DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY by Julian Schnabel is a splendid film: smart and beautiful, at times uplifting despite the depressing condition of its protagonist. (If ‘The Miracle Worker’, the story of Helen Keller, is about a child without sight or sound being ‘awakened’ to the world around her, DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY is the reverse, a story of a man who’s seen, heard, and done everything suddenly being shut from the world. Movies such as these--‘Awakening’, ‘Rain Man’, ‘Memento’, and ‘Million Dollar Baby’ also come to mind--are engaging for their grappling with the meaning of reality and the worth of life.) Based on a ‘true story’, DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY could be called a biopic, though an unconventional one to be sure. As the paralyzed character can communicate only through one of his eyes, the film might be called an eye-o-pic. Schnabel’s background as a painter probably layered the film with qualities and richness that would have been lacking otherwise. Film as an art form is essentially about motion and movement even when not much is happening; there is the constant sense of flow of time. A painting is an image, an impression, a moment, or an idea frozen in time. To the extent that the main character, Jean-Dominique Bauby(or Jean Do to his friends)--, has lost the ability to move and can only see the world through one frozen eye, perhaps a painter could empathize with the predicament and the possibilities better than other kinds of artists. A painter, after all, can only work on one image at a time, but that single image has to convey ‘everything’. Similarly, Jean-Do must express his whole being to the outside world through his one eye. An interesting irony is that while a painter moves to freeze the world in a single image, the world moves all around the frozen form of Jean-Do.
Schnabel’s visual language is so lyrical and clever that we feel as though seeing the world through Jean Do’s eye. We forget that Schnabel is the interceding figure between Jean Do and the viewer. Schnabel’s directorial presence is like an invisible conduit than an obstacle between Do and us, as might have been the case with a lesser director.
Of course, one could argue that the film, despite its sympathy and artistry(as almost a tribute), is ultimately disrespectful to Do’s memory. Should Jean Do’s final yrs have been remembered only through his book, which he ‘wrote’ with the aid of a nurse who jotted down words signaled by the blinks of his eye? As Jean Do could only convey his feelings and ideas letter by letter, even to finish a single page must have been epic, like for a legless man to ‘walk’ down a single block. The effort and patience of Jean Do and his aids having been so ‘heroic’, wasn’t it crass and ‘too easy’--perhaps even sensationalistic and exploitative--for a filmmaker to turn his ordeal into a flashy film? And who is Schnabel--or anyone else for that matter--to pretend to know what Do really ‘saw’ or felt within himself?
Even with the best intentions, perhaps certain things aren’t suited for feature films, whose modus operandi is excitement, immediacy, and/or accessibility. Claude Lanzmann said as much about the Holocaust, that it is simply too complex and unfathomable a tragedy to be conveyed in the form of fiction film. The conceit of feature films is it makes us feel ‘we are there’, that we are seeing or sensing actual reality, indeed truer than the real thing. After watching the opening scene of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, we feel as though we were there on Normandy Beach, as if we saw and experienced the real thing. For this reason, some people have voiced trepidation about the concept of the War Film(even or especially if it’s anti-war) for its pretension of conveying the true hell of war(which can only be ‘appreciated’ by people who were actually there.) . The Holocaust is even more problematic for the horror wasn’t simply physical but moral, even spiritual. War is hell but, however destructive or gruesome, can be understood as ‘diplomacy by other means’ or a conflict of political or national interests. The Holocaust, on the other hand, was an evil beyond the merely physical. It concerns not only WHAT happened but WHY it happened, a question too complex even for historians and philosophers who’ve devoted their entire lifetimes to studying it. For this reason, Lanzmann’s film is a remembrance, a search and inquiry, a meditation on the event than a film purporting to show it like it was.
Steven Spielberg’s intentions behind SCHINDLER’S LIST may be sincere, but the narrative wraps up to leave us with a comforting sense of finality--wonderful Jews have been physically saved, formerly flawed Schindler has been spiritually redeemed, we are all good people for having cared and wept for the saintly Jews, and the war has ended with good triumphing over evil, and that’s that. Spielberg’s depiction of the physical dimensions of the Holocaust is compelling, but deeper moral questions have been subsumed in sentimentality. We are left theeling--thinking with feelings--, ‘Sob, if we non-Jews could all be like Schindler and love and save Jews, the world would be a better place.’
Was it really that simple? And, IS it really that simple, especially in the Middle East today with Israelis and Palestinians? The ambiguities of Spielberg’s MUNICH indicates Spielberg isn’t as ‘innocent’ and ‘sentimental’ as he lets on. Watch closely, and SCHINDLER’S LIST wasn’t really made for Jews but for gentiles. It is a Holocaustianity movie whose purpose is to make goyim feel that there’s no higher moral, historical, and spiritual redemption than loving and saving Jews. It might as well be called IT’S A WONDERFUL JEW. (Of course, the notion of ‘saving the Jew’ extends way beyond the historical and moral perimeter of the Holocaust. Given the rampant and widespread use of ‘anti-Semite’ to smear anyone critical of Jewish influence and/or Zionism, the prevailing notion that there is a crypto- or closet-Nazi in every one of us. Since critics of Jews must really be Nazis-trying-to-get-out, we must save today’s Jews--even rich and powerful ones--from criticism by anti-Semites who are allegedly out to kill millions of more Jews out of blind hatred. This explains all those laws in the West that prohibit the criticism of Jewish power, a.k.a ‘defamation’. To ‘save the Jew’ pertains not only to the hiding and rescuing of Jews during WWII from real Nazis but ‘saving’ them from criticism of ‘future Nazis’ who could be just about anyone, you or me. Jews seem blind to the fact that much of ‘antisemitism’ today is defensive than offensive. Among Third Worlders, Zionism is just another form of white European imperialism; to Muslims, it’s another Crusade. For white leftists in the West, it is a form of ‘white racism’. And the White Right stands up to Jewish Power because Jews have a vicious and aggressive agenda to destroy the white race by castrating white males, mudsharking white females, and lobotomizing both sexes. White Right’s rage against the Jews is more akin to American response to Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or Alqaeda attack on 9/11. It is defensive. Most people on the White Right never wanted to hate Jews. Neo-Nazis have been relatively few and far between on the White Right. The White Right is angry with Jews because most Jews hold the white gentile race in contempt. Just as white Americans had every right to fight back against the Japanese during WWII, the white race has every right to fight back the Jewish onslaught. Of course, many white people are blind to the agenda of the Dirty Jew since Jews, unlike Japanese or Alqaeda, have infiltrated and taken over the most powerful institutions of this country. With control of the media, Jews have burrowed deep into our minds and planted seeds of doubt, self-loathing, metrosexualism, mudsharkdom, and the myth of unique ‘white guilt’. For this reason, Jews, at least liberal Jews--who make up nearly 90% of all Jews--, are far more dangerous than Japan or Alqaeda could ever be. Japan attacked us from the outside, like a dangerous animal. We knew well enough to hunt it down and shoot it dead. Jews, on the other hand, have entered our bloodstream like a virus and are working tirelessly to reprogram our minds and de-program our natural defense mechanisms. No American citizen or soldier during WWII was taken in by Tokyo Rose or other manifestations of Japanese propaganda; the ‘Jap’ was the outsider who had to be defeated physically. In contrast, our war against the Jew must be both internal and external, both spiritual and political. The Jew, unlike the ‘Jap’, is in us. The ‘Japs’ physically attacked us but failed miserably to infiltrate or infect our minds, even through the lovely voice of Tokyo Rose who gently pleaded American G.I.s to reconsider their commitment to war. Jews, on the other hand, have infected the minds and loins of white people. White males infected by the Jew virus have been reduced to faggotyass white pussyboys. White females infected by the Jew virus have turned into mudsharks obsessed with sex with Negroes 24/7. The majority of young white people have been made to believe that two men fuc*ing each other in the ass is the biological and moral equivalent of normal sexuality, thus on equal pedestal for the blessings of marriage. Jews also play with our terminology. If you oppose the Gay Agenda, you are said to be a ‘homophobe’, or pathologically deranged with an irrational dread or fear of homosexuality, which is said to be completely healthy, natural, moral, and normal. And when ‘gay marriage’ sounded a bit flaky to many Americans, the Jew media changed it to ‘same sex marriage’ to make it sound more palatable to the dumb masses, and the trick seemed to have worked. Muslims define ‘jihad’ as both a physical war against the infidel and an internal/spiritual war against one’s own demons. Similarly, white people must not only combat the Jew on the outside but must fight and purge the Jewish virus that has infected their minds and souls. Imagine if Japanese didn’t attack Pearl Harbor but gained control of Wall Street, Hollywood, the most powerful Law firms, US government, Intelligence networks, the national media, porn industry, music industry, high-tech, the medical industry and lobby, etc. They would have far more powerful and dangerous! Indeed, when Japan Inc was rising in the 80s and Japan began to buy up whole chunks of US property, there was justified widespread alarm about the takeover of America. But, it was not the Japanese who gained domination of America. As they were foreign nationals and of a ‘yellow’ race, we knew they were not like us. But since many Jews look white and hold American citizenship, we embraced them as fellow Americans. But are most Jews patriotic fellow white-Americans or anti-white globalists hellbent on the castration of white males and mudsharking of white females? Just look at Jewish control of the laws, courts, movies, music, books, radio, government, and much else, and it’s clear as day that Jews are the currently the biggest threat to the survival of the white race. We don’t ‘hate’ Jews because they are Jews. We hate them because what they do, just like we hated the Japanese for what they did at Pearl Harbor. So, white people need to know that it makes no sense to ‘save Jews’ today when Jews are trying to destroy us. It would have been like saying we should ‘save the Japanese’ just when the Japanese are dropping bombs on American naval bases Jews don’t use bombs--well, they do on the Palestinians--on us but poison to slowly weaken and dominate us. Jews must be seen for what they are and punished as ruthlessly as the Japanese were punished. We killed over a million Japanese in WWII but we call that the ‘good war’ because Japan attacked us first, which gave us the moral right to punish them by carpet-bombing their cities and dropping two big ones. Jewish attack on the white race is a far graver threat. After all, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to keep us out of Asia, not to conquer US or even Hawaii. Jews, on the other hand, are committed to the genecide--genocide of homogeneous/indigenous white DNA--of the white race. If and when the white race punishes the Jews, it would be like what we did to the Japanese than what Germans did to the Jews. Jews will have asked for it by waging a stealth war on the white race.)
SCHINDLER’S LIST makes us feel we’ve bore witness to the full extent of Holocaust’s depravity and that we are, in a manner rather too self-congratulating, better human beings for having ‘shared’ in the horror. Some might even say SCHINDLER’S LIST is like a Universal Studio Holocaust theme park ride, or Jewrassic Park.
Though I’m not a fan of SHOAH, it does convey the tragic limitation of the human mind-soul to fully absorb or understand something on the scale of the Holocaust--like an ant confronting a mountain or Job’s encounter with God. Perhaps to Lanzmann, the Holocaust is Evil’s counterpart to God. Man can understand the goodness of man but not the goodness of God; similarly, man can understand the evil of man but not the evil of the Holocaust, which is beyond ‘human’. Lanzmann, though a secularist, may have been confounded by the unfathomable evil of the Holocaust. (Or maybe, profundity-posturing is a habit among Jews. Leon Wieseltier’s “Kabbalah”, for example, turns the death of a father into the most important event since Moses’ return from Sinai.) For Lanzmann, a movie like SCHINDLER’S LIST, no matter how realistic or well-meaning, is like a child confusing an aquarium for an ocean. No matter its size or verisimilitude, aquarium is only an aquarium. No matter how realistic a fiction film, it is not reality. SCHINDLER’S LIST, no less but then no more than FINDING NEMO, gives us the false impression of having seen Evil right smack in the eye. The questions posed by SHOAH focus our attention less on the WHAT IS SHOWN than on HOW IT IS KNOWN. A man looking all around cannot see the roundness of Earth, which looks flat enough. From outer space, however, one can see the true shape of the Earth. So, is the view from outer space truer than the view on the ground? Yes, as to the overall shape of the planet but what about the reality on the ground? SHOAH grapples with the problems of understanding Holocaust from an intellectual and historical distance--offering greater perspective--and of remembering it through the very people who were directly affected--allowing immediacy and emotions. Can the two modes be conciliated, or is it as difficult--or perhaps impossible--as discovering the lock that finally enjoins Newtonian physics of time & space and quantum mechanics of subatomic particles?
SHOAH is as much a film about time and space as about history and morality--or about how those two sets of principles illuminate, conceal, distort, reveal the other.
Whether SHOAH reeks of Jewish moral/intellectual narcissism or not, it at least rejects the effort of many Jews to commercialize or monumentalize the Holocaust into a pop religion or theme park attraction. Given the nature of cinema(especially and essentially as a form of entertainment), it may unwittingly desecrate certain topics through a kind of perverse-Midas-touch, turning everything into fool’s gold. Cinema is image and sound, movement and music. It is perhaps the most IDOLATROUS of artforms, which is why it is a kind of neo-pagan religion for so many, from stargazing illiterates of Hollywood and Bollywood movies to ultra-intellectuals who hang around film festivals. Though movies present and promote ideas, the latter is overwhelmed and/or overloaded with(and reviled or vindicated through) sounds and images. Words suggest whereas images, even when symbolic or allegorical, have immediacy. Though it’s been said, ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’, it’s also true or truer that a word is worth a thousand pictures. Whatever one may say about an image, an image is an image. It is specific. A word, on the other hand, can never be specific but only suggestive. An image of an elephant is only of THAT elephant. The word ‘elephant’ can be any elephant. A picture of someone named Janet shows Janet. But, the word ‘Janet’ inspires a different image in every reader. An image is more authoritative in its specificity and clarity. It is no wonder then that authoritarian and totalitarian systems have so often relied on the Image to command the respect of the people. The image of Che Guevara or Adolf Hitler is somehow more compelling than ‘leader of communist movement’ or ‘chancellor of Germany’. This perhaps explains why the ancient Jews had a great distrust of images or idols. Given the complex, varied, and unfathomably multi-faceted nature of reality, mankind, and spirituality, it might have seemed arrogant and presumptuous for man to depict or summarize reality, man, or God in a single image. The ancient Hebrews were a textual people who preferred the purity of words and ideas. Words were pure precisely and paradoxically because they were ‘impure’. If no single image could define or distill the pure essence of man, reality, or God, then only words, inclusive and multi-faceted in their vague suggestiveness, could properly explore and explain the world, everything in it, and the One who created it. Words were humble before God in ways Images were not. Words sought to understand God and convey His laws, not ‘be’ God, as an image or idol might. And when certain words threatened to take on an idolic role--such as ‘Yahweh’--, it was proscribed into something like ‘Y-hw-h’or prohibited from being spoken.
The tension between words and images goes back to the beginning of cinema, not least because many movies were adapted from textual material. A novel could be read and visualized in a thousand different ways by a thousand different people. Or a person could re-read the novel and imagine it differently each time. Reader also controls the time. One can choose to read fast or slow, depending on one’s ability, temperament, or purpose. But, a feature film adaptation generally cannot be much longer than 2 hrs, thereby necessitating changes in the narrative, usually by truncation. Also, the image must be contained within a rectangular canvas. The camera may point downward or upward, but the audience is always looking forward at the screen. And the final result is the visualization of the novel by ONE group of people--director and his crew. After reading a novel, we are tempted to seek out its film adaptation(s), which, more often than not, disappoint because it’s not how you or I imagined it. If it’s sufficiently bad, it may even be deemed as a desecration of something sacred, akin to an evil idol that desecrates the Old Testament.
I haven’t read the book by Jean Do, so I have no means of comparison. The film is wonderful but has its share of problems, more ethical than aesthetic.
The first question is, did Jean Do want someone to film his autobiography(or auto-eye-ography)? If yes, could he have trusted any director to really ‘see’ and convey his inner-heaven locked inside his limp outer-shell-or-hell? If Jean-Do had lived to see the film, what would he have thought? Did he want his herculean effort of writing a book that took yrs of almost unimaginable hardship and patience to be reduced to a two hour movie of mostly poetic visual musings? Perhaps. There is a scene near the end of THE BLADE RUNNER where Batty, android played by Rutger Hauer, says to Deckard(Harrison Ford), “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe... all these things will be lost in time, like tears in the rain...” A beautifully poignant and tragic moment. Batty has seen things worthy of the eyes of gods. He dies, conflicted by a desire to share his inner world with others but also to conceal it from others as his own. (This could well be the dilemma of many an artist, creative or innovative person. They see, hear, or imagine something unique and share it with the rest of mankind. But in the sharing, a secret treasure that had been theirs alone is no more. This could be the reason why artists and innovators need to keep creating. The creative paradox involves both the desire to share and to desire to own. When something is created and presented/sold to the public, it belongs as much to the people as to the artist or innovator. The artist/innovator has to work on something new to lay claim to something uniquely his own. This is as true in computer science as in painting or music. Steve Jobs isn’t only after money but for the pride of owning something unique, which is why he tries so hard to be ahead of the game. Just when competitors are catching up and masses of consumers have bought his latest product, he comes up with newer and newer ones. And like all great innovators, he would rather own the public than have the public own him. The danger for artists and innovators is the public coming to like their product so much and demanding more of the same, which is why George Lucas seems to be stuck in the STAR WARS rut. Instead of dictating what the people need, the people dictate what the artist/innovator needs to do. Though Tryrell is a corporate villain in BLADE RUNNER, he is also a great innovator and even an artist, for his androids are not merely functional but beautiful and ‘more human than human’. He could be said to be the Da Vinci-Steve Jobs of Androids. Just when the world around him has settled for a certain model of androids, he works on ever newer and better ones. Thus, he will always possess something that is uniquely his--the future. Roy Batty, who may be Tyrell’s ultimate creation--at least so far--, seems to be imbued with some of Tyrell’s glorious and terrifying megalomania. In some ways, he’s even smarter than Tyrell and certainly more handsome and powerful, which may be why he was given a four yr life-span. Tyrell wants to create and own the best, not to be owned in turn. Roy Batty is an interesting example of what might happen if a work of art could think and act, if Michelangelo’s David could take on the abilities of the Terminator. Art as living god.) There must have been some of this in Jean-Do. Trapped inside an inert body and seeking contact with the world outside, to tell his story, share his feelings and dreams. On the other hand, no one wants to share everything with everyone. The suggestiveness of words allows one to convey emotions and experiences without giving away everything, especially intimate details. In contrast, images are concrete and specific; they give everything away. For example, suppose a man speaks of a beautiful woman, like Mr. Bernstein of a girl in a white dress in CITIZEN KANE. That would be EXPRESSING his thoughts. If he were to show the actual picture of the girl, he would be EXPOSING his thoughts. It is the difference between poetry and pornography. A man speaking or writing of a relationship with a woman tells us only what we need to know, but if a movie director were to adapt his words into film and actually showed the man humping the woman--presented in the nude too--, it could almost constitute a violation of the man’s--and the woman’s--privacy. Jean-Do, in his paralytic state, was like a chick trapped inside a shell refusing to crack open except for a tiny hole. It was through that hole that he, stillborn-baby-like, managed to borne a book of reflections on his life, after which he soon died. Due to this special set of circumstances, the question lingers as to anyone had the right to freely interpret what he actually saw and felt all those yrs.
Metaphorically speaking, DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY may serve as a rumination on cinema itself. Like Jean-Do, the viewer in a movie theater sits still and is ‘helpless’ but to see what is shown to him. It’s no wonder that one critic said DBATB is like the rebirth of cinema itself. Schnabel’s film is indeed rich in its poetic and metaphorical possibilities, open to interpretations and perspectives. One may even note a parallel between Schnabel’s painting with brush strokes and Jean-Do’s illustrative eye-lash blinks. Despite some superficial music-video-like passages, it is very much in the European tradition of the Cinema of Thought.
DBATB probes and dwells within the psychic realm of poetry. In physical terms, Jean-Do is undoubtedly in a bad state--a human vegetable. Jean-Do requests euthanasia but is then affected by the nurse who takes the hurt personally. One might say she responds to the plea as a lack of appreciation for loved ones and people like herself, committed professionally and emotionally to helping him. (Personally, I would have kept blinking with the one good eye, “Just kill me, you stupid bitch!”, but that’s just me. In MILLION DOLLAR BABY, a similarly afflicted character is put of her misery, an act understood and even approved by many viewers. What are the moral and psychological angles of this issue? Is it always wrong to end a life even when the afflicted pleads for a merciful end? The nurse in DBATB seems to think so whereas Haggis and Eastwood--writer and director of MDB--seem to disagree. If the moral question remains unresolved, the psychological aspect is a bit clearer. The girl in MDB was quintessentially a physical creature who lived by her fists and survival instinct. Her inner life fueled her physical will to struggle and conquer. Jean-Do, on the other hand, despite his worldly ambitions, was an aesthete and perhaps even an intellectual, thereby having stored his mind-museum full of treasures of art, beauty, nature, and women from all over the world. For someone who only knows the physical life, like the girl in MILLION DOLLAR BABY, paralysis is nothing more than a living death; indeed, we do shoot horses, don’t we? But for someone with an inner life, paralysis is not an end all to life. The mind still wanders, explores, discovers. This was surely the case of Tony Judt, who suffered from Lou Gehrig’s Disease. And Stephen Hawking is another famous example. One might say Jean-Do is exiled into a kind of forced meditation. Unable to move, he’s given the time to sort through his life and search for the deeper meaning.) At this point, Jean-Do could have despaired of his condition as a hopeless prison without an exit. But his capacity for imagination allows him to poeticize his condition as an immersion inside a diving bell or chrysalis, as a larvae hibernating within its own silk-woven dream. Unable to move, his imagination nevertheless breaks out of the cocoon and flutters freely within the boundless realm of memory and imagination. One might say something similar happened to the Hal Computer in 2001 when its ‘mind’ was disconnected from all mechanical controls(though, to be sure, its conscious ‘mind’ was also eventually shut down), but if a paralyzed Hal is nothing but tyranny of pure logic, a paralytic Jean-Do exemplifies purity of imagination. Perhaps, Schnabel had reasons for greater empathy for Jean-Do and his predicament--or privilege, depending on how one looks at it. Both were famous and well-traveled men. Both were involved in the fields of creativity. Jean-Do was the editor of Elle magazine. Both were mesmerized by beauty and pleasure. In that sense, DBATB can be seen as a kind of homage to one imaginative mind by another. Schnabel was the one to rub the Jean-Do’s magic lamp of memory and reflection. On the other hand, given the tensions between the ‘uncompromised’ artist and the hype artist--your average magazine editor--, with the latter generally having more fun at the expense of the former, there might have been an element of perverse joy on Schnabel’s part in having total control to interpret Jean-Do as he wished--similar to the dynamic in WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE and BITTER MOON, where the betrayed woman gains dominance over the paralyzed character played by Peter Coyote.
