith, and this is true even when the Jew sincerely believes himself to be a decent trustworthy person. In the back of the Jew’s mind is a conviction he simply cannot suppress: he is smarter than the goy, so why should he treat goyim as his equal? Would things be different if Jews weren’t smarter than goyim? To some extent, but Jewish personality itself resists the authority of goyim. Even if white goyim were smarter than Jews, there would be something in the Jewish personality and culture--spiritual or psychological--that would compel him to spit on the goy. In ancient times, the Greeks were more accomplished than the Jews in many fields; though some Jews did learn from Greeks, most Jews still maintained the notion of their superiority since they were the Chosen of God. There is some of this among Italians too, especially the Southern ones; they know they are lying, cheating, backward trash, but they simply cannot accept their cultural inferiority vis-a-vis other peoples, and so they act in bad faith by indulging in all sorts of organized crime. Just look at Joe Pesci in CASINO. He’s a punk, thief, and murderer but full of sick vain pride.
None of this is to suggest that Jews are all a bunch of robbers, cheats, weasels, etc. Though there are plenty of dirty Jewish lawyers, doctors, and other scum, much of Jewish success is built on genuine meritocracy. Jews make the best doctors and are much sought after for that reason. And we only need to take a brief survey of non-Jewish nations to realize that a nation doesn’t need Jews to be stinking corrupt, vile, venal, hideous, etc. Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Yemen, Venezuela, Bolivia, Mexico, North Korea, etc are not in the shape they are because of Jews. There are very few or no Jews in those nations, but they are awful places. And what are Russians good for but dancing on tables, wrestling with bears, drinking vodka, and acting like louts and boors? And we know of the dumb Polack. And Irish big city machine politics have been a rotten feature of American history. And look at all those crazy Negroes scream and holler about Jews when real reasons for black problems have little to do with Jews. The fact is Negroes are just wild and crazy. So, it would be wrong and even evil to fall into the trap of mindless antisemitism. We gotta give the Jews their due. Even so, who can deny the reality of the Dirty Jew? And who can deny that even Decent Jews tend to see goyim as dumb sheep? They just can’t help it, just like even decent Negroes can’t help seeing white males as a bunch of ‘faggoty white boys’.
Yevgeny Nourish, in the final scene, seems like a decent Jew without vicious ill-will toward goyim, but he must know that he’s smarter than goyim. He must know that he has power over the goyim. He must know that he’s Jewish and they are goyim. Thus, even when the goyim love the Jew, the Jew can become even more paranoid. It’s the Paranoia Paradox. The more power a person gains, more vulnerable he feels. Stalin was less fearful as a bandit than as the ruler of the mighty Soviet Union; then, he saw enemies everywhere out to subvert, poison, or murder him(as he’d done to so many of his comrades). So, the richer, more powerful, and more influential the Jew becomes, the more sensitive, anxious, and paranoid he also becomes--and not least because Jewish history has been one of David taking on the Goliath. David defeated Goliath with his wit--using his nifty slingshot against Goliath’s brute strength--, which means the Jew must always be on the lookout to outwit the big goy. A Jew can never rest on his laurels because his advantage is based not on numbers or size but on brain power. So, Jewish power is both the most awesome and the most vulnerable. Jew vs goyim is like man vs animal. Animal is stronger so the moment the man stops using his wit, the animal will devour him. So, the Jewish mind can never rest and must always be alert to dangers.
Movies are a form of virtual dream-reality controlled by Jews. Like Nourish, Hollywood Jews use movie fantasies to pander to and please the goyim. The Jew, in order to rake it in, must give the goy what he wants. But the Jew also fears that these fantasies may contain elements and themes that may be hostile to Jews--in the long run. For instance, take Hollywood’s anti-Japanese movies during WWII and anti-Muslim movies since the 1980s. In a way, the Jew was inflaming American goy passion to hate and fight the enemies of Jews--Japanese militarist allies of Nazis and Muslim terrorists who hate Israel--, but in another way, Hollywood was encouraging gung-ho white nationalism and ‘xenophobia’ against non-whites. What if this anger toward ‘Japs’ and ‘Muzzies’ were to morph into anger against the Jew? And something like this did happen in the late 40s and early 50s when HUAC’s hidden agenda was to get the Liberal Commie JEW. During WWII, Hollywood and Jews in media had fanned wild and hysterical hatred against Germans and Japanese, but once that war ended and US entered the Cold War, the new enemies of American patriots became communism and radical leftism, in which Jews were prominent. So, the patriotic/paranoid passions fanned by Jews during WWII came to blow back in their direction. Passions are irrational. It’s like fire that burns out of control.