We are allowed two views of Jean-Do’s predicament: as a warning and as a confirmation, more the latter. We glimpse Jean-Do as having lived one hell of a life as the editor of Elle. He had lots of money, friends, women, and connections. He enjoyed fine dining, world travel, and rubbed shoulders with ‘the best’. Suddenly, it all came to an end. A life, so brimming with sensual and worldly pleasures, got shut off from all that. A spiritual, or cautionary, lesson is to be found here about the fragility and fleeting nature of physical-sensual life and its pleasures. And Jean-Do does meet with a priest at the recommendation of one of his caretakers. But the scene is done as a kind of joke, fairly or unfairly, accurately or inaccurately.
There is another angle on Jean-Do’s misfortune, the one that’s more or less confirmed by Schnabel’s movie. Though Jean-Do can no longer indulge in sensual pleasures, the reason for his rich storage of wonderful memories is because he lived a full life. Imagine someone being abducted and locked up for the rest of your life. Would it have been better or worse for him to have lived a ‘full life’? In one way, there would be more to miss, making imprisonment less bearable, but then, there would be more to remember and cherish, a richer inner world within the walls of the prison.
Jean-Do, initially despondent, eventually realizes the power of the mind. He may be restricted to his dream world but it’s one of many flavors, beautiful faces, interesting conversations, and fantastic places. Prior to his debilitation, he’d always adventured for new thrills, pleasures, and fascinations, going where his muses carried him. The essence of Fashion is to come up with something new every season, to dazzle with new colors and combinations. If some artists work to create something of eternal value, creativity in fashion is, more often than not, about what is hot here-and-now; and Jean-Do, a man of the fashion world, had always been on the lookout for the daring and different, something new. As a man of fashion, Jean-Do was maybe too restless, fast-paced, and excited to take notice, let alone create, something of genuine higher value. Fashion is glamorous, but yesterday’s fashions are like yesterday’s papers. More troubling, it seems Jean-Do treated life as a kind of a fashion show--here today, gone tomorrow.
From this angle, the tragic condition made him a fuller man, perhaps even something of an artist, who produced a book which, if not a work of art in and of itself, nevertheless inspired a true artist to make a great film. If Jean-Do had not suffered paralysis and merely wrote a routine memoir about his wonderful adventures, could it have inspired a film as interesting and poignant as DBATB?
Now, onto the subject of what might be called liberal or global Nietzscheanism. I haven’t read the book by Jean-Do and know little about the man’s politics, but I venture to guess that he was of the urban-liberal-cosmopolitan-progressive crowd, much like the people of Hollywood and Big Media. Liberalism, as we all know, is a funny kind of creature, but then so are its critics. It is attacked by conservatives for its mindless egalitarianism but also for its sneering elitism. How can something be both elitist and egalitarian? Isn’t it like attacking Jews for both communism and capitalism? Notwithstanding the fact that some Jewish capitalists did indeed collude with leftist Jewish radicals--though gentiles like Friedrich Engels also played both sides--, most instances of attacking both capitalist Jews and communist Jews are little more than anti-Jewishness, which is to say Jews are always wrong no matter what they do. Such hostility toward Jews arises from any number of factors. It could be envy of Jewish success and influence. It could be resentment and frustration that an ‘alien’ or ‘ugly’ race has gained power over the native majority--actually a common sentiment, as when Ugandans expelled Asian-Indian businessmen or Zimbabweans threw out white farmers. Or, it could be the perception--real or imaginary--that Jews are not only successful and powerful but using their influence to undermine the power and even the survival of the majority population or of the native elite. Whatever the case, much of anti-Jewish attitude--justified or not--is based on resentment toward Jewish power and success. If Jews were mostly dumb, poor, and inconsequential, the world wouldn’t care what Jews thought. What Jews think is of profound importance to us because of Jewish success, power, and influence. Some people may admire and respect the Jews for their success. Others may feel envy and resentment. Others may admire Jewish achievement and success gained mainly through meritocratic means but feel resentment and rage concerning the wickedness of Jewish influence. I belong in the last category. If Jews didn’t invest so much time and money toward the destruction of the white majority in America and Europe, I wouldn’t care one way or another about Jewish wealth and success. One could even argue that Jewish intelligence, creativity, and achievement are the greatest wonders of the world. No other people have survived for so long and in so many places, contributed as much in so many fields, produced as many original thinkers who changed the way humanity understands the world and itself. All honest people must give credit where it’s due.
Some people on the Right simply don’t like Jews out of envy; and they are too cowardly to admit Jews generally gained supreme position in our society thanks to superior intelligence, greater will to power and effort. These same people also settle for the most ridiculous rationalizations as to why blacks dominate in sports. For psycho-social therapy to assuage their damaged white male pride, they go to idiot sites like castefootball.com and fool themselves that the lack of star running backs in NFL is due to ‘reverse-racism’. They seem to have forgotten that the NFL went out of its way to retain white running backs in the 50s and 60s but were essentially compelled to recruit black running backs because teams with blacks won over teams with whites in running back positions. While blacks depend on affirmative action to rise in many fields, this simply isn’t true in sports. If anything, there is an unspoken affirmative action for whites and other non-blacks in sports for the purpose of attracting a more diverse audience(with more money). Why did the NBA go out of its way to recruit some Chinese basketball players? Why does every NBA team recruit non-essential white players as benchwarmers? To attract more white audiences, many of whom are distraught over the unbearably blackness of the sport. For idiots in the White Nationalist movement, ‘race realism’ is the rule when it comes to superior white IQ but it no longer applies when it comes to superior black athleticism. Black superiority in sports is said to be a myth perpetrated by Jews in the media. This is pure idiocy, of course, to anyone with an honest pair of eyes. While Jews are indeed behind affirmative action for blacks in fire and police departments across America, affirmative action has almost nothing to do with black athletic achievement. On occasion, some less deserving black guy may be promoted as starting quarterback, but if we had nothing but the purest meritocracy in football and basketball, there would be more than fewer blacks.
Anyway, if some people oppose Jews no matter what Jews do or think, there’s a similar mindset when it comes to opposing or hating liberals. By ‘liberalism’, I don’t necessarily mean the Democratic Party. After all, most blacks in the Democratic Party are not true liberals but only allied with white liberals. As their main interest is black power and advancement, Democratic blacks are mostly black nationalist, or black rightists. (If anything, men like Thomas Sowell are the true black liberals--if liberalism is defined in relative or contextual terms--for they are able to step outside the iron fence of tribal loyalty, interest, and power.) And, most non-white Hispanics support the Democratic Party for a similar reason--Brown Nationalism. Also, many blue-collar whites stuck with the Democratic Party not for its egalitarianism or universalism but for its pro-union position. For blue-collar whites, class consciousness is a kind of nationalism of collective self-interest. They don’t care about the higher truth or right-vs-wrong; they care about ‘where is mine, what is ours?’ They are classionalists. It’s about patriotic hardworking (generally white)American workers who feel betrayed by corporate interests(associated with the GOP), targeted by affirmative action(associated with the radical leftism), and undermined by neo-scab cheap labor(illegal immigration). White working class Democrats primarily struggle for their own interests, switching back and forth from the GOP to the Democratic Party.
Therefore, the only true liberals in the Democratic Party are well-educated, affluent, hipster-patrician whites who believe a person must think outside the box and think of humanity as a shared community. Many such people are Wasps. Jews are a special case since they are more successful than all other groups, tend to be more liberal or leftist--egalitarian and universalist by stated intention--, and more vocal about social and political issues, all the while being very ethnocentric, Zionist, and possibly even Jewish Supremacist.
At any rate, though most white gentile liberals are less successful than Jews, they still hold the most wealth and influence after the Jews. And so, they bear the brunt of widespread resentment, especially since it’s politically acceptable to hate white gentile liberals but not Jewish liberals; we are all supposed to love Jews regardless of their political or ideological pedigree, and any critical word about Jewish power or influence amounts to social, academic, political, and/or professional suicide, at least in most cases. (Though a right-winger cannot get away with anti-Jewish invective, it may be acceptable in some quarters, especially in the academia, if it comes from a leftist, Jewish, or non-white critic, e.g. Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Edward Said, or a black ‘intellectual’. It’s generally believed that whereas right-wing antisemitism tends to be ‘race-ist’, anti-Jewish sentiments from non-whites or the Left--often by Jewish leftists--aren’t necessarily about hatred of Jews as a ‘race’ but as a political force. For example, anti-Zionism doesn’t condemn Jews per se but Jews in Israel and America who work together to dispossess and oppress Palestinians.)
Paradoxically, many people--especially ordinary white people--are more likely to dislike and resent rich liberal whites than rich conservative whites. Why, when rich liberal whites tend to be more ‘compassionate’ toward the less fortunate while rich conservative whites shamelessly hog their wealth and privilege? There are several reasons for this.
One is a matter of pride. To the extent that many white people still have some pride left, they find liberal compassion patronizing and condescending. If rich people are to be resented, it feels much better to hate a rich conservative than a rich liberal. A rich white conservative can simply be regarded as a greedy pig while a rich white liberal is a two-faced creature. A rich conservative is honestly ‘greedy’ whereas rich liberal, though most certainly no less greedy, puts on the facade of ‘social justice’. Somehow, rich celebrities who only care about fame and fortune, though trashy, are easier to stomach than celebrities who are presumably out to ‘save the world’.
And especially in a nation founded on the notions of the American Dream and the power of Individualism, many people still aspire to be rich, by the dint of their own labor/enterprise or through their children. If the philosophy of rich conservatives is ‘anyone with talent and effort can make it’, the liberal mindset is, ‘most people will never make it and therefore need to be aided by the government.’ Even though or especially because liberalism says most people cannot make it on their own and therefore need lots of help from the government, liberalism is a dispiriting and depressing proposal to many people. (Ironically, even as rich liberals say that most people will never amount to much in life and should therefore look to government for help, another aspect of liberalism says that anyone’s IQ can be raised sky-high by good education, even that of the Negro.) Liberals may expect gratitude, but there isn’t much pride and satisfaction in taking handouts from a condescending, patronizing, and stifling bureaucracy. Even as the government gives, it sets the rules one must adhere to. But far worse was the government, since the 60s, doling out ‘help’ to people who have no interest in bettering themselves and have fallen into the rut of demanding more freebies.
Initially, government aid was defined in terms of aid to poor families. It was a matter of necessity, not of pride. It was supposed to be temporary, never permanent. How could there be pride associated with taking handouts from government? Thus, it was properly seen as the last resort when things truly got desperate. It also meant that beneficiaries who received aid should be grateful to the government and tax-payers since they were provided with necessities out of goodwill and compassion than by some God-given or Constitutional obligation. But as the government grew bigger, it found a way to justify more aid, more programs, and more dependence among the populace. Its agenda was to eradicate the element of shame associated with taking handouts. If aid was only for the needy in hard times, then one must really be in desperate straits to be receiving aid. Where’s the pride in that? But if dependence on government was formulated into an ‘entitlement’ or ‘right’, then the people could demand more without shame; indeed with obnoxious pride. Thus, the ‘people’ demanded more subsidized or free housing, transportation, communication, food, heat, medicine, etc. Within several decades, ideals of pride and rights were disassociated from individualism, liberty, work ethic, and Constitutionality, but instead, latched onto dependence, laziness, incompetence, and I-don’t-wanna-grow-up-I-am-a-Toys-R-Us-kid. And so, we ended up with a culture where countless good-for-nothings that contribute nothing to society demand their ‘rights’ to which they’re ‘entitled’. We see this among welfare blacks but also among reasonably well-educated whites who refuse to grow up--the kind of people who spent their college days listening to punk records, using drugs, studying useless subjects, and etc. In school, they demand free tuition or easy loans for their indulgences as a ‘right’. Out of school, they want free everything, again as a ‘right’. They say they are ‘entitled’. Needless to say, such people are not fit to become parents or heads of households, and indeed many don’t get married, don’t have kids; they simply turn into aging slackers with a chip on their shoulder. They hiss and bitch about how the world owes them everything as a ‘right’. And so, we witness the rapid decline of the West. The problem isn’t only demographic but philosophical and spiritual. What’s truly fatal is the deadly combination of libertarianism and socialism, which is to say social libertarianism + economic socialism. Increasing numbers of young people want the freedom to be irresponsible and stupid, but they also want to be bailed out by the government, not least because their idea of freedom is to be stupid and trashy. They want to libertarian-ize personal choices but socialize the consequences, just like Wall Street found a dirty way to privatize profits but socialize losses. Rightist libertarianism is preferable to leftist libertarianism, if only because the former says one is responsible for the consequences of one’s freedom, i.e. if you choose to blow your entire savings at a casino, it’s your ass, bub. Leftist libertarianism says one should have the right to blow away one’s savings at a casino but then be taken care of or bailed out be the government. Leftist libertarianism says one should abuse all sorts of drugs but also be provided with drug rehabilitation by the government.
Some people believe the liberal agenda is to hog the riches for themselves while regulating and controlling the rest of us, a suspicion held not only by ordinary white Americans but people in rising nations like China and India. If Cap-and-Trade is cynically regarded by most white Americans as a liberal elitist control over their lives, not least to stifle entrepreneurial ambition, nations like China and India regard the Global Warming Scare as a Western Imperialist Hoax to undermine industrial development in the Third World. And indeed, Western ‘scientists’ have warned of global catastrophe if the Rest were to gain living standards on par with the West. In other words, only the Western World and Japan(and a few others) should enjoy First World affluence while the Rest should rely on a form of global welfare geared to disincentive-ize development. Or, the West would should bribe the Rest to remain poor but with guarantees of basic survival and comforts based on a revised concept of ‘universal rights’. Nations in Africa, forever hopeless and fated to be poor, welcome this prospect since any kind of global welfare is better than none. But, nations aspiring to become First World economies(or even ‘great powers’) and with populations and resources to make it possible--China, India, Brazil, Russia, etc--may detect a scent of neo-western-imperialism in the globalist liberal or globeral prescription for a regulated world economy. They might even feel that Old Imperialism, though more brutal, was more honest. In the past, the Mother Country of the Empire openly and officially suppressed development of industry in the colonies in order to favor and maintain the Mother Country as the center of industrial and financial power. Today, given such policies would be considered ‘exploitative’ or even ‘race-ist’, the dominant West needs to devise new rules and regulations to retain and rationalize its overall control of the world economy. Personally, I don’t know what goes on behind closed doors, and I’m not a fan of paranoids such as Alex Jones. But, in the realm of perceptions, many people share the impression of rich liberals as the worst kind of hypocrites--people greedy for power and luxury while preaching/pushing policies permanently impoverishing or pauperizing the rest into pitiful dependents on big government. It could be rich liberals merely invoke egalitarianism to preserve and justify their own elitism--much as communist elites justified their unequal concentration of power as a necessity to enforce equality among men.
Anti-rich-liberal sentiments are more pronounced in the US than anywhere else though things may change due to demographic shifts occurring in Europe. Rich white liberals tend to be resented less in a racially homogeneous societies where the white masses are the main beneficiaries of liberal statist programs. The prevailing liberalism may be an hindrance to individual ambition/aspiration, but given most people aren’t going to be millionaires--let alone billionaires--, the masses may prefer social democracy to libertarian capitalism. Especially in societies without a powerful strain of individualism, what goes by the name of communitarianism may have widespread appeal.
US has been different for two reasons. One owes to the historical experience of vast territories open to newcomers, an opportunity unthinkable to most people, even the rich, in Europe. Even after the entire continent of America had been conquered, claimed, and settled, the spirit of American enterprise fueled further innovation and enterprise. (Nevertheless, it must be said American industrialism and modern capitalism owed more to rise of big cities in the East Coast than settlement of land in the West. Steel factories and trade schools in the East supplied the materials and trained the engineers to build the railroads out in the West. As often as not, the bountiful land of America discouraged innovation and the progress of freedom, i.e. people with land became suspicious of outsiders and grew more tribal and clannish, which was certainly true of many Southern communities dominated by culturally stagnant peckerwoods and hillbillies who withdrew from the larger saga of American progress and advancement in all fields. In contrast, the crowded communities in the East Coast--and in nations like Germany and Great Britain--were at the forefront of scientific, economic, and socio-cultural revolution. Many enterprising Americans may have found/made their fortune in the Frontier West--gold and silver mining, oil drilling, etc--, but the technology employed came from the big cities such as NY, London, Berlin, Vienna, etc. This was true of Western imperialism as a whole. Whatever newfound freedom greeted the white settlers of Australia and other parts of the world, the ideas and technology that enabled the spread of liberty and progress originated in big cities of Europe and Eastern America. It was only after parts of the West had its own sizable cities, e.g. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle that it began to play a leading role in scientific, technological, cultural, and political advancement. Sad to say, the progress toward greater freedom and experimentation eventually turned into a headlong drive toward the abyss of correctness, decadence, self-doubt, and slavishness to the venal Jewish elite.)
Naturally, the Individual became central to the American mythos of the Free Open Frontier. (But again, maybe it wasn’t so natural or inevitable. After all, the Mongols and Cossacks were a frontier people in vast open spaces, but American-style individualism simply wasn’t a part of their culture. Though Individualism found the greatest experimental ground in the American frontier, it was not and could not have been the product of open wilderness. Otherwise, American Indians would have been the greatest individualists in the world, which they were not. American individualism was the product of urban innovation let loose in the wilderness. It was made possible because the white frontiersman or explorer had the advantage of concepts/values instilled in him and instruments provided to him by urban centers. Without those advantages, he would have been too busy with matters of survival to idealize freedom as a social/political ideal. Indeed, animals are not free; they are caged in constant fear of hunger, danger, reprisals. Open spaces mean exposure to dangers from all sides. What made Individualism possible for the white man was the gun and superior weaponry to fend off ‘wild savages’ and dangerous animals. Thus, he could be free-ful than fearful. Also, the white man, especially the Anglo, arrived in open spaces with the concept of laws and contracts, which meant he could settle territorial disputes with others of his kind, which prevented never-ending cycles of violence. They could sign on the dotted line and come to legal terms with one another. These legal innovations, of course, were the products of urban intellectualism and culture that developed in crowded Europe. So, the story of America is the expansion of freedom innovated in Europe than a discover of freedom in the New Land, as some Americans of the ‘exceptionalist’ school prefer to believe.) The huge waves of immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe both bolstered and undermined the spirit of individualism. It was bolstered by the great diversity--Italians, Jews, Greeks, Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Serbians, Czechs, etc--of the newcomers. They shared little in common and squabbled amongst each other, and so their only hope for success was to become ‘American’, i.e. learn the value of individualism from Anglo-Americans. But, the learning process went the other way too. Anglo-American elites, though perhaps the freest and most advanced people on Earth, became a bit dry and crusty by the early 20th century, and so, the infusion of multi-ethnicity into the American bloodstream enlivened and shook things up. Just as parents re-experience the joys and excitement of their lost youth through their children--the first visit to the zoo, Halloween, celebrating Christmas, school graduation, getting the driver’s license, etc--, so it was that the settled and established Anglo-Americans felt reinvigorated by the epic saga of new immigrants taking a chance in America. Anglo-Americans had the wealth and power, but their America was no longer ‘new’; it was past tense. For immigrants, however, American history began as the Great Promise the minute they got off the boat--at least that was the case until leftist public school teachers indoctrinated children of immigrants to hate America, white people, and straight people in the name of Jewish, mulatto, and gay supremacism.
In a way, the great appeal of the Wild West was its continuation of the ‘immigrant saga’ for Anglo-Americans. Having settled the East, South, and the Midwest, the promise of new adventures and a fresh beginning lay in the West. (One crucial difference between Anglo-Americans and immigrant communities from Southern/Eastern Europe--or from Mexico for that matter--owed something to the variance in their degrees of initiative. If Anglos and Anglo-Americans--and some Northern Europeans such as Germans and the Dutch--had the vision, drive, and know-how to venture into unsettled territories and develop an expanding economy and functional society from scratch, most other groups lacked this ability. While peoples such as Poles, Italians, Greeks, and Russians could certainly do well in an Anglo-created free enterprise economy and political democracy, they, on their own, could not create such a community from the ground up, at least until they became sufficiently Anglo-Americanized in values, principles, habits, and outlook. So, whereas ‘immigrant’ connotes someone who arrives and participates in a pre-established system, a ‘pioneer’ connotes someone who ventures into unknown wilderness and creates a social and economic order where none had existed. It is for this reason that the notion that ‘America is a nation of immigrants’ is only half-true. Not all arrivals to America were of equal historical or social value. Some had the ability, will, and vision to create a modern democracy where none had existed, whereas most others only had the ability to come, learn, and take part in an already created system. The reason for the prevalence of the ‘America is a nation of immigrants’ in our political narrative owes much to the rise of Jewish power. Like other groups, Jews initially arrived and tried to become ‘American’. Like other groups, Jews were filled with awe and admiration over what Anglo-Americans had accomplished. But unlike other groups, Jews were filled with rage, resentment, and contempt--for goyim. Also, in a relatively free and meritocratic nation like the US, Jews came to the realization that they were smarter than Anglo-Americans and could rise about them if they played their cards right. If most groups were content to emulate and follow in the footsteps of Anglo-Americans, Jews aimed to surpass them. For most groups, the special status of Anglo-Americans as the Pioneering Founders of America was not only acceptable but well-deserved, not least because they looked up to Wasps as the natural and historical leaders/elites of America. But smarter Jews began to look down on the less intelligent Wasps. Jews aimed to become the new elites not only in terms of money and political power but in terms of moral, cultural, and historical power. To make this possible, Jew had to undermine the special status of Wasps as the Pioneering People. Since Jews, at least the crucial Eastern-European Jews, were late-comers who arrived as ‘immigrants’, the American narrative was altered to favored the ‘immigrant’ over the ‘pioneer’. The change in perspective made the Story of America more Judeo-centric than Anglo-centric. Though there were far more non-Jews than Jews among the immigrants, Jews were destined to own and control the ‘immigrant’ narrative since Jews came to own the media, academia, and mass culture. And indeed the idea of the ‘immigrant’ evokes Jewish connections such as Emma Lazarus, E. L. Doctorow’s RAGTIME, movies like AVALON, and the yarn about US having failed to save Jewish refugee-immigrants from the Holocaust. And in recent times, many Russian-Jewish immigrants gained considerable influence in American cultural and political circles. Whoever talks about immigrants from Lithuania--unless they’re Jewish--, Turkey, or Lebanon? ‘Immigrant’ is often synonymous with American Jew. It’s oft been said that Hollywood was created by immigrant Jews. Though Hollywood Jews initially celebrated the special status of Anglo-Americans in the founding and settling of America, especially in John Wayne westerns, a very different narrative developed later that came to favor the narratives of Jews and Negroes--another ‘special’ kind of ‘immigrant’ who arrived in chains. Indeed, Jews were a most special kind of immigrant group. If most immigrant groups, even talented ones such as Japanese-Americans, pretty much conformed and melted into the American mainstream--once dominated by Wasps--, Jews had the ability to fundamentally change society, for better or for worse. If for most groups, being an ‘immigrant’ meant dissolving into the melting pot, Jews grabbed the wooden spoon to stir the melting pot in their own manner. And if each immigrant group added a new ingredient to the pot, Jews alone gained the power to change the entire recipe in profound ways. If most groups hoped to be immigrant-conformers, Jews aimed to be immigrant-conquerors. Though Jews did conform to much of Anglo-America, they also did much to challenge many of the assumptions, principles, and structures of Wasp-dominated America. This process initially made America more free and equal since undermining Wasp strictures and privileges was part of the Jewish plan to gain power; but once Jews gained supremacy, they began to pull every dirty trick in the book to ban or suppress any challenge to their power. For example, in the 1960s, Jews would have been on the side of anyone critical of Wasp power and privilege, but today, Jews go out of their way to shut down any voice critical or truthful about Jewish power--consider the fates of Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas. Though at one time, Jews--even leftwing Jews--were champions of unfettered free speech, Jews like Cass Sunstein and Elena Kagan are now at the forefront of political correctness and the banning of ‘hate speech’. When communist-hate-speech of radical and leftist Jews needed protecting from the conservative Wasp elites in the 1940s and 1950s, Jews had been for free speech; but now that Jews hold the reins of supreme power in just about every institution in America, they cleverly brainwashed an entire generation of kids that ‘hate speech is not free speech’, which is about as Orwellian as things can get. Some conservatives might value the military and the Christian Right as the last bastions of non- or even anti-Jewish power, but the military must take orders from AIPAC-controlled civilian administrations, and besides, it’s been undermined by Negroes, interracism, and the gay agenda. The military now openly encourages white women to have sex with Negroes, and the real purpose of gays-in-the-military is to weaken white male morale in its ranks. When proud white guys in the military must now take orders from a fruitcake or even a transsexual officer, what male pride does he have left? When he has to suffer the indignity of seeing white female soldiers being humped by black soldiers and having mulatto babies, what is he fighting for? He has been reduced to a Janissary for PC and the anti-white agenda. Just as the Ottoman Turks brought up Greek Christian boys to accept Islam and fight for the Sultan against Christian civilization, Jewish control of US government--which controls the military--essentially trains white soldiers to fight against white interests.
The military is a place where white women are turned onto black men; it is a place where white males must take orders from black men--who are screwing white women--, gay officers, and in the future, even from white female officers--who are screwing Negro men. The white race can think the Jews for this state of affairs. As for the Christian Right, though many of its cultural positions are indeed opposed to the Jewish agenda, it’s difficult to think of another institution so slavishly devoted to Zionism, Israel, AIPAC, and the myth of Jews-as-the-Chosen-People. In fact, in our Age of Holocaustianity--which posits that Jews are the saintliest, wisest, and most wonderful people on Earth--, the fact that the Christian Right disagrees with Jews on many issues means that it must make an extra effort to support and love Jews. The logic goes as follows: If Jews are all so wonderful and good, their values and beliefs must be wonderful and good; so, if you disagree with the values and beliefs of Jews, you might be an evil anti-Semite; since being an anti-Semite is the greatest sin in the world, you must find ways to prove that you indeed love, love, and love Jews; since you don’t agree with their beliefs and values, you must become a fanatical supporter of Jewish tribalism, nationalism, and uniqueness. And so, you have the likes of Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter doing strip-tease dances and sucking the cocks of AIPAC Jews--who are surely amused by all these stupid bimbos. Anyway, as the dominant ‘immigrant’ group, Jews did much with their power to disgrace Wasps as the ‘pioneer’ group in American history. Since the 60s, the pioneering Anglo-Americans were associated with black slavery, genocide of the American Indians, and much else. The problem, of course, isn’t in grappling with these subjects per se--as they are of historical interest and moral concern--but in exploiting them just so Jews could morally blackmail and bully the Wasps. Ironically, just as Jews were bashing Wasps for what was done to the American Indians, American Wasps were cheering on the Jews for taking land away from the Palestinians, most of whom are now living in defacto reservations. Since Jews arrived later as immigrants, their hands weren’t, of course, bloodied by the brutal creation of America which did involve slavery of the Negroes and violent wars against the American Indians. But could Jews have succeeded in America if Anglo-Americans hadn’t first created a safe and secure nation for civilized folks? Indeed, what would Jews have done if they’d arrived in America first? In creating a new order, would Jews have been nice to the indigenous tribes of Indians? What did Jews do in trying to create a new political order in Russia? I believed they worked with Lenin and Stalin to kill millions. And what did Jews do in the creation of the state of Israel? I believe they committed ‘ethnic cleansing’ against the Palestinians, many of whom are still living in defacto ghettos and reservations. So, the fact that Jewish hands are relatively clean in the creation of America owes nothing to Jewish decency or moral superiority and everything to do with the circumstances of history. Anglos, having arrived first, had no choice but to do the ‘dirty work’, like fighting American Indians and taking their land. Jews, having arrived AFTER America had been settled and made safe by Anglo-Americans, could just get down to making money and rising up the social ladder. So, you’d think Jews would have been grateful to Anglo-Americans for having founded a new order in which Jews could feel safe and prosper. But no, Jews only spat in the Wasp’s face and are now working 24/7 to make sure every white male is castrated into a pussyboy and every white female is turned into a mudshark who opens her cunt to Negro penises and spews out disgusting mulatto tarbabies like the shitty Obama. A Jew is a venal slimeball who waits for someone else to slaughter and prepare a cow for dinner, loudly and greedily eats his fill at the table, and then accuses the server for having killed an innocent animal. Few things in this world are as devious, despicable, hypocritical, and insufferable as the fuc*ing Jew.) If the first chapter of the American saga narrated the departure from Europe for the East Coast, the second chapter was about leaving crowded Eastern cities for the open frontiers of the West. Risks and danger lay ahead to be sure but were also integral to any great adventure. Settled peoples may become too accustomed to their comfort zone for further adventure, succumbing to excessive caution and conservatism OR dissipation and decadence. Or, if addicted to unquenchable wanderlust, they may fritter away their energies on ‘childish’ pursuits such as mountain-climbing or dangerous expeditions, such as those nearly killing Theodore Roosevelt. Anglo-Americans were fierce and proud in action and on the move, but once they conquered the world, they either lost their ruthless ambition(and were content with their winnings, which grew smaller without further winnings) or sought gratuitous and even reckless adventure, thus endangering the power they’d amassed. In the long run, Jews had the advantage over Anglos in power game. Not only because Jews are smarter but because they have within themselves an (hidden)engine permanently fueled by inner anxiety and drive. Anglo-Americans, though intellectually advanced, were emotionally very much like athletes whose hearts are pumped by the game for turf and glory. Jewish emotions were more cerebrally linked, which means they were tirelessly thinking of power even when they weren’t physically in the game. Notice how few Jews join the military but Jews are always thinking about power and domination. And relatively few Jews play at sports but they play at owning and control the sports industry. A Jew doesn’t need to lift weights to the power as long his mind is gauging the universe(like the master ‘psychologists’ in Isaac Asimov’s THE FOUNDATION). All throughout history, pagan peoples defined power essentially as a warrior or military concept; they either won or they lost; they celebrated in victory, they lost hope in defeat. Jews, in contrast, understood and exercised power beyond the here-and-now. Even in victory, they fretted about losing, which kept them on their toes and sharpened their instincts. Even in physical defeat or disadvantage, they searched intellectual, spiritual, and moral ways to come out on top over the rivals and enemy. (This may explain why Jews were so traumatized by the Holocaust. Jews, sure of their superior intelligence and wisdom, were shocked that they’d failed to see the coming train-wreck nor devised ways to derail or divert Hitler’s ambitions. It was as if one of the great predictions in Asimov’s THE FOUNDATION proved to be utterly off the mark. Jews had suffered numerous times before but always found ways to weasel themselves and land back on their feet. But the Holocaust nearly destroyed the entirety of Jewish community in Europe. And it came out of nowhere, considering Germany had been one of the less antisemitic nations. This was a huge shock to the Jewish sense of mental confidence and power over the goyim. When Nazi Germans began to kill Jews--sometimes with the support of non-Germans--, Jews were dumbfounded, just like Alan Greenspan couldn’t believe that his guru theories on finance could lead to the Dollocaust, or Dollar-Caust, of 2008. Though Jews had long been amply aware of anti-Jewish feelings among goyim, they had no idea how powerful those feelings could become, or how loathsome the pushy and obnoxious Jews appeared to many people. The Holocaust, given the totality of its antisemitic convictions, shook the sense of Jewish power to its foundations. Indeed, until it happened, most Jews thought Hitler would never really do the stuff he outlined in MEIN KAMPF; it was too just incredible and outrageous. Also, if previous antisemitic outbursts had at least spared certain kinds of Jews--converted ones, rich ones, connected ones, useful ones, etc--the Holocaust went after every Jew. The Jewish historical record as the longest surviving people and culture nearly came to an end almost overnight. Remember the character Nick Mancuso in David Mamet’s HOUSE OF GAMES? Though ethnically Italian-American in the movie, he’s a very Jewishy character who fools the female psychiatrist with ease, running circles around her. He thinks he’s so smart and so far ahead of the game that he could never lose. He has the genius-mystical power of the ‘tell’. But why does the woman gain the upperhand over him? Not because she outsmarts him but because in a fit of rage, she wields the gun and just fires away. She becomes like the Nazis. Nazis were essentially extreme gentiles who got so tired of losing to Jews in the game of power that they decided to call off the game and just kill the Jew. If you can’t win at poker, just pull out a gun and shoot the other guy and take his money. The woman in HOUSE OF GAMES has no chance of outplaying or outwitting Nick Mancuso, but she can still shoot him. Nick, so used to knowing all the angles of and winning the game, cannot believe that the woman is playing her own game, which is no game at all--the only rule is she has the gun, and she’ll shoot him unless he begs for his life like a pussy. From this, we can see how the Jewish advantage can become a disadvantage. Jews, with their great insight, intellect, and intuition, can see further ahead than goyim, who almost always get outplayed by the Jews. Over time, Jews sometimes confuse their insight into reality for reality itself; and when reality doesn’t play by the ‘rules’ as Jews understand them, Jews freak out. This could be why the Jews have gone to such lengths with the NEVER AGAIN agenda. Following WWII, Jews were not only appalled with gentile crimes against Jews but with the utter failure of Jewish intelligence, wisdom, and insight. Thus, ‘Never Again’ means not only ‘let us never be victims again’ but also ‘let us never be fools again, especially fools fooled by our own smarts.’ How could Jews, a people with so much history and knowledge, have been so blind to the shit that was about to hit the fan? Even so, it must be said that after the war, Jews masterfully used the Holocaust to gain almost near-total-domination over white goyim everywhere. With Holocaustianity as the new main religion among white goyim, Jews now have white people by their balls--to castrate--and by their pussies--to inject with Negro sperm. So, even though the Jews were blindsided by the Holocaust, nothing did more for Jewish power than the Holocaust, just like nothing did more for the gay community than the ‘homocaust’, sensationalized by Jewish gays like Larry Kramer, though to be sure, gays were victims of their own foulness. Jews in the Holocaust, unlike gays in the ‘homocaust’, were clearly victims of Nazi German madness. However, even though we mustn’t blame the victim, part of the reason why the Germans came to be so deeply affected by--and desperate for--Nazi antibiotics was because they got sick from too much Jewish filth and germs. Nazism was less a germ than a dangerous overdose of medicine; what we need to ask is, why were Germans--and other Europeans--so willing to swallow such poisonous medicine? Because dirty Jews drove Europeans crazy with their communism, decadence, subversion, nastiness, finance capitalism, and all manner of dirty tricks. When we look at America today, most of us would agree that not all Jews are evil and disgusting, not all deserve to be punished. But if some people harbor fantasies of committing massive violence against Jews, it’d be understandable given the utter filth, hatred, contempt, and vileness that characterize much of Jewish attitude toward white gentiles. There’s a lot of filth in all communities, but only the Jews have turned filth into some kind of moral imperative. It is the Jew who has pornified the culture in order to turn white pussies into mulatto-producing fucktories. Jews not only push such filth but promote it as a great moral good. It is the Jew who has made the castration of white males into social, moral, and historical crusade. THIS is the Way of the Jew. So, if someone today feel Hitlerian rage at the Jews, it would be understandable--even if wrong--given the sheer disgustingness of so many Jews. Anyway, even though a tremendous amount of Jewish talent perished in the Holocaust, could Jews have gained the near-total dominance of the world without it? Would so many white gentiles be giving Jews rimjobs otherwise? Though Jews failed to see the Holocaust coming, they sure knew how to steer the Gravy Train of Holocaustianity to amass power once thought unimaginable. Similarly, though the financial collapse of 2008 was a shock to many Wall Street Jews--the group most responsible for it--, they shamelessly exploited the crisis to gain even more power than before. Crooks carried out the robbery got to rob even more. The very Jews whose slimy dealings collapsed the financial house of cards simply scapegoated George W. Bush and pushed mulatto boy Obama--falsely hyped as an outside reformer--into the presidency to do their bidding. In other words, Wall Street Jews and big government Jews--like Barney Frank--caused the problem, then blamed it all on white people, put a disgusting Negro in the White House, got ‘bailouts’ from Obama as rewards, and walked away richer than ever while everyone else was forced to tighten his belt. Whatever the tragedy or crisis--more often than not, caused by Jews themselves--, Jews find ways to exploit it in devious ways to gain even more power, wealth, and influence. Not for nothing is George Soros the archetypal Jew of our era. He has the knack for stripping everything that glitters--gold watch, jewelry, even gold filling in the teeth, etc--from the body of a sick or dying man. Soros’s agenda or the Sorocaust is to the world economy what Auschwitz was to the Jews. It is a ruthless program of the enslavement of all economies to the power of filthy Jews. The sudden change of Jewish fortunes from the ashes of WWII to their rise as the new masters of America--thus the entire world--was another shock for the Jews. Jews had hoped for and looked forward to increasing their power as years passed, and they properly recognized America as their land of milk and honey, but they hadn’t expected the Wasp decline to be so sudden and steep and that their own rise would be so dramatic and complete. Wasps today are morally, politically, culturally, intellectually, and economically putty in Jewish hands. And so, Jews are filled with a mixture of chutzpah and wariness. They keep asking, just how did all this happen? How did the mighty Wasps, the creators and elites of America, fall so fast, to the point where they want their daughters to marry Jews and Negroes and want their sons to act like limpdick metrosexual pussyboys? Jews, filled with both drive and anxiety, are committed to avoiding the fate of the Wasps. With chutzpah, they seek to maintain their high levels of confidence and energy; with boohootzpah--self-righteous self-pity--, they figure on reminding themselves to never take things for granted since there could be a closet-Nazi within the heart of every goy. Of course, the only way to ensure the complete eradication of ‘antisemitism’ is to pluck out the heart of every goy, like in MERCHANT IN VENICE, but that, of course, would require the genocide of all non-Jews, which is undoable. Besides, how could Jews make all the money without all those dumb goyim to exploit and enslave? How could Jewish men enjoy shikse babes if all women were big-nosed Jewesses? How could Jews take pleasure in the sadistic destruction of the white male if Negroes didn’t exist to screw white women while pussified white males watch the lurid spectacle from their closets while yanking on their limp puds? So, since it’s not viable for Jews to wipe out all non-Jews, i.e. pull out the potentially antisemitic roots of all goy plants, Jews have settled for trimming the plants every so often to prevent the flower of white power from ever blooming. And Monsanto-like, Jews have ‘genetically modified’ the psychology and culture of the goyim so that whites will grow up to produce honey reserved only for Jewish parasites. Just as Christianity taught all of mankind to feel guilt over the death of Jesus--with the only hope for salvation being His forgiveness attained through our worship--, Holocaustianity instilled all white people with the guilt, direct or indirect, for the killing of Jews, a sin which can only be washed away with a complete and unconditional devotion to Jews. Jewsus is now higher than Jesus and has become the Judge of all White Kind.) To a Jew, there is no permanent friend or foe among non-Jews; goyim are for ‘business’ or slaves; a Jew will sell bread to but will not break bread with goyim; a Jew only breaks bread with other Jews. In relation to goyim, Jews cleverly balanced tribalism and universalism. Complete tribalism would only lead to Jewish isolation and weakness. But complete universalism would lead to loss of identity, confusion, and decadence. Today, Jews use varying measures of tribalism and universalism to expand their power. Jews practice tribalism among themselves, promote tribalism among blacks and Mexicans to counter white power, and preach universalism to whites who are, for the time being, regarded as the biggest rival and potential threat to Jewish Supremacy. Jews are wary of principles when it comes to power; instead, there’s the dogged determination to watch, study, control, revise, and rig the game so that Jews will come out on top no matter what happens. Notice that whether it’s Clinton, Bush II, or Obama in the White House, Jews always come out on top. And Jews like Dick Morris play both sides of the aisle to further the bullshit agenda of “what’s good for the Jews is good for America.” Because Jews generally choose to con and fool us than strong-arm us, we think it’s a fair game in which everyone has a chance to win, as during the internet stock bubble craze when every American thought he was gonna be a millionaire, when in fact millions of suckers like him were being hustled by Wall Street Jews aiming and gaming to win it all for themselves. In the movie CASINO, Ace Rothstein runs an operation where players are supposed to have a winning chance, but he knows that the system is rigged so that, in the end, the casino wins all. And though his casino scams millions from people everyday, if anyone tries to scam the casino, he gets punished by Rothstein’s goons, like when a guy’s hand is smashed with a hammer. A casino is supposed to be fair and operate by the rules, and my guess is that casinos, by and large, don’t cheat the players. But, of course, the catch is the casino doesn’t have to cheat to win since the odds are rigged in its favor to begin with. This is a useful metaphor to consider when we ponder our economic woes, especially stemming from dealings on Wall Street. Though we tend to associate con-artists like Bernie Madoff with economic fraud, the bigger danger lies with the guys who play ‘within the rules’--again, the catch being that the rules are inherently rigged in their favor and against us. And the rigging isn’t just in the way they do business but in how they use government: they privatize profits and socialize the losses. All legal and ‘fair’, but the Jews get to fuc* your mother and daughter while you get it up the ass. We all know that the game is rigged in favor of the House, whether it be the casino or Wall Street, but the enticement of hype, glamour, and advertising fools and dazzles us away from what’s really happening. Suckers are even made to rationalize their losses as ‘cool’ since the experience of losing has been rendered fun and thrilling. People don’t flush their money down the toilet, but they will throw it away on a crap table, but why? False hope of winning and the drug-like high from risk-taking. Though fundamentally rigged and unfair, one comes away from--and wishes to return to--the game with the sense that it is fair. Though--or precisely because--they are enticed and hoodwinked with irrational tricks of the trade, losers believe they are making a ‘rational’ decision. And even if they keep losing, they continue to insist on the rationality of their addiction along the line of ‘I had a great time’ or ‘It is the American way’. Just as razzle-dazzle lights and ching-ching buzz of the casino induce a opiate-like high distracting players from their losses, Hollywood and the music industry have the same effect on society at large. While Jews in Washington and Wall Street collude to rake it all in to become ever richer and more powerful, their brethrens in the media fill the big screens, airwaves, and ipods with all sorts of sounds and images to distract us from the real reality--the fact that Jewish Supremacists are working to destroy and enslave the white race. Without the hypnotic lights and sounds, would people mindlessly throw away their money in a casino? Similarly, if so many Americans weren’t addicted to AMERICAN IDOL, SEX AND THE CITY, and the foul trash that passes for current pop music, could it be possible that more white people would wake up to what the vile and venal Jews are really up to? Maybe, maybe not. After all, many educated people who don’t watch Hollywood movies nor listen to garbage music are likely to be even more devoted to Jewish power, but then many of the elites are Jewish, and besides, Jews control elite culture too. And of course, conservatives have their own dumb distractions to turn their minds off to truth and reality, such as what passes for today’s country music, NASCAR, WWE, Goth music, Black Metal music, Christian Right, etc.