So, Jews approach the collective goy psychology like the National Forest Service. Notice that Park People selectively burn parts of the forest so as to reduce inflammable material to prevent what they dread most: an all-out uncontrollable forest fire. Similarly, American Jews wanna control the tribal passions of goyim. If those passions are not allowed to burn at all, they keep building up and up and up until they become ultra-combustible and might explode and burn out of control--like German passions in WWII. But, if those passions are allowed a politically correct release valve time and time again--these days against Muslims and Chinese--, Jews may be able to control the fire than be consumed by it. But this is a tricky art that requires smarts and skills, and of course, Jews have those in spades. So, even as some Jews, especially Neocons, fan the flames of anti-Muslim hatred, other Jews keep a close eye to make sure that anti-Muslim hatred doesn’t morph into anti-Jewish hatred. So, it’s no surprise to see liberal Jews calling for protection of the American Muslim community from ‘white conservative Christian hatred’. Jews encourage anti-Muslim hatred to the extent that it serves Zionist interests but then restrict it lest it encourage white identity politics. And Jews play on Yellow Peril fears while at the same time lecturing white Americans about the evils of anti-Asian-ism. This is what makes so many Jews the Dirty Jew. Amazingly, many goyim have fallen for this dirty trick. Dirtiness whups dimwit-ness anytime, anywhere, anyhow.
What Jews do with the FED is much like what they do with the MED--in this case, the MEDia(though we might as well apply it to the medical community as well). Through the FED, Jews control the money supply. Too much leads to over-speculation and too little leads to stalled growth. FED seeks to increase the money supply so that Jews can make a killing but then hold it down when it threatens to bust the entire economy. Greenspan and Bernanke overdid it during both the Clinton and Bush yrs, leading to the dot.com bubble(and burst)and housing bubble(and burst). Even so, with the control of US government, most of the Big Jews got bailed out. Besides, what with so much of the US and world economy being controlled by Jews, the very crooks on Wall Street who were responsible for the fiasco held a gun to Washington and said, ‘If you don’t bail us out, we’re gonna take the whole economy down with us.’
And it sure helped that the Big Jews on Wall Street were supported by Big Jews in the media. Though Wall Street Jews were most responsible for the calamity, the Jew-run media dumped most of the problem on Bush and ‘free markets’. And though Obama reaped more donations from Wall Street, Big Media Jews overlooked that dirty Jewish secret.
But then, the MED works just like the FED. The MED will increase the supply of patriotic passions when it suits Zionist and Jewish interests--mostly against ‘Muzzies’ and Chinese--but then clamp down on those passions when they appear as if to get out of hand and eventually pose a threat to Jewish power. Jews want Americans to wave flags after 9/11 but get nervous about white people at Tea Parties cheering Ron Paul, who is said to have ‘extreme’ white supporters and has been critical of Israel and the FED--the financial center of Jewish banker power.
So, what the FED controls in terms of money supply, the MED controls in terms of passion intensity. Jews will sometimes encourage white passions at point A, only to suppress it at point B. Take the 1992 primary campaign when Pat Buchanan entered the race against Bush. Though the Jewish-run media knew all about Buchanan’s hard right-wing past, they overlooked it and even gave him some sympathetic coverage. Why? To make Buchanan bleed Bush and cause a division in Republican ranks. But on the night of the GOP convention when Buchanan gave a rousing speech, it all changed. The speech was a knockout and Bush’s poll numbers went up. Media Jews feared both Bush’s rising poll numbers and Buchanan’s connection with the American public, and so the MED went into a frenzy to spin the convention speech as McCarthyite, Hitlerian, demented, sick, extreme, etc, etc. It was so unrelenting and overwhelming that the majority of Americans were browbeaten into thinking Buchanan’s speech was downright evil. The MED initially approved of Buchanan when he was hurting Bush, but when he backed Bush with a rousing speech, the MED spun it as ‘Bush as extreme as Buchanan’.
Even so, Buchanan must have struck some kind of chord, which is why he won the New Hampshire primary in 1996. Fearing the rise of a New Right, the MED went totally crazy. The man that it had given favorite coverage in the 1992 primaries suddenly became the American Hitler. So, it was okay for white Americans to support Buchanan in 1992--as long as it was against Bush--, but it was not okay for white Americans to support Buchanan in 1996 against Bill Clinton, who later came to known as the ‘first black president’. So, the mind of the American Jew is not much different than that of Yevgeny Nourish.