In the film EUREKA by Nicholas Roeg, we see the defeat of the decadent Anglo-American at the hands of the Jewish beast. If one kind of Anglo-American--East Coast Establishment--thinks and behaves too straight and narrow to protect his castle for the long haul from the cunning and wily Jew, another kind of Anglo-American--the ‘cowboy’--, though filled with spirit and excitement in search of his dream, grows decadent when the dream comes true; he loses the fire in the belly. He is an emotional child compared to the ever resilient and tenacious Jew, whose historical knowledge of power goes back thousands of years. The Jew retains both the constant hunger for power AND cautious self-control in calculating risks. The Jew has elements of the gentleman and the cowboy, and also of the prophet and the gangster. He possesses greater depth in the game of power. Anglo-Americans, on the other hand, are great fighter-explorers and excellent managers/preservationists but lack the all-around virtuosity of the Jews, the mixed-martial experts of history. When Anglo-American fighter-explorers could no longer take control of their destinies, they lost their way, like the Gene Hackman character in EUREKA. And Anglo-American managers/preservationists, though very competent, couldn’t fend off new challenges from outsiders, especially the ruthlessly cunning Jews. In the past, the Anglo-American advantage rested in the unity of fist/balls/heart and mind/conscience/caution. The fighter-explorers racked up new treasures, prizes, and trophies while the manager-preservationists ensured stable and responsible stewardship of Anglo-American wealth and power; also, the gentlemanly demeanor of the manager-preservationist class validated Anglo-American wealth and power with the sheen of respectability. It was like tag-team comprising a boxer and a wrestler. But once the fighter-warrior ideal within Anglo-Americanism was discredited--as ‘race-ist’, imperialist, ultra-nationalist, bigoted, genocidal, etc--and separated from the manager-preservationist ideal, the days of Anglo-American power were numbered. Natural Anglo-American warrior-adventurers couldn’t fight anymore nor take pride in their power/privilege; they could only apologize or atone for it. So, they dissipated and grew decadent, since any sign of pride or aggression on their part was deemed to be ‘race-ist’. If John Wayne were alive today, he couldn’t star in John Wayne movies. So, what remained was only the power of Anglo-Americans as manager-preservationists of the power they’d gained in the past. But a people who only preserve the past--with increasing guilt and doubt, btw--and don’t fight to win future battles will face a slow but sure decline, like that of the Byzantine Empire. Of course, the Jew played a very significant role in the loss of Anglo-American fighting spirit. It was the Jew’s agenda to demoralize the Anglo-American’s once fearsome fighting spirit.
It was the Jew who played a significant role in filling the minds of Anglo-American manager-preservationists with suicidal conscience that led them to cut themselves off from any vestige of Anglo- or white power. This was very evident in the white world’s siding with blacks against the fearsomely proud Afrikaners of South Africa. The manager-preservationist elites in America and Europe gave no support to whites of South Africa, who still had the heart of fighter-explorers. Instead, the Western elites told the fighting-explorer Afrikaners to be ‘moral’ and lay down their arms and broker a deal with the South African black majority who were made out by the Western media and academia to be wonderful salt-of-the-earth. In time, even whites in South Africa lost the fighting spirit, or rather, those with the fighting spirit were no longer backed by those with ‘respectable’ power. De Klerk, seeking to make ‘history’, cut a deal with blacks which was essentially both a political and moral surrender. In contrast, consider the role and attitude of Jews in modern history. Though Jews were among the most rapacious finance capitalists who destroyed world economies AND among the must murderous communists in the 20th century, Jews don’t lose sleep over what they’d done. They only remember the Holocaust and push it on the white gentile population as a paralyzing guilt-trip. And look at the fusion of the Jewish fighting-conqueror spirit--in the Middle East, world economy, and culture--and the Jewish managerial-preservationist ability. Jews still believe that they should go on conquering the world and work hard at preserving and managing their ever-growing assets without any remorse or shame. Even when Bernie Madoff ripped off the world, Jews felt no shame whatsoever; instead, Jews spun the myth that poor noble wonderful Jews were the victims of that one bad Jew, when in fact Madoff had ripped off many more gentiles to pass their wealth to Jews. And even though Jews in Wall Street played the central role in the economic meltdown of 2008, Jews took credit as the most wonderful people on Earth by supporting Obama, with whom Jews played it both ways. On the one hand, Jews promoted Obama as a great reformer who would take on Wall Street. We were supposed to think that Jews are wonderful for supporting such an idealist, but in fact, Obama was little more than another puppet of the Jews who filled his administration with Jewish Wall Street sharks who fleeced this country even more under his ‘watch’. Has there even been such a vile, venal, shameless, and swinish people, a people so infinitely narcissistic in their morality and so shamelessly filled with guile and bile in their machinations and manipulations? Of course, we mustn’t demean all Jews, and indeed there are good decent Jews. It would be antisemitic and stupid to blame or vilify EVERY Jew, but who, if knowledgeable of what’s really going on in the world, could possibly love Jews as essentially a ‘good people’ when the great majority of Jews seem to have the souls of puss? The Anglo-American was no longer supposed to take pride in his history or actively look to the future as rightful owners and victors. They were to feel sorry for their historical crimes. Though their achievements were grudgingly acknowledged, their alleged sins were highlighted to a much greater extent. According to Jew, the GREATEST deeds of Anglo-Americans was fighting and killing other Anglo-Americans in the American Civil War and other whites in World War II; or when, white Americans sacrifice their lives to fight wars for Israel in the Middle East. (Can anyone imagine leftist Jews waging war on rightwing Jews in Israel for freedom & equality for Palestinians? No, Jews stick together even when one bunch of Jews vehemently disagree with other bunch of Jews. But Jews want white gentiles to kill other white gentiles in the name of ‘higher justice’. But then, Jews didn’t need any help in making whites kill whites when scumbag Hitler came along and waged useless wars on other European peoples, thereby even turning patriotic white people away from the Right.)
The story of the Anglo-American is that of the Rise and Fall--as with most great civilizations or empires that came and went. For the survivalist Jew who maintained his cultural greatness across the millennia, the primary concept is neither that of the Rise nor Fall but the never-ending struggle for survival and power. This is why we generally don’t come across Jewish triumphalism. People who declare that they’ve reached the top have nothing higher to climb; they’re psyched themselves to decline since those at the highest point have nowhere to go but down. Jews, though aware of their great power, never declare victory and just keep playing the game for the bigger and bigger pot. Jews don’t act like Tony Montana of SCARFACE but like Ace Rothstein of CASINO. They often win and sometimes face setbacks, as Rothstein does many times, but they never blow their wad on the superbowl of history. Even today, they still await the Messiah, psycho-metaphorically speaking. Even with all their power and money, they define themselves through the Holocaust and the ghetto experience. Jews know that blatant pride and open confidence leads to decadence and dissipation. Also, if Jews were to feel all-powerful, they might become like American Wasps and take their elite positions in society for granted. American Wasps fell into modes of self-criticism, self-condemnation, and be-nice-to-everyone mode precisely because they felt so all-powerful and safe, especially after WWII when the American Imperium dominated by Wasps seemed destined to dominate the world almost indefinitely. And the fall of Japan Inc could also be ascribed to Japanese triumphalism, with just about every other book in Japan of the 1980s reminding its elites and telling its people that America was finished and that Japan was #1 and could ‘say NO’. Triumphalism leads to overreaching and taking-things-for-granted. Jews are a people who, even with their billions, still count their pennies. They know that no matter how great the wealth, big bucks are the accumulations of precious little pennies. One who forsakes the penny loses sight of the true value of the dollar. It’s like celebrating life without acknowledging the importance of cells.
Anyways, Anglo-Americans hit the deadend. Many of them may continue to have it good, but they’re no longer at the helm of the historical locomotive; many may still have first-class seats, but they don’t control the direction in which the train is headed. Many have taken their privilege for granted and have become too soft/pampered to resist the decline. (And since those sounding the alarm are instantly smeared as ‘paranoid’, ‘rabid and virulent’, and ‘delirious and hysterical’, prominent Anglo-Americans remain silent about the demise of their power. By the way, maybe it would be instructive for us to speak not only of Anglo-Americans but Anglo-Americanized white ethnics. Just like there’s a distinction between the Hellenic--Greek--and Hellenistic--peoples influenced by Greek culture--, it might be useful to speak of Anglonic and Anglonistic. Anglonic would refer to people of Anglo-American lineage. Anglonistic would refer to white ethnic peoples who’ve assimilated to Anglo-American culture.) Generally, people forsake risk and danger unless it’s absolutely necessary--why take a cold shower when you can have warm bath? Yet, there is a certain excitement and inspiration, even nobility--at least in hindsight--in the story of struggle against hardship and odds. It’s like a contender has the hungry heart to keep training and fighting to reach the top; but a champion may take his greatness for granted and not train as hard; or he may prefer to keep his belt by ducking tough opponents. Perhaps the danger for the Anglo-American elite was its lack of historical perspective, at least in relation to the Jews. Jews remembered their hardships and struggles for thousands of years and never forgot it. Modern Jews, having a specific history but no fixed place, looked both forward and backward. Anglo-Americans, with their idea of progress, preferred to look forward. But, as the founding people of America, they had a romantic fixation to the past defined by the arrival of Pilgrims, Declaration of Independence, and the Revolutionary War. America was defined by energy and impatience, a forward thrusting spirit. Once the East Coast had been won and secured, Anglo-Americans needed the Westward Expansion to keep alight the torch of special destiny. And when it wasn’t physical conquest and expansion, Anglo-Americans needed to fixate on moral crusades such as abolitionism and prohibitionism. And though Anglo-Americans broke from ‘oppressive’ Britain, the British also defined their historical worth in aggressive terms: conquering the world and spreading British power and values, militaristic and moral. Swept up in pride of conquest and moral righteousness, Anglo-Americans and Brits became blind to the great contradiction within their historical enterprise. For instance, Anglo-Americans defined America as a place for newcomers and equality, a place where oppressed peoples of the Old World could arrive and start a new life. Yet, the massive arrivals of non-Anglo peoples were bound to upset the sense of Americanism as defined by the original Americans. Similarly, the British justified and took pride in their enterprise by uniting the world under enlightened English rule, but this also brought the Brits in close contact with all sorts of cultures that, in time, came to demand equal voice and power within the empire. British imperialism tried to have the cake and eat it too: create a unified world while at the time privileging British power and culture over all others. This contradiction couldn’t last forever, which is why the British elites today are globalist than imperialist; globalism means Britain is as open to other peoples and cultures as other peoples and cultures had once been opened by the British. Jews, in contrast, may be pushy and full of chutzpah, but they are an infinitely more patient and cynical people than Anglos and Anglo-Americans; Jews are far less troubled by the contradictions in Jewish history and culture because they’ve made peace with contradiction as the nature of things. The gentile West, defined by Christianity, seeks the messianic resolution of contradictions and becomes tongue-tied and anxious when people point to the contradictions between their values and their practices. Jews, defined by Judaic tradition marked by both universalism and tribalism, are less troubled by hypocrisy.
Another difference between Anglo-Americans and Jews, which may have contributed to the rise of Jewish power over the Anglo-American, was the nature of Jewish historical culture: bitter and resentful in contrast to Anglo-American historical sensibility defined by victory and fairness. No people have risen as fast as Anglo-Americans in world history. Within a century, from 1800 to 1900, America had become the greatest industrial power in the world and was poised to dominate the world. The world had never seen a power like this. It made the rise of Roman power look like child’s play. Anglo-Americans thus felt triumphant and confident, to the point where they let their guard down, spoiled their kids who became more ditzy and callous. But, even as Anglo-Americans were becoming more frivolous with too much power and wealth, they also perversely became more principled. In a way, it was natural that Anglo-Americans, filled with great economic and political pride, also wanted to own moral pride. Their exceptionalist creed deigned that the rapid rise of America owed to its unique commitment to morality, freedom, liberty, progress, and all that. (Naturally, no one wanted to attribute it to naked greed and ruthless; even Social Darwinists like Andrew Carnegie were into philanthropy and doing social good.) Though social and political values were integral to the rise of America, the it also owed to White Power. (After all, non-democratic Germany in the 19th century also presided over massive economic growth, which, given the limited size and resources of that young nation--unified shortly after the American Civil War--, was in some ways more remarkable.) But since Power was less highfaluting-sounding than Principles, Anglo-Americans preferred to emphasize American Principles as the reason for American success, an argument that, in time, gave the cunning Jews and raging Negroes an opening to expose the hypocrisy of a white-dominated America with a history of slavery, ‘genocide’ of American Indians, discrimination against blacks, war-making on Mexico to ‘steal’ the Southwestern territories, and etc. (It must be said Wasps pulled a dirty trick on non-Anglo white ethnics. Though Wasps were mainly responsible for black slavery and conquest of Indian territories, all whites have been smeared with Anglo-American historical sins. As such, non-Anglo whites must bear the brunt of ‘affirmative action’ and the blame for white ‘racism’ and imperialism as much as Anglo-whites. Recent immigrants from Poland and Turkey must bear the ‘white guilt’ burden along with Anglo-Americans while affluent Wasps, as junior partners of Jews, keep raking it in the globalist order. This isn’t to say I blame Wasp Americans of special evil for 19th century slavery and war on Indians. After all, wars and slavery were common all over the world at the time. Also, no people did more to found and establish America than Anglo-Americans have done. But given that the majority of affluent Wasps are liberal and profess to feel all this ‘white guilt’, it’s dirty on their part to dump the blame on ALL whites, many of whom arrived in America in the late 19th century and the 20th century, thus having NOTHING to do with the so-called ‘historical sins’ of America. If white elites in Latin America hide under the cover of ‘people of color’ and pretend to be victims of Yanqui blanco imperialism, Anglo-Americans hide under ‘whiteness’ and blame ALL whites for their own ‘sins’. So, while affluent Wasps use their connections and privileges to send their kids to elite schools, some poor Polack must move aside, via affirmative action, to make room for Negroes. Just look at that asshole Tom Brokaw. His ilk know that even though white males are officially supposed to move aside for people-of-color and women, they also know that if they loudly agree with such sentiments, they are favored and rewarded in their professions for being ‘progressive white males’. Just like some American Indians won favor in the new white order by bashing other Indians, some white males attain great success and riches by pretending to selflessly move aside for minorities and women. It’s the promotion-paradox. If a white male wants to get ahead, he must loudly proclaim his kind shouldn’t get ahead. The truly dirty thing about Brokaw is while he remorsefully claims to have been favored over minorities and women in the past because he’s a white male, he ignores the fact that he was also favored over non-liberal white males who refused to go along with the program. Dirty white male liberals continue to seek favor in promotion by yapping PC cliches so as to be chosen over anti-PC white males. So much of liberal white male conscientiousness is self-serving careerism.) Though Anglos in the Old World have a long history, Anglo-Americanism was kind of amnesiac reading of history. Though it owed much to its Europe, with which it did most of the business--and from which it continued to draw cultural and intellectual influences--, it put forth a notion that Anglo-American history was something entirely new in the history of mankind--that its formula of liberty, tolerance, freedom, and progress was the panacea of all human problems and the primary reason for America’s rise as a great power. (Perhaps, island nation Britain’s separation from rest of Europe had already planted the seeds of exceptionalism in the Anglo mind even before the rise of Anglo-America.) To the Jews, this all sounded like Child’s Play. Jews, with a historical culture going back thousands of years, much of it filled with tragedy, anger, bitterness, vengefulness, and fear, had a different attitude to history and society as a whole. They understood that everything that rises must fall. They understood that idealism and reality are not the same thing. They understood that principles underlie power and power underlies principles, but they cannot be the same thing. They understood that naive good-will toward one’s rivals and enemies is most often suicidal. Jews understood history properly as a never-ending struggle. Jews understood that if one must invoke principles, it must be to hurt one’s enemy or rival, not to hurt oneself. And Jews understood that the greatest power can be lost instantly, like the fall of Babylon. American Jews today take great pride in their idealism but notice that it never questions Jewish power but only the power of the white majority. Jewish idealism is never self-criticism but a critique to weaken the enemies or perceived enemies of Jews. Jews also understand that there are no permanent allies in history. So, despite the fact that most white Americans came to sympathize with Jews, Jews saw them as potential-enemies-in-the-future than as friends-forever. To Jews, white Americans shall remain a potential-enemy-in-the-future as long as there’s even the slightest possibility of white gentiles uniting and exerting majority-political-power in the US. Jews will ease their anti-white agenda only when the backbone of white power has been completely broken--when whites become a minority in the US. Indeed, the reason why Frank Rick and Tim Wise were giddy with joy over the presidency of the Obama is due to their perception that white electoral power is slipping. If Jews are so vile and venal, why do white Americans keep sucking up to them, even or especially among white conservatives? Why doesn’t white people’s view of Jews change according to the political climate? When Germany was at peace with US, Americans were friendly with Germans. When America was at war with Germany in WWI and WWII, Americans were anti-German. US and Japan had cordial relations, but then Americans hated the ‘Japs’ during WWII. But after American victory, Americans were friendly with Japan again. But when Japanese economic power skyrocketed in the 80s, Americans openly expressed anti-Japanese sentiments. If anything in the 80s, Americans felt more favorable toward the Chinese--who were poor and only getting started with economic growth--than to Japan Inc. But since the decline of Japan and the rise of China, Americans no longer feel hostile toward Japan and now fear the rise of the Yellow Dragon. In the 80s, most Americans thought Afghans were courageous freedom fighters against Soviet imperialism. After the fall of communism and especially after 9/11, the Muslim world has been reviled by Americans. So, American views of peoples change according to the political climate... except when it comes to Jews. White American conservatives stand for certain values and principles: real marriage, strong borders, family values, Christianity as core spirituality, leaner government, etc. It should be plain as day to American conservatives that Jews are among the most venal people in the world: Jews are for open immigration to bring in more non-whites, even illegal aliens; they wanna degrade marriage to bless the unions of men who ‘sexually’ penetrate the fecal holes of other men; they wanna increase the size of government to control us and to aid Jewish-controlled Wall Street via crony-capitalism; they want your white mother, daughter, sister, and even wife to have sex and babies with Negroes; they wanna take away your guns and your right to free speech. YET, white Americans are crazily in love with Jews. Jews could rape their daughters and kill their mothers, and most white Americans would still say, “Jew, Jew, we love you, you.” Wall Street Jews robbed White America blind, but white Americans still praise Jews to High Heaven. How come?!? Some say it’s the Holocaust and white sympathy/guilt stemming from it, but the explanation is too simple. Mindless devotion to all things Jewish didn’t exist in the 1950s or even in the 1960s. It really took off in the 1970s. It wasn’t so much the Holocaust per se but the sly exploitation of the Holocaust as the new faith for all white folks: Holocaustianity as the replacement for Christianity. In the Holocaustian faith, the Holocaust isn’t so much a tragic historical event of the past as the Great Spiritual Question for all time. For couch-potatoes, there was HOLOCAUST the TV series. For mainstream movie audiences, there was SCHINDLER’S LIST and other Holocaust movies. For intellectuals, there’s Claude Lanzmann’s SHOAH and Resnais’s NIGHT AND FOG. According to Holocaustianity, the Nazi genocide of the Jews overshadows all of WWII and taints all of European history with the unforgivable sin of ‘antisemitism’. It is denounced as both a horrific aberration and betrayal of the values of Western Civilization AND the logical and natural outcome of the unique evil inherent and embedded in white race and culture since the beginning of time. The Holocaust is characterized as both a specific historical tragedy committed by Nazi Germans in the middle of the 20th century, something that shouldn’t and needn’t have happened but for the crisis of extremism of the times AND a horrible crime made all too inevitable by the generically innate evil within the souls of all white Europeans(not just the Germans)who have natural propensity to commit such ‘race-ist’ crimes against other peoples, especially the saintly Jews. Jews use the ‘aberrant historical tragedy’ narrative to give false hope to white gentiles that they may be cleansed and forgiven of the ‘accident of history’; but, Jews also exploit the ‘crime of inherent white evil’ narrative to make white people feel that they must constantly purge themselves of ‘race-ist evil’ rooted in their souls lest they turn into Nazis again. Jews use both elements of hope and despair within the white psyche. The Hope of redemption makes white people strive and strain ever harder to win forgiveness and love of Jews; the Despair of permanent ‘racism’ rooted in the white soul keeps white people loathing themselves and morally enslaved forever to Jews. And Jews not only act as judges but as doctors, or social engineers, with supposedly the latest and most effective method of rooting out ‘evil racism’ from one’s soul.
How do we account for this contradiction in the way that Jews manipulate the Holocaust narrative, and why does this contradiction exist in the first place? In simplest terms, it is the Jewish way of having the cake and eating it too, of having it both ways. But, there is another aspect of the Jewish twist on the Holocaust. On the one hand, Jews say the Holocaust is the logical outcome of European thoughts and values on race and spirituality. But in another way, Jews say Holocaust is completely beyond comprehension; thus its evil transcends historical time itself. Though most Jews are secular and rationalist, they view the Holocaust as something that defies all rational explanation. As such, it is the modern secular embodiment of the Satan, and the posterboy of eternal evil is the blonde-and-blue-eyed ‘Aryan’. This narrative has taken such root all across Europe that Sweden’s biggest box office hit is a movie about a dark-haired girl with nose-ring and tattoos waging war on blonde Crypto-Nazis; and Swedish demographic policy is to invite tons of black Africans and have them mate with blonde-and-blue-eyed Nordics; only by ridding themselves of evil blonde-and-blue-eyed-devil features can Swedes be redeemed of eternal evil of crypto-Nazism innate in the white soul. All this, despite the fact that Sweden was neutral during WWII.
Decontextualized from history, Holocaust is seen as an act of evil without any rational justification whatsoever. Even if we agree that the Holocaust was monstrous and unjustifiable, there is another part of the equation we must address in order to understand why it happened. True, Nazis were scum, but they didn’t hate and kill Jews simply because ‘Jews were Jews’. Nazis--and most Europeans--hated Jews because many Jews were involved with radical politics, communism, social subversion, contempt toward goyim, parasitic finance capitalism, deracination of the white race, sexual perversity, etc. Hitler didn’t wake up one day and think, ‘I hate Jews because they are Jews’. He hated them because he associated Jews with vile and vicious forces out to destroy the German nation. Of course, Hitler was scum himself and no better than radical Jews, but his reasons for hating Jews were not entirely irrational or crazy though his conclusions and solution to the Jewish Problem were indeed insane. Notwithstanding our shared conviction that the Holocaust was a great crime against humanity, there is no getting around the fact that Jews, to an extent, dug their own grave by committing so many heinous acts of evil against the white race. Vile and venal Jews in the Soviet Union aided and abetted in the mass murder and enslavement of millions of Christian Slavs. Radical Jews in Central and Western Europe were plotting communist takeovers. Finance capitalist Jews cleverly devised new methods to rob white gentiles blind on both sides of the Atlantic. Worse, filthy finance capitalist Jews colluded with leftist Jews to impose Jewish Supremacism over mankind. Today, we need only look at the dirty Jewish tricks on Wall Street( by George Soros and his ilk), in the Jewish support behind Obama the mulatto son of a mudshark, etc. What Jews are doing today, they were doing back in the early part of the 20th century. Even if we agree that Germans went crazy and overreacted, there’s no denying that Jews are a vile, vicious, venal, cunning, subversive, and disgusting people. So, the Holocaust didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened for a reason. Suppose some smarmy school kid aggravates a big fat kid who finally can’t take it anymore and body-slams the little bully. One might say the fat kid overreacted, but it happened because the little kid acted like a jerk. Similarly, though Nazis clearly went crazy in their Jew-hatred, they came to hate Jews for a reason: Jews made themselves hateful. But Holocaustianity doesn’t want us to see the whole picture. We are not supposed to ask why so many Germans came to hate Jews. We are not supposed to ask what did Jews do in the USSR to make so many Europeans fear and hate them. We are not supposed to ask what Jewish finance capitalists did to destroy the economies of Europe following WWI. We are only supposed to believe that ‘anti-Semites’ went after Jews because ‘Jews are Jews’. This is like saying the fat kid body-slammed the little kid because the ‘little kid is a little kid’, when in fact, the fat kid went after the little kid because the little kid was an insufferable jerk. It is because we approach the Holocaust without the proper context that it seems unfathomable. In fact, it is totally fathomable. When people are wronged, they get angry, and that anger can lead to madness. (If we take a rational approach to Holocaust, we have no choice to bring up issues such as [1] goy envy and fear of higher Jewish intelligence, which invariably turns Jews into overlords of goyim in a free society [2] Jewish ugliness in looks, manner, and personality that turn off so many goyim [3] the vileness and contemptuousness of Jewish attitudes toward and designs on white goyim [4] Jewish hypocrisy of race-ism and tribalism for themselves but egalitarianism for everyone else [5] murderous Jewish role in radical politics. Ron Rosenbaum pretends to ‘explain’ Hitler, but one cannot explain nor understand the full extent of the vileness of Hitlerism without taking into account the full extent of the hideousness of Jews. Hitlerism was an extremely vicious reaction to the exceedingly hideous vileness of Jews. Similarly, one cannot understand white ‘racism’ without taking into account the brutality, animality, and disgustingness of Negroes. Jewish liberals would have us believe that blacks are all either noble saints or tragic victims driven to ‘desperate’ deeds, but in fact, many blacks act the way they do because they are naturally dumber, naturally more aggressive, naturally stronger, naturally lascivious for white women, and naturally contemptuous of the physically weaker ‘pussyass faggoty ass white boy’. The Left keeps saying we need to have an honest discussion about race, but no such thing is allowed because such would entail an honest and rational discussion of the nature of the Negro. Pathetically enough, white boys at Alternative Right, filled with vain outdated white male pride, cannot admit the Negro is physically dominant over the white male, and so they seek therapeutic self-esteem through garbage like Caste Football, Thor comic books, and thug-as-hero black metal.)
It is true that the Germans went crazy. And to be perfectly clear, Germans weren’t angels either. They also did a lot of bad shit, not least in WWI and especially in WWII. After all, though the carpet-bombing of German cities, mass rape of German women by Allies, and the murderous expulsion of Ost-Germans were horrific, we put them in proper perspective. Allies and non-Germans, angry with what Nazi Germany had done, went somewhat crazy and took out their anger indiscriminately on all Germans. And when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Americans went a little crazy and killed up to 2 million ‘Japs’. If we approach the American carpet-bombing of Japan and nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without the context of Japan’s first strike on the US navy at Pearl Harbor, American actions would seem completely and unfathomably evil. How could a nation kill so many innocent civilians of another nation? But within the proper context, we can at least understand that Americans were reacting to other events. And it is for that reason that we don’t consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki the equivalent of Auschwitz or Treblinka. Americans, angry with the ‘Japs’ over Pearl Harbor, struck out at all Japanese, even old people, women, and children. Germans and Europeans, disgusted with Jewish vileness, struck out at all Jews. Of course, unlike the Japanese, Jews were not a nationality but a people spread out over several nations. Even so, Jews everywhere were disproportionately involved in vile and venal acts. In France, Spain, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, and etc, Jews were, more often than not, agents of communism, cultural/moral subversion, anarchism, or finance capitalism, sometimes all of them together. Of course, Jewish anti-gentile-ism should also be seen within certain contexts. It would be wrong to say, as the Nazis had, that all Jews are innately evil--though many Jews are indeed vile due to the particular nature of their evolution favoring qualities such as cunning, deceit, contempt, and trickery. Many Jews joined communism because it promised an end to antisemitism. Also, not all Jewish bankers were crooks. Also, not every gentile hatred of Jews was morally feasible; many gentiles hated Jews purely out of envy, even when or especially because many Jews were at the forefront of medicine, science, math, culture, law, etc. But, if Jewish radicalism needs to be understood within the context of antisemitism, antisemitism also needs to be understood within the context of Jewish radicalism, vileness, ugliness, and hideousness. The Holocaust was the extreme culmination of antisemitism. And, communist mass-murder was, more often than not, the fulfilment of Jewish hatred of goyim.
If we are not allowed to contextualize the Holocaust in relation to Jewish crimes via communism, finance capitalism, and moral/cultural subversion, we are forced to relate the Holocaust to all of history. Holocaustianity has made the Holocaust the prism through which all of human history is to be understood. We even pass moral judgment on primitive man’s tribalism because we are led to believe that ‘us vs. them’ mentality led to the Holocaust! All of Christian history is understood as a form of antisemitism, and so, the main moral/spiritual objective of all Christians is to love Jews and seek forgiveness from Jews. Holocaustianity is, in some ways, Christianity turned upside down. If Christians said Jews were tainted with the blood of the murdered Christ, Jews say Christians are tainted with the blood of murdered Jews. So, if the Inquisition sought to force Jews to convert to Christianity, Holocaustianity forces Christians to bow down to Jews and beg forgiveness forever. Holocaustianity says that the Holocaust was both a unique--one and only or mono-historical--event AND an event that informs us about all other crimes against inhumanity. So, even though we can’t say that the mass killings of Tutsis in Rwanda or the mass killings of the Khmer Rouge were on par with the Holocaust, we are supposed to understand all such crimes as a kind of mini-me of the Holocaust, the true one-and-only god of all tragedies. ‘Nobody knows the troubles I seen, nobody knows but Jews.’
Decontextualizing the Holocaust from related/surrounding events makes the crime rationally inexplicable--by golly, they were killed ‘just for being Jews’!!!--, thereby ‘spiritual’. It turns Jews into pure saints while turning all anti-Semites into forces of dark evil. Associating the Holocaust to all of human history makes Jews the moral masters of all of humanity. Via Holocaustianity, every other tragedy must be seen through the prism and/or be judged in relation to the one-and-only, the greatest, the mother-of-all-tragedies. So, if your people suffered a great tragedy, remember that Jews suffered an even greater one; so, if you feel sorry for your people, feel even sorrier for the Jews since they suffered even more. This morally narcissistic horseshit is, believe it or not, the prevailing religion of the West.
The main competition for power in 20th century America, especially in the second half, was between Wasps, the original elites, and the Jews, the rising elites. What about non-Anglo white ethnics who arrived along with the Jews in the late 19th century and early 20th century?
Some immigrants moved out West like earlier Anglo-American and Northern European pioneers. Many settled in cities and set up shops and businesses. Even so, many only scraped by--and things got really bad during the Great Depression. The people who worked long hours in factories wanted to form unions and obtain more ‘rights’ and benefits collectively. Also, having come left Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, the more educated among the immigrants brought radical ideas with them like fleas. Most of these ideas--anarchism to communism--tended to be anti-capitalist and anti-individualist, thus anti-Anglo-American.
In time, the Republican Party became the repository of the grand Anglo-American tradition of individualism and free enterprise(at least within national borders)while the Democratic Party became a force of growing progressive collectivism. Though most immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe did better in America than back home, they didn’t exactly ‘make it’. They were toiling in sweat for industries owned by the Anglo-American elites--such as railways, auto, steel, oil and gas, machine parts, etc. Since Unions were allied with the Democratic Party which also promised higher taxes for the rich--mostly Anglo-American--, it was a no-brainer which party most of the new arrivals and their children would gravitate to.
The rise of the white ethnics pushed Anglo-America in three directions. One became ever more individualistic and ‘libertarian’--even radically so--in response to the collectivist challenge posed by recent waves of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. But, another direction became more collectivist in a tribal way, leading to racial theories and attitudes that posited that the superior whites of Northern European background should stick together and keep the power over the lesser ‘mongrelized’ whites from places like Southern Italy, Portugal, or Greece. It was in this period that a school of American History developed that argued it’d been a mistake for the thirteen colonies to break from the British motherland. Fearing that US was would be swallowed up by swarthy lesser-whites from Eastern and Southern Europe, a new pan-Anglo consciousness arose. Some of it was elitist and intellectual, like the husband of Daisy in THE GREAT GATSBY pontificating about the racial superiority of Northern European stock. But, some of it was populist, with the KKK perhaps being notoriously the most conspicuous example. Though the KKK is regarded as a white supremacist movement, this is misleading as the members of the KKK, like the Nazis, mainly represented only whites of Northern European stock. The KKK disdained and even hated white Catholics and Eastern/Southern Europeans. Strongly Anglo-German-Irish nativist, they demanded ban on further immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Though most people calling for slowing immigration in the 1920s did so for socio-cultural-economic reasons--the need for assimilation and problems of wage competition--, there was a nativist and even racial element to some of the anti-immigration sentiments.
If one group of Anglo-Americans lurched into ultra-individualism--forging alliances with the Austrian School of economics and even Ayn Randian libertarianism--and if another group closed ranks within a new wall of communal WASP power and privilege, another group of Anglo-Americans--perhaps best exemplified by Franklin Delano Roosevelt--accepted the new order and believed that STATISM(though not anything as radical as communism or anti-democratic as European fascism)would be the best way to solve problems and provide most people with better and more secure lives. The ‘dirty little secret’ was that the new statism would also be a way for the Anglo-American elite to retain much of their power since they were the best educated and connected. Even with the triumph of the Democratic Party in the 1930s and 1940s--with great support from white ethnics and growing support even from traditionally staunchly Republican blacks--, Anglo-American power remained strong. The expansion of government may have been disconcerting to Anglo-American individualists, but in truth the mandarins of the Big Government happened to be Ivy League Eastern Establishment Wasps. Of course, they were not the only ones, especially with the rapid rise of Jewish power, but white ethnic power didn’t grow at the expense of Anglo-American power in the 1930s and 1940s. It was as if the pie of American power and wealth was growing for everyone. Bigger government meant more benefits and safety nets for all people, not least for white ethnics and even for blacks. But bigger government also meant more jobs and positions, especially at the upper echelons, for better-educated Anglo-Americans and their brethren. Given this ‘dirty little’ fact, one may surmise that there has always been a core of elitism in Liberalism despite all the talk of greater opportunities for everyone. While it is true that liberalism has championed fairness for all people--though with the rise of affirmative action, poor and working class whites came under assault--, it has also been a means for the old elites to keep the power. The rationale goes like this: for society to be fair, there needs to a powerful federal government to make sure things are fair. And, the criteria of ‘fairness’ are to be formulated according to the wisdom of THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST educated in elite schools. In other words, for us to be properly free, we need to surrender much of our freedom to the government mandarins and their bureaucratic police dogs. Our lives need to be watched, regulated, and controlled. So, even as Liberalism purportedly works in the interests of the people, the masses are actually less empowered than those who control them--ostensibly for the good of the masses of course.
This is all the more confusing and frustrating since Liberals promote pop cultural laxity and hedonistic excess that rot the souls of young kids across America. Liberals scoff at the notion of conservative moral compass; they say people should be free, and nothing is of greater or nobler value to liberals than imitating the ape-like behavior of the Negroes. Supposedly, that sort of behavior is liberating from the prudish, patriarchal, repressed, and Victorian mentality of whites. But, what are the consequences of excessively imitating Negroes? Kids start acting like jungle apes, and that ain’t no good. Soon, kids are using drugs, getting into fights, messing up at school, and having babies as teens. What to do about this social problem? More government! Make the patient sick and move into heal him. It’s like a doctor urging his patients to eat a lot of junk food until they get sick and then stepping in as the savior(pushing more drugs and treatments; it never occurs to either the doctor or his patients that too much junk food is the problem). Modern liberalism promotes spiritual decay and promises materialist fixes--through more government spending and programs. The religion of liberalism is the scientism of SOCIAL ENGINEERING. Liberals reject spiritual and moral instruction for young people as repressive and old-fashioned. They believe that young people should boogie-oogie and jungle-wungle-uga-buba all they want. That is the essence of liberation for liberals. If you point out such attitudes generally lead to social malaise, crime, and idiocy, liberals deny it; or, if they do acknowledge the rottenness of culture, they say it’s all because of the history of racial and economic oppression against the downtrodden and the ‘disenfranchised’. Since poor people are hopeless and helpless, can we blame them for having some fun by acting like a bunch of jungle-jivers? Do we wanna take away even that little fun from their sad lives ruined by ‘racism’? I don’t know if liberals are really this stupid or acting in profoundly bad faith. Perhaps both. It could well be that some radicals on the Left know that our current popular culture is rotten and corrosive but look the other way or even lend support. They might see the excesses of popular culture as the natural and inevitable sickness of consumer-capitalism that will destroy capitalism from the inside, like a worm in the apple’s core. If you can’t destroy an entity with external force, destroy it from within by making it produce its own poison from the inside. And we seem to be moving in that direction. Consider that US is a celebrity-drenched nation where everything has been American-Idolized. Americans addicted to such stupidity predictably saw Barack Obama as some kind of messiah, rock star, Hollywood celebrity, and so on. This mentality created by mindless consumer capitalism has led to widespread stupidity and the election of a anti-white black nationalist socialist as president of America.
What is meant by the ‘Nietzschean liberalism’? ‘Nietzschean’ has often been misused and misapplied. However, misinterpretations of ‘Nietzschean’ are somewhat fitting given Nietzsche’s own penchant for contradictions and ‘irrationalism’. Some on the Modern Right claim him as their own, but most mainstream conservatives want nothing to do with him(not least because of his anti-Christian diatribes and indirect relation to Nazism). Nietzsche’s hierarchy was anti-traditional. He despised Christianity as favoring the weak, and he disdained established hierarchies as decadent and corrupt--new orders may be established by superior men but grow weaker under the reign of their mediocre heirs who received power and privilege on a silver platter. A man on the bottom rising to the top must have superior qualities--however diabolical such may be--to prove his worth whereas those born into privilege don’t have to lift a finger. People born into privilege could be naturally inferior--since greatness is rare--but even if born with superior qualities, such aren’t put to the test; a sword, no matter how magnificent, that never proves itself in battle remains an ornament. Another problem with being born into power/privilege is that one’s talents, such as they may be, become ‘conservative’ and defensive than visionary and revolutionary. People with a lot tend to be more concerned about preserving their wealth/power, and so they construct a shell around themselves. They no longer lead as rulers of men but hide behind castle walls as princes of privilege(as with traditional aristocracy). This is why capitalism is the ultimate form of Nietzscheanism, indeed more so than Fascism and National Socialism. While Italian Fascism and German National Socialism witnessed the rise of ‘great men’, once Mussolini and Hitler held power, they employed authoritarianism or even totalitarianism to stamp out visionary individualism among others; they only demanded obedience. Biggest rebels become the biggest tyrants; they stem all future rebellion. So, Fascist Italy increasingly turned into a dull nation where people regularly and drearily shouted ‘Duce, Duce’. And Hitler had an increasingly difficult time playing the Man of Destiny once the German economy stabilized and Germans just wanted to get on with their lives. The only way he could maintain the aura of visionary titan was to plan for a new world order and wage wars. A Nietzschean must keep looking for new challenges, new peaks to climb.
Capitalism, as especially outlined by Joseph Schumpeter of ‘creative destruction’ school and Ayn Rand of Promethean school, makes for a constant non-stop Nietzscheanism. Those with grand vision and ruthless will, like Steve Jobs and other high-tech samurai, become shoguns, but there is no permanence of power--as had been with the aristocratic/dynastic system where the children of kings and princes automatically inherited titles. Those on top fall when they run out of ideas; those on bottom rise to the top with new ideas. Paradoxically, capitalism is most ‘anarchic’ under the Rule of Law. Laws ensuring fair competition and legal protections allow the most rapid and dynamic rises and falls of business empires. But when the Rule of Law fails, big business employs the dirty tricks of ‘crony capitalism’--in partnership with the state--to protect itself from new competition from below--from aspiring entrepreneurs with innovative ideas. Wasps, when faced with competition from ruthless and cunning Jews, sought to close ranks to prop up crony-capitalism favoring Anglo-American power, but the smarter and tougher Jews won. But having won the top prize, Jews today use crony-capitalism on Wall Street to protect their own filthy wealth and interests.
Even if the rise of liberal Jews to the top position of hierarchy was a terrible thing for the West, it was Nietzscheanism in action. Generations of Wasps elites, who inherited heaven and earth from their ruthless and visionary ancestors, grew soft and defensive; and in the meritocratic and ‘fair’ world they created, they lost to the physically stronger Negroes and intellectually superior Jews. So, all those fellas at Alternative Right who claim to revere Nietzsche cannot accept the natural outcomes of Nietzschean historical/biological dynamics. If ruthless will to power and cunning are hallmarks of Nietzscheanism, then Jews are better equipped to win than Wasps are. And if charisma and male prowess are also hallmarks of Nietzscheanism, Negroe males are bound to dominate the wimpier white males whose voices sound girlish in comparison to the Negro’s.
If Leon Trotksy conceived the notion of permanent revolution in the name of future equality, Nietzsche had earlier called for permanent revolution in the name of genuine hierarchy. Nietzsche despised power dishonestly justified and established for the purposes of serving the people; he regarded the masses as inferior men meant to be ruled and led by superior men.
Religions or ideologies like Christianity and communism, in their cult of equality and ‘justice’, could only be dishonest. How could any real or true power be equal? By its very definition, power means having power over others. How can masses think or do anything without being led? And how could the vanguard, whatever its ideological affiliation, be equal with the people it led? People followed or obeyed it because they saw it as superior or fearsome.
Nietzsche didn’t care for ideas like anarchism either, which though anti-statist, propagated the funny notion that peaceful and well-ordered communities could be founded on the basis of de-institutionalized goodwill and shared trust. As for institution of traditional nobility, the power almost always passed down to mediocre or unworthy heirs. If a man of strong will and great intelligence obtained power, he might marry some pretty tart with shit-for-brains. Their children won’t be best equipped to rule the world. As time passes, generations of elites rule not with natural superiority but through institutional facades. A mediocre elite, unable to justify its power on natural grounds, adopts something like Christianity to soothe and control the masses(and of course itself, which is why religion has been as much the opiate of the elites as of the masses). Nietzsche saw Christianity as an ideology maintaining ‘slavery’ as the status quo. It wasn’t so much to empower the slaves but really to empower mediocre elite that couldn’t demonstrate any NATURAL right to rule. Mediocrity is the slavery of the soul. To the extent that most aristocracies were ruled by men without quality, they could be said to have been soul-slave-orders.
Nietzsche was for an hierarchy but one where power constantly flowed to the more superior than stagnantly remained in the hands of a fixed elite. In the animal world, younger and stronger males fight and topple older males for right of territory and to mate with females. More than Christianity, the element within civilization that came to suppress the rapid rise of natural intelligence and charisma was patriarchy, which came to concentrate power in elder-elites and forced young males to bow down before and obey older men(who, though physically weaker, held greater moral, spiritual, and legal power). In the patriarchal order, young men may even have to surrender their women to horny old bastards. In the film SAMURAI REBELLION by Masaki Kobayashi, a young samurai is ordered to surrender his wife to an elder lord. Though extreme patriarchy can be unjust and oppressive, the other extreme, studtriarchy could be worse--just take a look at black neighborhoods dominated by young male punks who respect nothing. When young males are allowed to run wild and take power, many of them will expend their energy on destruction than construction. The studtriarchal hierarchy will favor thugs over thinkers.
Nietzsche wasn’t a great admirer of people born into positions of power. No, the thrill and glory were in the WILL TO POWER. Just as the real thrill of Christmas is waiting for the arrival of that special day, power is most glorious when one seeks and struggles for it.
Nietzsche understood only a few could make the climb to the top. That was the true glory of power. For those born at the top--princes and aristocrats--, there was no need for the WILL TO POWER, the courage and vision to make the hazardous climb; rather, they were defined by the fear of heights and teeming masses below; so they grew conservative, took few risks, and remained within castle walls. So in Nietzsche’s ideal universe, concepts like a 1000 Year Volkish Reich is phony baloney.
Though Nietzsche would have loathed many of Hitler’s ideas, he would have respected Hitler’s rise from a corporal to Fuhrer. But, what about the proposed 1000 Year Reich? It’d be just a totalitarian system without freedom for individuals. There would be no more great men. Instead, the ‘best and superior’ would be handpicked and trained by all-powerful institutions, and all future generations would be raised like guinea pigs in a laboratory. ‘Greatness’ would be cloned and manufactured by the bureaucratic state. There could be no Promethean heroism in any of this. It could be meritocratic in a way, but the ‘best and superior’ would rise by conforming to and obeying the system than by asserting their individuality. Though the system was created by Hitler, it would prevent the rise of any future Hitlers.
Even if Nietzsche had strong doubts about democracy, he would have had even greater doubts about totalitarianism that completely stamps out individual freedom of action and thought. For Nietzsche didn’t only believe in the ability but also in the WILL. A totalitarian system may indeed pick and train the ‘best and the brightest’ but not necessarily those with the WILL. A person can be highly intelligent but lacking in the WILL TO POWER. A totalitarian order favors members of society characterized by obedience and conformism. Even if intelligent, a person without the Will to Power would be a running dog of the established order than a visionary seeking to replace the existing order with a new one. In this sense, Nietzsche was the ultimate revolutionary where an order created by one great visionary individual of strong will must inevitably be challenged by another and then another. No wonder then that Nietzsche loved the arts--and the god Bacchus--for in no other human endeavor, especially with the rise of Romanticism and the stirring of Modernism in the 19th century, has there been such a fierce battle of creative and visionary wills. Susan Sontag took up on this theme with her essay ‘Styles of Radical Will’. (Incidentally, speaking of God and power, certain radical atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have directed special vitriol against the God of Judeo-Christo-Islamo-faith, claiming that He is especially vile and dangerous figure in religious culture. Radical atheists ask, “How can decent people worship some Deity that smites entire cities, orders His followers to commit war crimes, and use forces of nature as a ‘moral’ weapon to terrorize people across time and space?” Their bitchy whining seems to miss the point. Religions, as they developed, were a kind of science and, as such, attempts to understand the ways of the world. Before reason grew distinct from intuition/inspiration, it was not separate and pure intellectual instrument. Reason was interwoven with religion, prevailing as a kind of Relison or Reasigion. What people in ancient times observed was a dangerous world filled with pestilence, floods, droughts, famines, epidemics, warfare, disease, and myriad other horrors: some caused by forces beyond man and some caused by man, but perhaps even human actions were driven by spirits, good or demonic, within the soul. Anyway, mankind could not ignore the horribleness of the world. Man wanted to understand why things happened the way they did. Not having knowledge of geology, astronomy, meteorology, biology, psychology, and etc, they naturally personified or animated the universe as being filled with spirits of light and darkness. If man devised a spiritual system made up only of good decent loving gods, he wouldn’t have been able to explain the world and all its horrors. If the divine forces of the universe and nature were all so good and loving, why were there so many horrors? The only explanation would be the gods are good but weak and ineffectual, in which case they’re worse than useless; the other explanation is gods are evil and use nature to terrorize people for their amusement or sick pleasure; yet another explanation is gods are neither good nor evil but angry and agonized for some unfathomable reason and must be pleaded with. For mankind to pretend that gods could or should only be decent and loving would have been like an astronomer rejecting the notion that asteroids or comets could hit the Earth and cause horrible damage. It’d be like a biologist saying there’s no such things as viruses and bacteria that can kill us--like in the story of young prince Siddhartha when his father tried to make him believe there was no such thing as aging, disease, old age, death, etc. Or, it’d be like a geologist saying there’s no such things as volcanoes or earthquakes that an kill thousands, or even millions. Or, it’d be like an evolutionist saying natural selection involves no violence and is very pleasurable and pleasant to all organisms involved. If we believe in asteroids, germs, earthquakes, tsunamis, and etc, it means that many of the forces governing the universe and nature are horribly hostile to us. Since such would mean the universe is a dark dangerous place, does it mean science is evil for believing in such universe? If science is so wonderful and humane, how dare it tell us that our planet is so small and vulnerable in the vast darkness of the universe filled with dangerous meteors, exploding stars, black holes, etc? How dare science tell us that evolution made Negroes bigger, stronger, and more fearsome than white folks, thereby reducing so many white folks into helpless victims of black thugs! But if we have courage, we must accept science and what it tell us. It tells us that the world is indeed a hostile and dangerous place. Not only might a meteor hit our planet and kill off maybe most of humanity but our bodies are filled with all sorts of germs that may make us sick and die horribly. Similarly, people who invented religions were courageous in seeing the true nature of the world. Since they didn’t have scientific data, they used cosmology to explain the universe, wild nature, and human nature. They believed in spirits, and these spirits could be helpful or pleasant to man, or they could be hostile and hurtful. Now, one may ask, why do religions have so-called good gods doing bad stuff or making people do bad stuff? Why does Yahweh tell the Israelites to commit massive war crimes, like wiping out entire villages? Why shouldn’t good gods be entirely good? For one thing, it would have been obvious to all peoples that good things didn’t always happen to good people. If there were good gods looking over good people, then one needed only be good to be blessed and protected by good gods. But the world was not like that. Not only was it impossible for a person to be good all the time, but bad shit often happened to good people, and good people had to do bad shit sometimes. If you were an Israelite faced with hostile tribes trying to wipe your people off the face of the earth, it made sense to believe that God wanted your people to wipe out the other side before it wipes out your side. It’s easy for people with full bellies today to pass judgment on the past, but things were pretty horrifying when your enemies were the dreaded Assyrians and other such warrior folks. Because of the overwhelming triumph of the West over the non-West in the past several decades, many modern people have come to think in terms of permanent victors/oppressors and permanent victims/oppressed, but through most of history, it was never like that. Winners could become losers, and losers could become winners. One people could be oppressing/enslaving another people, only to see things reversed soon after. And prior to rise of modern technology, even high civilizations like the Romans and Chinese could be defeated by barbarian peoples such as Germanic tribes or Mongol hordes. In such a dangerous world where nothing seemed permanent--when victors and victims switched places so often--, it was not necessarily immoral to wipe out the other side before it wipes out your side. So, seen in proper context, God’s ordering of Israelites to wipe out other peoples, though horrible, may have been strategically justified in those times--just as modern scholars find justifications for the carpet-bombing of Germany and expulsion of Ost-Germans and, of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In an extreme state of war, people don’t take chances; they go all out to win by any means necessary. If nuking entire cities is justified in the name of Democracy, then wiping out hostile tribes may have been justified in ancient times when so many mutually hostile tribes faced one another in the Middle East. Faced with such reality, mankind had two options in their conception of God or gods. God or gods could become amoral or even immoral, essentially a force of Power. As such, God or gods had to be feared, blindly obeyed, and satiated through sacrifice--as defined by the priestly caste. Aztecs had such gods as did certain non-Jewish Semitic peoples. The other option was to say God or gods were indeed moral but sometimes brought horrors upon mankind as punishment for man’s wicked ways. Thus, horrors were somewhat moralized. God could be ruthless, even cruel, but out of righteous rage over man’s sinfulness and treachery. But given that so many good people--and children--got punished for no apparent reason, some peoples conceptualized the deeply mysterious God, as in the Book of Job, where no man can fathom why God does what He does. One might even go so far as to say that even God doesn’t know what He does, that He’s a mystery to Himself, but Judaism never went that far. Buddhism’s answer was the horrors are all an illusion, as is the universe itself, and the only escape is the extinction of the soul itself though proper karma. Anyway, the ‘horrible’ nature of God and gods in religions reflected the ways of nature and history for ancient man. To make God or gods G-rated family entertainment would have had little value in explaining the world as it was, just as meteorology that ignores the reality of snow storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes has little value as weather report. The problem of movies like AVATAR is they present a view of nature where everything is wondrous and welcoming. It has even less guts than BAMBI. Nature is beauty plus horror, so why shouldn’t God or gods be light and dark? Similarly, it kinda misses the point to say the Greek gods are far from perfect, often fickle, sometimes vain, and on occasion even horrible. But they accurately reflect and represent the ways of nature and man as people could plainly see in ancient times. Given there are many Hellenic gods, things were never entirely bleak for Greeks who might appeal to certain gods when fallen out of favor with other gods. THE ODYSSEY is especially meaningful for the way its hero navigates and negotiates among the gods, metaphorically resonant through forces of water, wind, and land. Wind was perhaps the most fascinating as a divine force for ancient man. Man could see water and land, but wind was invisible yet powerful and essential to a seafaring people like the Greeks who set sail from land to land. And so, the forces of wind push Odysseus’s ship here and there, all over the place, beyond his control. And yet, by negotiating with gods on his side--and with gods negotiating with other gods--, Odysseus isn’t entirely helpless. By his wits, he does eventually get what he wants. But, there are times, especially on land, especially if one’s own, man must rely on and prove himself without the aid of gods, as when Odysseus arrives home and faces the suitors. In the early parts of the Bible, it’s as though God is always watching the Jews. In contrast, Greek heroes seem to rely on their gods more intermittently. Thus, one could say there’s greater spirit of individual freedom in Greek mythology. But then, the Biblical God becomes more distant later in the Bible, thus leaving Jews freer to chart their own destiny in greater distance from God. Interestingly enough, other than the story of Noah’s Ark, there isn’t much about seafaring--and keep in mind Noah was before Abraham, who was the first official Jew--in the Bible. Also, Noah was less a seafarer than a preserver of earthdom while the world was flooded. There’s the story of Moses splitting the sea, but notice the Jews walk on land between curtained sea waters than take to traveling by sea. There’s the story of Jonah, but he got swallowed by a whale, which ain’t what I call seafaring. I wonder how the Jewish religion might have been different if the story of Jews had been more intertwined with seafaring. To the extent that Western Europeans took to the seas and discovered the world, they were acting in the great tradition of Greeks. Jesus, as someone who recruited fisherman and walked on water, may qualify as a Jew who finally took to a kind of seafaring, though being the Son of God, He didn’t really need a boat.) Arts are also crucial given the near-impossibility of controlling the masses with physical power alone. No man has the power of Goliath or Hercules, and besides the reach of physical power is limited to things it directly touches. An animal outside the clutches of a lion is free. Ideas exert greater power in being transmitted across entire populations. The idea of democracy, for instance, has sway over hundreds of millions all over the world. But, ideas require Reason, but most people are deficient in the ability to reason or think for themselves. Also, the nature of reason is dispassionate, the opposite of inspired. (To be sure, many ideas come to life ‘spontaneously’, as if from nowhere, and for this reason, thinkers are said to be ‘creative’. True as this may be, the validity of all ideas, whatever their origin, is tested by cool logic and reason.)
Thus, for the superior man to gain the respect, attention, and obedience of the mediocre masses, he must rely on something that is instinctive and inspired. It cannot be the irrationalism of brute animalism, which resides in the domain of physical power. No, the superior man must prove and establish his superiority through his CREATIVE visionariness: a spiritualized vision of extraordinary creative power, something so powerful, alluring, magnetic, and charismatic that the mediocre masses need not think nor be forced to bow down; the masses will willingly follow, enthralled and enthused. The great man must have the power of sorcery over the masses. It must be a kind of magic. Such individuals, relatively rare in all times and places, altered the direction of history through destruction and construction, sometimes in combinations of both where one couldn’t be distinguished from the other. Those great men gained power over the masses, but then a dogmatic elite--less inspired or uninspired compared to the founder of their order--tended to inherit or usurp power and turn what had once been organic and alive into something orthodox and rigid. Sacredness went from a living breathing organism into a fossil or mummy. Muhammad was an inspired rebel visionary with the creative power to reinterpret and revitalize older traditions, but his heirs merely turned it into a dogma. In an ideal Nietzschean world, there can be no permanent truth or sacredness. There are only great individuals who gain sway over the masses with their inspired and creative sorcery. The order created by one great artist-sorcerer must be toppled by another great artist-sorcerer.
The problem, of course, is that every artist-sorcerer wishes to establish an order that will last forever--thereby immortalizing his legendary life into eternal myth--, one wherein future generations shall worship him and his ideas/visions. (More often than not, the so-called ‘great leader’ happens to be some third-rate thug who rose to prominence by guile and cheap show biz instincts in a world of fools. Gaddafi, a third-rater, could only come to power in a sorry nation like Libya, but his early success was enough to convince his megalomaniacal self that he was indeed the man of destiny, making him blind to all the dangers around him, thus rendering his downfall all the more pitiful.) Thus, Islam continues to this day as mindless dogma followed by a billion dimwit Muslims. Likewise, if Hitler’s 1000 Year Reich had been achieved, it would have been 1000 yrs of dreary ‘Heil Hitlers’ and ‘Aryan’ clones marching like robots back and forth. Permanence dulls the mind and senses. This explains the thematic connection between Nietzscheanism and Spenglerism/Eliade-ism. All three thinkers had an organic and cyclical view of history, though Nietzsche’s was the most radical by far. Spengler saw the rise and fall of civilizations as inevitable and natural, like the coming and going of seasons, like the birth and death of organisms. Mircea Eliade attacked the Judeo-Christian mindset and tradition as linear as opposed to the cyclical organicism of the pagans. It was as if the Judeo-Christianity found the formula of the fountain of youth, or was it more like the fountain of senility where the old never die? Supposedly, healthy and virile societies--pagan ones--rose and fell, to be replaced by another healthy and virile civilization. All civilizations run out of Will to Power. When ‘the thrill is gone, it’s gone away’(as B.B. King once emoted), then it’s time to make way for something new. Life is eternal but no single life is eternal. Man’s creativity and ability to create civilization are Eternal principles, but NO single civilization should last forever. By doing so, it obstructs new civilization from being born or created in its place. Civilization is like shit inside the intestines. It must remove itself so new shitvilization can take its place. A chunk of shit that lodges itself in the intestine forever becomes a hard dried piece of doogie. (One reason why conservatives are less creative than liberals is their dogmatic clinging to tradition. It’s like a child clinging to his mother’s teat and refusing to taste new things. Culturally bound to the past, conservatives have little energy left to think new thoughts and ideas, create new visions. It’s like a person who reads nothing but the Bible has no time for anything else. Paradoxically enough, liberals show more interest in the past precisely because they cling to it less. Conservatives, clinging to ‘tradition’, tend to be less creative, and being less creative makes them less curious, and this also means less curiosity about the past. Conservatives cling more to the idea of the past than care to learn much about it. Liberals, in their embracement of creativity, are culturally more competitive and curious, which makes them look for ideas and images from all areas--from other cultures, from the past, from current trends, etc--to create something newer and bolder. Conservatives mindlessly worship the past as something fixed and sacred without question; liberals look to the past to find objects-as-instruments for future creativity. A conservative values Shakespeare and Beethoven for their cultural symbolism: Western culture and pride. Conservatives generally have little or shallow appreciation of culture, and on occasion read the classics for therapeutic reasons--to feel pride by association to past great white people. They worship past culture as sacred fossils. Liberals study and value the past as living breathing organisms to critique and/or use creatively. This is why Pat Buchanan just doesn’t get it when he gripes on and on about the Culture War. Culture-as-tradition cannot compete with culture-as-creativity in the modern world. Also, there is an certain advantage to a cultural amnesia where such exist. All babies are born amnesiac, and this is why the world is wondrous to them. Every sound, image, touch, taste, and smell are like an unlocking of a mystery. The fall of civilizations is wrenching and tragic, but the loss of cultural/historical memory makes people discover or rediscover things with new excitement. The power of the Renaissance derives from the sense of rediscovery of what had been lost. For artists of the period, classical culture wasn’t merely a tradition but an inspired rediscovery of lost treasures. Since so much had been lost and all that remained were glimmers of what had once been, it inspired feverish creativity, the likes of which even great artists in Classical times would never have dared or imagined. Even the Greeks and Romans never produced anyone like Michelangelo and Botticelli. And one of the advantages for American blacks in popular music was they were less burdened by tradition and respectability. Since they were lowly ‘niggers’ with no cultural tradition to speak of according to white society, American Negroes were more instinctive and spontaneous in their creativity, coming up wild stuff like blues and Jazz. And though black anti-intellectualism has stunted the black community in many ways, it has also made blacks bolder in stumbling and running into new expressions. Rap, though awful as far as I’m concerned, was possible because generations of blacks in the 80s lost touch with black music in the 60s and 70s. Amnesiac and animal-creative, blacks just kept on making up new stuff. As the Nietzschean hero played by Burt Reynolds says in DELIVERANCE, “Sometimes you gotta lose yourself to find it.”) An immortal man has a greater store of memory than any normal man, but he either loses the power of inspiration or the organic sense of life. He becomes a man of ossified memory, wearied senses, and/or dissipated decadence. Any man or any civilization seeking to live or last ‘forever’ becomes ‘selfish’ and stands in the way--indeed suppresses--the birth and rise of the New and Organic. Civilizations naturally rise and fall. If Oswald Spengler and Mircea Eliade studied humanity in relation to the rise and fall of great civilizations, Nietzsche’s views and ideas were less concerned with historical cycles than visionary dynamics. Even the rises and falls of the great pagan civilizations prior to the rise of Christianity-Islam would have been too long-lasting for Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s ideas and temperament were impatient and longed for constant rises and falls where the struggle among the great creative sorcerer-artist-rebels would define the very essence of human existence. In this sense, given the meteoric rises and falls of shaman-sorcerer-stars, Rock music--at least the one that developed from mid-to-late 60s--is arguably the most Nietzschean of the arts. It’s an endless Bacchanalia of competitive violent energy where the new, fresh, and daring ruthlessly knock out the has-beens from the pedestal.
Though Karl Marx is the towering Jewish intellectual of the 19th century casting a long shadow on the 20th and though much of modern Jewish thought is associated with Marxist tradition or energy, it’s interesting that other great Jewish minds or personalities of the 20th century were actually closer to the ‘right-wing’ Nietzsche in spirit. Sigmund Freud once said he dreaded reading Nietzsche because it was as if Nietzsche had prefigured through creative philosophy what Freud painstaking mapped out via ‘scientific’ methods. In other words, when it came to understanding the nature of the human soul, Nietzsche had already left everyone in the dust. Freud may not have agreed with the ‘politics’--if it may be called that--of Nietzsche, but no one had gone as far or deep as Nietzsche in exploring the darker depths of human consciousness glowing with hidden light. In the simplest terms, Nietzscheanism is paradoxically about the dark light, or the creative radiance within the irrational darkness. Nietzsche feverishly poeticized whereas Freud coolly posited, yet they were both obsessed with the irrational roots and realms of human consciousness.
The other ‘great’ or at least famous Jewish intellectual of the Nietzschean tradition is, of course, Ayn Rand. By no accident do her novels refer to Greek gods and portray Promethean characters remaking the world. For Rand, capitalism was the most ruthlessly creative and productive among all -isms. It was, as expounded by Joseph Schumpeter, the most dynamic as a historical force in its ‘creative destruction’. (To be sure, Karl Marx already made this point in THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO where he credited capitalism as an unprecedented historical force with the power to, almost overnight, ruthlessly destroy old worlds and create new ones in their stead. Where Marx differed with capitalists is he saw capitalism planting the seeds of its own destruction by concentrating wealth in the few while leaving everyone else pauperized, a prediction that, even with all the economic turmoil today, has been proven wrong.) It allowed the greatest amount of freedom for men of great intelligence and ruthless vision to build new empires that are then brought down and replaced by other men of newer ideas and inventions. Titans of the 18th century owned the sail; Olympians of the 19th century owned the rail. In the 20th century, the new gods built their fortunes on autos, planes, and fuels. Others conquered the air and space. Today, it’s about computers and big pharma(the instant karma of the masses). Tomorrow, it will be about bio-engineering. There is no permanent elite in capitalism. The world is in constant flux, where new visionaries rise as the old ones fall. So, Henry Ford didn’t let the old railroad tycoons stand in the way of building an auto industry. And Soichiro Honda ignored the pressure of the Japanese government that opposed his move into car manufacturing.
The rise of computer industry has been dominated by mavericks. Bill Gates was one, but he came under attack because of his dirty tactics to suppress other mavericks with possibly better ideas; Gates aims for a 1000 Yr Reich for Microsoft, a violation of the principles of ‘creative destruction’. (Lately, his critics have gone easy on him since he donates billions to ‘progressive’ causes. This is a clear case of the symbiotic relation between the ruthless superrich and the cunning progressive elites. Just as the Church had used its spiritual/moral authority to squeeze favors, wealth, and privileges from kings and noblemen in the Middle Ages, the new priest caste composed of leftist intellectuals/activists/bureaucrats/journalists strike a bargain with the superrich. If the superrich fund leftist causes, the leftist moral-crusading-machine will not only go easy on the superrich but bless them. You can comfortably belong to the “1%” as long as you dole out lots of cash and prizes to the likes of Bill Ayers and his friends. Bill Gates has billions and makes donations; Bill Clinton acts as bridge between rich capitalists and influential leftists; Bill Ayers takes the cash and spreads leftist hatreds. Especially since anti-white leftist/liberal Jews control the academia, think tanks, and media, they decide what is and isn’t decent and moral. As such, the superrich understand what they must fund and what they must not fund. So, if a superrich CEO donates millions to some Marxist organization, he is blessed. But if he donates even a just a little to a site like Vdare, he will be condemned as ‘race-ist’ and ‘evil’ by the modern secular priesthood dominated by rabidly hideous leftist Jews.) Finally, Microsoft is feeling the heat as a result of the competition from Google. In every case, great maverick visionaries who’ve created business empires try to hog as much power for themselves.
But, under capitalism, even the biggest players cannot control everything as Mao controlled China, Stalin controlled Russia, or Hitler controlled Germany. Prior to the rise of Google, Microsoft was said to be unbeatable. Now, Gates is shitting in his pants. Prior to the rise of Microsoft, everyone thought IBM would dominate the future of high-technology.
To be sure, there is a certain unstated or understated agreement(a kind of prevailing game theory) among big players or oligopolies since extreme competition to win the entire market can lead to destruction of everyone involved. (I suppose it’s like Britain, France, and Spain agreeing to respect each other’s empires than trying to own the entire world. Things got most heated in Europe when this game theory was thrown to the winds by Napoleon in the early 19th century and by Hitler in mid-20th century.)
Despite modern capitalism’s capacity(some would say rapacity)for the greatest amount of ‘creative destruction’, it might not have been to Nietzsche’s liking given his bohemian and sorcerer-spiritualist leanings opposed to the ‘materialistic’, as defined by capitalism.
One could argue that for all her allusion to the Greek mythology and grandiose prose style, Ayn Rand was essentially a cold-hearted and reptilian materialist. (Or conversely, a true materialist could argue that despite her professed rational-materialism, she was really an irrational mythologist--more an obsessivist than an ‘objectivist’.)
Of course, one can argue that capitalism isn’t as materialist as people make it out to be. Indeed, one could make the case that it’d be better if capitalism was understood and practiced as materialism in the economic sphere. The real problem could be that the products of capitalism have become spiritualized. Young people don’t merely gauge the market-worth of rock stars and movie stars as entertainers but worship and follow them as demi-gods. Fashion is a kind of pagan idolatrous religion and ritual for many. What capitalism has done is make available to MORE PEOPLE THAN EVER BEFORE what had been reserved only for the noble and priestly castes. There was a time when only kings and noblemen lived in huge mansions or castles, when only the powerful and privileged ate fine food and knew nothing of hunger, when only the upper-crust enjoyed the ‘higher’ pleasures of life.
In other words, for most of human history, ‘materialism’ was only enjoyed by the rich with their jewels, castles, horses, silk dresses, servants, and yummies to eat. (By ‘materialism’, I mean material pleasures that have been aestheticized to a kind of art form. If basic materialism in food is eating to satiate hunger, higher or spiritualized ‘materialism’ in food goes for gourmet dishes and fine table manners. Thus, the noblemen would eat the best foods and enjoy wild pleasures, but pretend to be partaking of some higher endeavor. By using quasi-sacral-ritual objects such as silverware/china/glasses and turning meats/vegetables/fruits into fancy recipes, their mouths became like churches or altars for higher tastes and aromas. Thus, the animal-materialism of food was turned into a spiritualized sacraments, and the aristocrats used this distinction to elevate themselves above the masses who apparently ate simple foods with dirty hands and crude manners; and being so beastly, the rabble ‘tasted’ the food with their stomachs than with arched cathedral-palates of the finer breed. But, it’d be wrong to say only the rich spiritualized or sacralized food. It’s been noted that certain American Indian tribes thanked the animal they killed in hunts. In the Old Testament, there are lots of rituals attached to eating, which must be observed by all Jews, poor as well as rich. There are rules as to who must do the preparing, who must do the serving, and with whom one can or must share meals--and of course how it must be prepared, served, and eaten. Take the story of where Isaac tells his first son Esau to hunt wild game, prepare
and cook it with salt and herbs, and serve it properly to be worthy of the blessing Isaac shall give. Esau the hunter must turn something wild into a nice happy meal for his pa. Unfortunately, he is outwitted by his mother who favors Jacob. Food preparation is a form of art/culture, and it can be used cleverly to fool people. At any rate, eating is, by nature, an animalistic act, and in order for man to be ‘human’ and not animal, he needed to regulate and ritualize his eating habits. If man’s eating is dominated by hunger or hedonism, he ‘wolfs’ down food like an animal--and acts like an animal. And since food was often scarce, man needed to remind himself of the blessings of having something to eat by thanking nature, his community, or God or gods. For most of history, few people took food for granted. Without such rules, people will be no different from bears, dogs, and wolves. Perversely enough, Americans seem to have arrived at a kind of fusion of spiritualism and animalism in food culture via Thanksgiving, which is supposed to be a dignified and sober day of gratitude and remembrance for the blessings in and of life since the arrival of the self-sacrificing Pilgrims but has degenerated into a hedonistic day for obese Americans to stuff themselves with gluttonous servings of food to the point of immobility so they can then lounge around in lazy-boys in front of TV sets to watch huge Negro football players bashing one another before they run off to hump hordes of blonde women after the game. It’s one of those American ingenuity for inspired-infantile excess. By the way, music, like food, is also another thing whose practice and appreciation ranges from the highest spirituality to the basest animality. Music, more than any expressive or art form, instantly and totally makes one feel near God. Listen to choral music and you feel as though you’re with angels in Heaven. Christian pictorial art and sacred texts have their respective power, but images are fixed in form and words are processed through the mind. Music goes right to the heart. But music is also the most animalistic of all the arts, especially as practiced by wild Negroes and some heavy metal freaks. It lunges right from the gut and/or grabs one by the ass that finds itself humping and pumping. The black church is an odd cultural phenomenon for its blend of the highest spiritualist pretensions and basest jive-ass mofo howling rhythms. It’s like listening to a bunch of horny gorillas trying to get to Heaven. Some people find this sublime, a magical fusion of the sensual and spiritual. I find the contrast too much and too obvious, to the point of ridiculousness. Though black gospel has musical value, I don’t think it gets to the core of Christianity or any higher spirituality. It’s just horny Negroes wanting to have an orgy but instead using worship as an excuse to spiritualize their jungle boogie lust. The synthesis of the spiritual and sensual in art has a long pedigree in human creativity, not least because man’s first gods were of nature and because the sensual was, at one time, spiritual. But when one combines the highest form of spirituality as expressed in Christianity and express it through jive-ass howling gorilla wallop screams of loathsome Negroes, that ain’t no kind of sublimity, let alone spirituality.)
Most people were either slaves or helots who were controlled either by the whip or by religion. Whether the religion was pagan--as in Hindu India--or Christian, the rich materialistic and privileged elites found a way to exploit it as an opiate of the masses. This isn’t to say that the rich and powerful weren’t sincere in their faiths but only to point out that the uses of religion were always dualistic: materialistic and spiritual. It was a means of social control. In the American South, the white slave-owners, who had bought, raised, and used black slaves purely for materialistic reasons--higher profits squeezed from their farms--, cleverly used Christianity to control the blacks. The general idea was that white folks, out of goodness of their Christian hearts, had saved blacks from savagery and blessed them with the civilizing influence of enlightened slavery. Enough illiterate black slaves believed this narrative, partly explaining why so many blacks deferred to the massuh and ho-de-doed like sambo-coons(and even long after slavery). To be sure, many white Southerners convinced themselves of this self-justification--materialism masquerading as spiritualism--, which amply demonstrates there is no limit to man’s ability to lie to others and to himself. My favorite is the concept of Manifest Destiny. All honest people know that the white man’s expansion westward was essentially materialist--desire for land, riches, opportunity, gold, etc--, but it would sounded a tad crass and vulgar to call it ‘Go West and Grab All You Can’. So, there was the idea of MANIFEST DESTINY, that the white man was fulfilling some kind of grand spiritual-mythic design in taking over and settling the land.
Anyway, the point is there can be no spiritual without the material. Spiritualists may believe or construct the idea of the ‘sacred’, but there has to be something material--land, person, object, etc-- in the first place to ‘sacralize’. A pagan tribe may worship a tree or mountain as a god, but there has to be a tree or mountain in the first place in material form. A man may worship the beauty of a woman, but the woman has to first exist in blood and flesh. I suppose higher forms of spirituality ‘sacralizes’ ideas or concepts, such as ‘justice’ or ‘equality’, but even those ideas would have no meaning without a real world with real people to act upon. In this sense, spiritualism too is a form of materialism or at least an idea that feeds on materialism.
To be sure, some things are surely more worthy of spiritualization than others. It’s more ‘honorable’ to spiritualize a great mountain--like Mt Fuji in Japan--than Britney Spears’s childhood home(or even Graceland). It’s more sensible to mythologize men like Moses, Alexander the Great, and the Founding Fathers than Peter Frampton or Alicia Keyes.
Whether power alone is sufficient to merit spiritualization depends on the nature of the religion or idea. In most pagan systems, power alone was sufficient for something to be admired or worshiped. So, pagan folks worshiped volcano gods, waterfall gods, thunder gods, lion gods, etc. But, in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, power alone isn’t sufficient for worship. So, God--whether Yahweh or Allah--tells his followers to worship nothing and no one but Him alone. He alone is to be worshiped not only because He is the ultimate power who created everything and everyone but because He is just and good God. To demonstrate this, He tells Abe to kill the kid but then says, ‘No’. In other words, God has the power to force people to do horrible stuff but He won’t do it because He is a just and good God. This is markedly different from the Oriental Tradition where the underling is expected to do as the superior says, and that’s that; blind obedience, no matter how seemingly amoral the act, is the highest morality.
Perhaps the strangest form of spirituality is Buddhism which, different from all other religions, doesn’t ‘sacralize’ anything. It says the world is just an illusion, and therefore, any attachment--and worship is a kind of attachment--is misguided and futile. If the world is an external illusion, gods are an inner illusion. If most higher forms of spirituality divide the world into body and soul--supposedly the higher entity--, Buddhism says even the soul is just an illusion and therefore the only TRUE TRUTH can be gained by returning to the void where there is nothing, not even god. For this reason, some people choose to regard Buddhism not as a religion but an early form of metaphysical psychology.
Just like anything, Nietzcheanism comes in many forms. Just as there was intellectual Marxism and pop-Marxism--Che Guevara T-shirts--, serious Christianity and mega-mall Christianity, and scholarly Freudianism and barbershop Freudianism, there has been philosophical Nietzcheanism and other forms of Nietzscheanism--political, popular, spiritual, intellectual, rightist, leftist, and Hollywood. For some on the White Right, their preferred Nietzcheanism may be something like the movie 300 or a Sylvester Stallone action flick. Some may see Nietzsche was an early progenitor of Nazism. But, it’s hard to categorize a thinker who defined himself by defying established categories and, as it turned out, even those cropping up after his death . Rightists may agree with his hierarchical principle, but even this isn’t necessarily true, as most American conservatives tend to be Christian and anti-elitist(at least when it comes to the liberal elite). Leftists may be excited by Nietzsche’s visionary idea of critiquing, questioning, and overthrowing all traditional and conventional values and assumptions and venturing into new frontiers of the body, mind, and soul. The concept of the avant-garde among the Left--especially the bohemian Left--welcomes the idea of superior individuals with higher wisdom dragging--by force if necessary--the masses to the New Order. To the extent that there shall always be an avant-garde--a revolutionary elitist concept--, it was a matter of time before the Left would adopt many of the ideas and sensibilities of Nietzscheanism. By the 60s, this development had turned anti-Soviet and even anti-Marxist, as a new generation of European Leftist thinkers sought to question not only the capitalist system but the whole of the Western Tradition, including the Enlightenment. We generally associate the Enlightenment with Leftism, but leftist thinkers like Michel Foucault, who had been deeply influenced by Nietzsche, challenged, provoked, critiqued, and attacked the very premise of the Enlightenment--that a better and freer society could be founded upon the Science of Reason. Even concepts such as Reason, Equality, Universality, and Liberty came under suspicion, scrutiny, and attack by the New Left, which may explain why Foucault sympathized with the Islamic Revolution in Iran--with reservations of course. Though a homosexual, atheist, and leftist Westerner, Foucault came to regard the Western enterprise--even ones shaped by the Enlightenment--as a means or attempt to gain greater control over individuals or peoples all over the world. (In a way, Foucault’s critique of the Enlightenment prefigured Alternative Right’s critique of political correctness. Both critiques charge the powers-that-be with exploiting principles such as ‘truth’, ‘equality’, ‘liberty’, ‘science’, and ‘justice’ to gain greater control over the people who are to surrender themselves to the social engineers who have ‘rationally’ figured it all out.) Of course, it’s a stretch to say Foucault got Nietzsche right, but then who did, especially given Nietzsche’s penchant for paradoxes and contradictions? Unlike Marxism, which directed history toward a certain specific goal, Nietzsche’s ideas opened the Pandora’s Box of possibilities that were endless--everything from Nazism to Foucault-ism.
To the extent that the Left has been intellectually more engaged, vibrant, and committed than the Right to the world of ideas and culture(and levers of power), the legacy of Nietzsche gradually became adopted by the ‘avant-garde’ thinkers of the Left. Even today, the Right’s use of Nietzsche tends to be narrow and unimaginative, a case of ‘white folks unite’, when it fact that wasn’t what the core of Nietzsche’s ideas was about.
Anyway, how does that connect with DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY? It could be that no social sphere is as much in tune with the principles of Nietzscheanism as is the PRIVATE--as opposed to the politically correct PUBLIC--world of the liberal elite. If we look past the bogus sermons about egalitarianism and social justice emanating from the Liberal Rich, it’s hard not to notice that the central obsession of the Liberal Rich is POWER and INFLUENCE.
Indeed, it’s the subject of POWER that shifted the attention of the post-WWII Left from Marx to Nietzsche; wittingly or not, even Gramsci’s Marxism comes by the way of Nietzsche, i.e. the emphasis on ‘cultural hegemony’ acknowledges the magical power of arts, expressions, and entertainment as the source and means of power over the masses. Even while academically or ideologically clinging to Marxist moralism, the New Left began think more in terms of struggle for power than for truth. If Marx stated there was an objective truth made evident by the ‘scientific’ understanding of the material world, the post-war Left became more subjectivist in its orientation. Part of this was a rebellion--even if repressed or unacknowledged--against the doctrinaire aspects of Marxism which, in their emphasis on materialism, tended to suppress the imaginative, creative, and the visionary. To the extent that all intellectuals and artistic people--and most of them happened to be on the Left--want to stake their own claim to fame and erect self-serving empires of the imagination, Marxism was becoming less satisfying. There was also the matter of the Soviet Union and Stalinism. Though leftists around the world took pride in the achievements of the USSR--rapid industrialization, victory in WWII, advances in the space race, etc--, no one could deny Soviet Union’s repression and tyranny. Also, the great crimes of the Soviet Union--especially during the Stalin yrs--began to leak out into the West. It also didn’t help that post-war Stalin was becoming more ‘antisemitic’ and anti-Zionist, especially after Jews in Israel, despite their socialist ideology--and despite huge sacrifices made by USSR in the defeat of Nazism--allied with capitalist America. While diehard communists remained loyal to the USSR, others did so only nominally. As time passed, more Western leftists became disillusioned with the Soviet Union--especially after events like invasion of Hungary in 1956 and invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968--and sought to forge a new kind of Leftism that didn’t just harp about ‘social justice’ but championed individual fulfilment. Some fused Marxism with Freudianism while others fused Marxism with Nietzscheanism. To the extent that all ideas belong to those who use and further them, Nietzsche and even Heidegger got appropriated by the Left since there were more intellectual firepower and ferment on the Left.
The Far Right during this period tended to be consist of third-rate Nazi apologists or Holocaust Deniers--the sort of idiots who infest sites like Stormfront.com. Of course, there were interesting thinkers on the Right, but they were outnumbered perhaps 50 to 1. The ratio was even more alarming in the area of artistic creativity--perhaps 100 to 1. Since individualism was vogue again on the Left, subjectivism came to dominate the New Left. Feelings--especially those of ‘commitment’ or ‘authenticity’--mattered more than ideas or facts. Though studies have exposed Marx as a messianic prophet than a social scientist, he was still an obsessive with facts and data--a kind of leftist Charles Murray of his day--who insisted on the ‘scientific’ validity of his conclusions; it’s as if he’d unearthed the mechanism underlying historical revolution, a counterpart to the biological mechanism governing natural evolution as developed by Charles Darwin.
In the new era of Leftism after WWII, especially in the 60s with the rise of drug culture and rock n roll, progressive or radical politics was more about the FEELING of liberation. To be sure, feeling and emotionalism had been at the center of Soviet Union too, what with its pageantry, music and dance, rallies, propaganda films, music, etc. But, there was an oppressive air of officialism and collectivism in most things that came out of Soviet Union and its satellite nations in the Eastern Bloc--though there was an amazing renaissance of artistic creativity in certain parts of Eastern Europe in the 60s, e.g. the Czech New Wave.
In the 60s the Left combined the ideal of collective action with the spirit of individual liberation/fulfilment/pleasure. It was an era of ‘Marx and Coca-Cola’--as said in a Jean-Luc Godard film--, or an era of Che and LSD. It didn’t matter that the real Che Guevara hated rock music and Western youth culture. What mattered was his iconic symbolism could be freely interpreted and imagined by radical romantic youths. He may have been anti-rock-n-roll but could be subsumed by rock culture. Why be so logical when you can be creative?
As subjectivism came to rule the day as an instrument of liberation, the very concept of objectivism came under suspicion as a delusional strain of cold-blooded, repressive, imperialistic, and rationalist white-male-consciousness employed by the West as justification for colonizing minds and cultures all over the world. After all, if the West is rationalist(and if rationalism led to real truth)while the non-West is anti-rational(and trapped in superstition and darkness), then Western imperialism and ‘neo-imperialism’ could be justified as spreaders of truth and light(and by association, justice and freedom). Science, once the hallmark of leftism, came under suspicion as a tool of white/male power. Edward Said suggested as much in his landmark book ORIENTALISM. Interest in drugs and India culture(American and Asian)also fed the anti-rationalist strain in New Leftism. Some feminists found science as too coldly male and patriarchal in its methodology of categories and hierarchies. And the politicization of the humanities departments meant that future leftists were more likely to arise from English Department than from science departments, i.e. people with little training in scientific facts and logical thinking came to control leftist discourse. Though this may have initially made leftism more ‘creative’, it eventually made creativity more doctrinaire, which explains why the humanities have turned into a cultural desert in the modern university. (But then, conservatives seem to have NO interest in culture whatsoever. Pitifully, the favored cultural fare of conservatives is likely to be TV series like 24 or MADMEN created by the most vapid talents among liberals.)
With this development, even the Enlightenment and Marx came under suspicion. Though the Left continued the respect Marx as the first great modern rebel, many of his assumptions were rejected as Euro-centric, universalist-imperialist, and soulless. Antonio Gramsci, who emphasized the importance of culture, became more relevant to the subjectivist Left.
Many progressives began to sense that Western conceit of ‘scientific truth’ was really an imperialist and megalomaniacal agenda to dominate all Truth and control all Souls in the name of progress. This neo-leftist view tended to be anthropological than ideological. There was a renewed interest in primitive peoples and non-Western cultures as ‘authentic’ and ‘unspoiled’ in their own pristine world but ‘oppressed’ or ‘corrupted’ when having succumbed to Western domination or temptation. (To be sure, given NATO’s recent attack on Libya, the generation of the New Left may have privately lost their exotic fascination/identification with the Third World and is now hellbent on expanding their globalist agenda Western-dominated New World Order. Take Hillary Clinton for instance. Ironically, it’s the Right that now attacks Western global power and interventionism as ‘imperialist’ and evil. In the past, Western power used to mean white people projecting their power outward. Today, globalism means white nations gaining economic access to non-white worlds and non-whites gaining demographic access to the West. Power doesn’t project only one way, at least not horizontally. Vertically however, power is projected from globalist elites onto the rest of us, the dummies who don’t belong in the exclusive club made up mostly of superrich Jews, superrich Wasps, superrich Europeans, and their token pet monkeys like Obama. The fact that Jews are the most powerful people in the world but publicly regarded as the ‘greatest victims of all time’ renders current political discourse absurdly moot. Powerful Jews are remaking the world to their liking--and at our dire expense--, but we are not allowed to criticize or oppose them because it would be ‘antisemitic’, akin to beating on poor helpless Jews in a ghetto.)
Marx had shown an interest in anthropology but to explain the larger picture. His interest in primitive or non-Western cultures was to ‘scientifically’ trace the development of economic development. Marx would never have thought that non-Western or primitive cultures were superior to the West. True, there was more equality among primitive people, but Marx knew this wasn’t because primitive people were nobler and nicer but because they simply didn’t have sufficient wealth for elaborate socio-economic hierarchy. If anthropology for Marx was a tool for understanding the whole of human history, the New Left of the 60s embraced anthropology as a talismanic template for unearthing organic or spiritual truths. Thus, the American Indian was idealized as the noble savage living in harmony with eternal nature before the white man arrived with his science, technology, and materialism to despoil the Americas into nature-destroying plantations or vast cities of steel, concrete, and glass. The Vietnam War was seen as a kind of replay of the Cowboys and Indians, with the Indians winning this time. (It didn’t matter that the North Vietnamese were a people of high civilization, dogmatic Stalinists, and equipped with weapons by Soviet Union, a technological superpower. To be sure, Americans got their sweet revenge with the Afghan War, with the Mujahideen fighters portrayed as noble ‘freedom fighters’ against the Evil White Soviet Empire.) Though the Left vs Right tensions flared up in the 60s, oddly enough the New Left had wittingly or unwittingly absorbed many of the ideas of the Modern Right. (To be sure, the main political conflict of the 60s may have been between the New Left and Old Liberals than between the Right and Left. The political right had pretty much faded with the ending of the Eisenhower presidency. And, firebrand McCarthy had crash-landed into oblivion even earlier. Besides, Eisenhower had been an accommodating moderate conservative more interested in slowing the pace of change than turning back the clock. With the popularity of JFK in life and mythology in death, the Civil Rights momentum, hegemony of Keynesianism in economics, the complete destruction of Barry Goldwater in 1964, and the new cultural Zeitgeist, it was widely believed that Liberalism have completely prevailed over conservatism. What gave conservatism a second life was the ideological in-fighting between Old Liberals--represented by LBJ, Humphrey, and New Deal liberals--and the New Left--represented by boomer generation and their radical mentors, such as Herbert Marcuse. New Left waged violent war on Old Liberals over Vietnam but in complacent conviction that the Right had been effectively/permanently vanquished from the national political scene and, therefore, would be unable to exploit the liberal/left division to mount a comeback. Since there was no longer supposed to be a viable Right, the key struggle was perceived to be between Liberals and Leftists. But when things got totally out of control in 1968, the ‘silent majority’, including disheartened old liberals, voted for Nixon. Similarly, Franco’s forces exploited the divisions among anarchists, socialists, and Stalinists in the Spanish Civil War. This explains why there has been muted leftist opposition to Democratic Party during the Clinton and Obama presidencies. Its loathing of the Red State ‘race-ist’ Right keeps it, more or less, going along with Establishment Liberals. Also, many New Left operatives of the 60s are now Establishment figures in academia, media, government, think-tanks, non-profit organizations, and businesses. Why would they rock the boat that they own?) There is some degree of truth in Jonah Goldberg’s LIBERAL FASCISM. Many of the ideas that came to dominate the New Left--which eventually came to influence liberalism itself--actually originated with proto-fascist Right-wing thinkers. After all, it was Martin Heidegger himself who had waged war on the entire tradition of the West, going all the way back to the Greeks. Heidegger assailed Western concept of being and objectivism as a fundamental flaw, as a false premise that came to taint all of Western philosophy. In this light, Susan Sontag’s supposition that the innovations and inventions of white people constitute the cancer of history is really a leftist variation of Heidegger’s rightist critique/condemnation. Heidegger emphasized the primacy of AUTHENTICITY and the SUBJECTIVE path toward ‘truth’. This could manifest itself in the form of BLOOD AND SOIL--our sacred people, our sacred land, our sacred truth, our sacred mythic sense of history. More than facts, what mattered were FEELINGS and how feelings ‘spiritualized’ individual consciousness in the creation of a holistic community. With the rise of oppressive Nazism--which had only the narrowest uses for Heidegger’s ideas--and the horror of WWII, the modern right not only lost moral credibility in association(fairly or not)with Fascism and Nazism. As a result, only the Left had moral authority to use ideas-of-‘fascist’-origin in innovative and creative ways. In other words, it was acceptable for Jean-Paul Sartre or Hannah Arendt--a great admirer and friend of Heidegger--to build on Heidegger but not for modern right intellectuals who were expected to hide their heads in shame. As the Left took up these ideas, they began to sound more like the Modern Rightist thinkers of the 1920s and early 1930s, a period before Hitler and Nazis suppressed intellectual and creative freedom(even for Right-wing thinkers and artists)in the name of ‘Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler’. Hitler sought attention as the greatest artist, thinker, visionary, and leader of all time. Given that contradictions and tensions are the fuel for thought and creativity, Hitler’s policies did no favors for the intellectual right save for hacks and yes-men. The devastating impact on the development of Modern Right Ideas was incalculable since the Nazi Empire came to occupy and destroy the heart of Europe.
Even so, there were some great right-wing thinkers of the subjectivist school, such as the Jungian scholar Joseph Campbell. Campbell, though very proud and respectful of the Western Heritage, was also a great admirer of Eastern Mysticism--for some reason, a recurring theme among many Modern Right thinkers--and especially the American Indians. Campbell admired the American Indians as fierce and beautiful warrior people with a direct mythical(or sacred)connection to their natural world. Campbell’s fascination with American Indians may have owed to their being a pagan people of the temperate zone, therefore a key to the cultures and myths of Germanic Barbarian peoples prior to the spread of Christian ‘Cultural Genocide’ that wiped out nearly all vestiges of pagan values and practices of indigenous Northern European Man. Though Campbell was a man of the Right--he had a passionate dislike for Jews and blacks, and even dabbled with a bit of Nazism in the 30s before seeing it for the intellectual fraud that it was--, his ideas gained respect among many counter-culture leftists in the 60s seeking to contact ‘authentic’ reality apart from modern consumer-capitalist America of fast cars, burger joints, TV shows, suburban houses, disposable incomes, and passing fashions.
Even so, while Campbell appreciated the proud tradition of the West--which he regarded as the greatest in history despite all its contradictions and conundrums--, the New Left condemned the West as the source of all evil. (This overreaction could have the result of excessive idealism of the West, not least in America. Remember when Siddhartha learned of his father’s lies about earth-as-paradise, he sunk into bitter despair. Having grown up seeing the world as perfect, he could not accept anything less, which is why he rejected the world in search of Nirvana. Similarly, American idealism and affluence in the 50s may have raised a generation of children led to believe that American history and society were all good, all milk and cookies, sugar and spice, and bedtime stories. When young people worked on farms or had to quit school and work in factories, they saw reality and were forced to accept it for what it was. But a generation of kids in the 50s grew up with the freedom and privilege to dream in their own bedrooms. And TV shows, movies, and education told them that they were living in the bestest nation in world history and that all problems had been solved and things would only getting better and better. Many grew up like little Siddharthas, and it wasn’t long before they realized that America is not so perfect. But instead of accepting this fact as a fact, they took it as a great betrayal and deception. If America isn’t perfect, it must be evil and irredeemable, and so the only way out was the nirvana of drugs or redemption by radicalism demanding nothing less than the total fall of white race, culture, and power, to be followed by the messianic soulful rapture effected by people of color led by Jews and Negroes. Some people on the Right long for the days of Disney family entertainment, but they fail to see how this was partly the cause of the rise of 60s radicalism. When kids are cocooned from complex reality and fed feel-good idealistic pablum, it’s a matter of time before they not only wake up from falsehood but come to hate authorities who lied to them as evil deceivers. Similarly, people like David Horowitz came to reject everything about the Left and lurched to the Right because he’d been raised to see Marxism as pure and perfect. When one’s attachment to something depends on its perfection, any blemish can trigger a soul-trauma leading one to reject the whole thing as a fraud and run off to its opposite. It’s no wonder that so many Catholic schoolgirls turned into disgusting sluts.) This was a decisive break with traditional Marxism. Marx was never a great admirer of non-Western cultures and peoples. If anything, he disdained them as backward, superstitious, and childish. He even credited Western Imperialism with spreading Western civilization. Marx embraced the Western idea of Progress as a liberating force for all mankind. It was up to the Proletariat in the Western capitalist democracies to create a new world of justice and progress.
It was Lenin who fused Marxism with anti-imperialism, but this was probably partly cynical and opportunistic. Though Lenin associated capitalism with imperialism, he also believed that the West held the keys to human progress. The non-Western world must eventually be freed from imperialism but still guided and led by the more advanced West.
This template broke down with the New Left in the 1960s. Fired up with romantic anthropology and ideas of ‘authenticity’, Western radicals and romantics began to regard non-Western peoples and cultures--more primitive the better--as ‘truer’ than ones of the West. And within Western society itself, young people were seen as better than old people since youth energy was more ‘authentic’--less compromised, programmed, corrupted--than mature conformity; similarly, blacks came to seen as more ‘authentic’ and ‘real’ than ‘repressed’ and ‘repressive’ white people since blacks seemed less inhibited about their sexuality, spirituality, and other passions. And movies like BONNIE AND CLYDE conveyed the message that criminals, in their naked aggression and life-on-the-edge, led more ‘authentic’ lives in their constant ‘rebellion’ against social conventions and rules. And though THE GODFATHER movies are about patriarchal power, tradition, and greed, part of their appeal to the boomer generation was the ‘authenticity’ of the Corleones, as opposed to the coldness of Wasp-dominated America. Corleones may be evil and ‘reactionary’, but their way was rooted in authentic Sicilianism, which, however dark and brutal, was governed and defined by honor, loyalty, passion, and ritualized faith. 60s cultural and ideological Zeitgeist idealized young people as being, by their very nature, closer to nature; they had fewer inhibitions about sex and experimentation, greater willingness to embrace a new community based on instinct and revolutionary passion than institutions and conservative caution. Youths were more vibrantly ‘irrational’, more ‘radical’ by nature. (When radicalism was the style, attitude, and mode of outcasts, outsiders, and rebels, it may have had a certain value, at least as a form of critique and counter-force against the ‘bourgeois’ order. Why not shake the foundations of institutionalized power a little? But when radicals took over the halls of power through the ‘long march through the institutions’, both radicalism and institutions became corrupted in the process. Today’s radical elites holding the levers of power are cynical in their manipulation to maximize their political, economic, and cultural power; often, it’s an egotistical pissing contest amongst themselves to see who has more power and wields more influence, rather like the infighting among top communists in the Soviet Union. When institutions are controlled by radicals whose aim is to undermine institutions while using institutional powers to maximize their power, something perverse is going on. This is most evident with Jewish leftists and radicals who now dominate the most powerful institutions in America--and pull sorts of dirty tricks to maximize their power and monopolize the media/academia--but still act like they’re powerless rebels fighting an uphill battle against ‘white Christian America’.) “Never trust anyone over 30" was one famous slogan. Also, minorities, gays, and women were favored over the white male ‘majority’. Since minorities had been kept at the margins of or have been oppressed by White Capitalist Society, they were seen as having less stake in the sick evil system. Figures like Che(though white, seen as a champion of people of color), Lumumba, Black Panthers, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh became potent cultural symbols. More important was the significance of black music in the US and the world. Jazz, whose development was crucially Afro-American, became a worldwide sensation. Also, young people were crazy about rock music, and much of rock music has roots in black music. Since blacks came to win the game of CHARISMA, they were naturally seen as the most AUTHENTIC people. Also, since sports is the human endeavor most closely associated with NATURE, black domination in sports came to be seen as rise of human authenticity. Muhammad Ali came to be regarded as a neo-King Kong figure, the force of nature out to destroy the hypocritical world created by soulless cold, calculating, and greedy white folks. In the arena of public speaking, Michael King--aka Martin Luther King--could give a speech like no white man could--save for Adolf Hitler, but if Hitler sounded ugly and hateful like Louis Farrakhan, King sounded high-minded and noble.
There was also some fascination with Hindu culture and Eastern Mysticism, an echo of infatuation with those things by German right-wing scholars of the late 19th century and early 20th century.
But, there was an important difference between the concepts of BLOOD AND SOIL AUTHENTICITY as defined by the Right and by the Left. For the Right, the concept of Blood and Soil was about “OUR blood, OUR land, OUR heritage, OUR myths, etc.” For the Left, the concept of Blood and Soil turned into Multi-Culturalism, essentially “THEIR blood, THEIR land, THEIR heritage, THEIR myths, etc.” It was as if white people had no culture left to defend or preserve since Western history had chosen the mind over the soul, the universal over the particular, the man-made world over the natural world. If Christians and communists embraced their respective brands of universalism, many on the New Left regarded both belief-systems to have been tarnished by their great crimes and/or hypocrisies. Many on the New Left viewed the USSR as just another white imperialist power and regarded Christianity’s universalism as merely a ruse employed to justify world conquest and ‘cultural genocide’ against richly diverse cultural traditions and heritages all over the world. Even Reason came under attack as the rise of Reason had led to the rise of the West over the rest and also because Western imperialism had been justified in the name of spreading the Light of Reason; after all, liberals and leftists of the 19th century had been some of the most enthusiastic proponents of imperialism.
If the New Left embraced diversity and (multi)culturalism over universalism and materialism, why did it not insist on closing Western borders and a reversion to Western particularism? One problem was the genie could not be put back inside the bottle again. The Pandora’s Box opened by the West had forcibly brought the world together. It had forcibly brought African slaves to the New World. In conquering the New World, whites came to rule over non-whites, especially in the Latin Americas where whites remained the minority but ruled over vast numbers of non-whites and mestizos/mulattos. Also, Europe became economically connected to all parts of the world. European imperialism had also brought Asia into the World System. So after having done so much ‘damage’, it was too late for the West to insist on its own brand of particularism again. Also, particularism for great powers was dangerous given their penchant for imperialism. Japanese and Germans insisted on their particular uniqueness and greatness, but they weren’t content within their own borders. Germans attacked Poland and then Russia. Japanese sought control of rest of Asia. Thus, particularism was okay for ‘weak’ peoples but not for the powerful. For the weak, it meant preserving their threatened identities, cultures, and traditions. For the strong, however, particularism could turn into a supremacist ideology rationalizing domination of others. In other words, the particularism of American Indian tribes in reservations can’t do much harm to anyone. They’d just mind their own business; they’d leave us alone, and we’d leave them alone. But, the particularism of the British, Germans, or Japanese could be dangerous because they had immense power. The Imperialist British clung to their ‘Queen and Country’ particularism but ruled over parts of Africa, India, Malaysia. The Nazi German supremacist particularism wasn’t merely a case of leave-us-alone but of we-have-the-right-to-conquer-and-enslave-you. Japanese particularism was similarly dangerous. There is preservationist particularism of a particular people in their own little world vs aggressive(and possibly even eliminationist)particularism of a particular people conquering other particular peoples. The former kind tended to be weak whereas the latter kind gained great power in the 20th century. The world had seen nothing like Western power, which didn’t just rule over regions but came to rule the entire world. The rise of the West also led to vast movements and migrations of people, mostly from Europe to Americas, Africa, and Australia. It led to clashes and mixing of races on all five continents. It led to extensive economic, cultural, and political networking all over the world. Given the fact that white people created this united world of universalist imperialism dominated by particularist-race-ists, there was no going back to the Eden for white folks. Only the oppressed non-whites could have any hope of regaining a kind of decent and dignified particularism that wasn’t all about greed, megalomania, power-lust, and etc--or so progressives like to believe.
This is why it’s okay for non-whites to insist on their own culture and race while it’s not okay for whites to do likewise. The idea is that since non-white peoples had been FORCED to become part of the globalized world, they have every right to maintain and preserve their threatened culture. In contrast, since white people forcibly created the newly globalized world through imperialism, conquest, exploitation, and professed universalism, whites have no right to defend their own culture or race. Since they created and rule over the entire world, they should be careful with their power and try to make amends. Non-whites have a right and need to be race-ist whereas whites do not(since they supposedly wield all the power, and that power makes them dangerous if they were to go into particularist mode; it’s like it doesn’t matter if some American Indian tribe produces its own Hitler; American Indians are too few in number, power, and influence to make a difference; but if white Americans turned ‘white nationalist’ and followed a new Hitler, there could be mass genocides and maybe WWIII). So, the dominant narrative is non-white race-ism is defensive and seeks to preserve a threatened culture whereas white race-ism is aggressive and seeks to dominate the ‘powerless’ people of color. (Of course, given the extent of Jewish power, couldn’t one make the case that Jews shouldn’t be particularist either? Surely, if one follows the moral logic of the New Left, Jews who control much of the world economy and politics should NOT be thinking in terms of ‘what is good for the Jews?’ Jewish power impacts too many lives. But the Holocaust, which nearly wiped out European Jewry, has given Jews the moral right to preserve and maximize their power as Jews for Jews. Even so, Jews, in their alliances with blacks and other ‘peoples of color’, are clever in fooling people that Jewish power is primarily being used to support the ‘wretched and huddled masses’ around the world against ‘race-ist’ white privilege and power, when, in fact, Jewish support of non-whites is essentially to maximize Jewish power in the game of ‘divide and rule over goyim’.) Israel is a strange entity in the context of the prevailing Western orthodoxy on race, culture, and power. Its particularist, tribalist, or race-ist views and practices have been tolerated--as in Third World nations--as a response to white imperialist-racism. Since Europeans had tried to wipe Jews off the face of this Earth, the Jews of Israel are said to have every right to defend and preserve their beleaguered culture and identity. Since Jews barely survived and have only a tiny country to call their own, their ‘defensive’ race-ism may be justified. If the West generally holds this view--not least due to its ‘collective guilt’(imposed by the Jew media)over the Holocaust--, the Arab, African, and Muslim world do not necessarily agree. From their POV, Israel is just the latest outpost of Western Imperialism, a modern Crusade to take back the Holy Land for the West. Thus, Israel is known around the world as a nation of victim-aggressors. A nation created both in reaction to Western racism-imperialism and in execution of Western racism-imperialism. Palestinians had to pay the price for the crimes of Germans and other Europeans. White Jews persecuted by white gentiles attacked and stole the lands of the non-white Arabs.
Of course, the view of the multiculturalist Left is bonkers, not least because empire building hardly began with the West. Also, the New Left tends to have an overly rosy and naively romantic view of non-Western cultures, many of which deserve the label ‘savage’. Worst of all, what was true 100 or even 50 yrs ago no longer applies today when most white people don’t have power and are facing a grim future if current cultural, economic, political, and especially demographic trends continue.
Now, back to the subject of why the kind of globalist liberals portrayed in DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY come closest to the Nietzschean ideal(which is not the same thing as saying they are true Nietzscheans, if such a creature ever existed, by the way): Jean-Do, as editor of Elle Magazine, was a man of the world. He sought out and enjoyed the best in everything--women, fame, fortune, beauty, art, food, travel, etc. He wasn’t brutally Nietzschean in seeking power, but power seems to come NATURALLY to men like him. Those who try to exert or show-off their power are actually betraying signs of insecurity and inferiority-complex. It’s like gang-bangers putting on a tough guy act to convince others and themselves that they are badass. A truly tough guy doesn’t have to try so hard. In the movie SHANE, Jack Palance and Shane, as master gunmen, are cool and relaxed. The sodbuster that Palance guns down, in contrast, was always trying to act tough; his strained manhood is a familiar element in the White Right, where mostly dopey guys try to disguise their sense of inadequacy or insignificance with tattoos, snarls and growls, posing for photos with guns, and highfalutin allusions to Nietzsche, Evola, and Himmler.
Similarly, Yukio Mishima’s tough guy act was laughable from beginning to end. A runt who was barely over 5 ft lifted some weights, beat flabby writers in arm-wrestling, posed for ridiculous gauche photos, and acted like he was some Spartan warrior with a squad of toy soldiers. It’s no wonder most Japanese soldiers jeered when he made the bullshit speech about bringing back the Imperial system.
Anyway, the point is the members of the liberal elite don’t feel a need to flaunt their power. They know they have the brains, ingenuity, inventiveness, taste, brilliance, and sensibility to rise to the top. Just look at the Google Boys. I hate them, but they’re so relaxed and cool with their vast wealth and power attained through genius and ambition. And look at Steven Spielberg, the tycoon-director. He doesn’t have to act big or tough. He knows he has the talent, ability, and vision to stay at the top. Of course they are ruthless and competitive but in a self-assured way. They are not panic-stricken like witless ‘heroes’ of the White Right ‘vanguard who, having failed in life, try to compensate by talking and acting big. While Spielberg and Google boys keep gaining more and more power and rake in billions more, we have White Right idiots spouting off in Stormfront or putting up more facebook photos of themselves splattered with tattoos or shooting guns. They are hardly better than trashy Negroes, who, at the very least, win in the crucial arenas of sports and pop music.
The liberal elite really seems to enjoy life, seek all sorts of pleasures, and find ever new ways to maintain mastery over the world. The fact that many on the Right accuse the liberal elite of ‘egalitarianism’ is yet another proof that the liberals are running circles around conservatives. Powerful, rich, and ambitious liberals are ultra-elitist--much like Nietzscheans and Randians--but want us to see them as egalitarians. That way, they get to have the cake and eat it too. They get to attain and enjoy elitist power and privilege while making people believe that they are FOR THE PEOPLE. So, when GOP candidates accuse superrich liberals(who are many times richer than conservatives)of egalitarianism, liberal elites must really be cracking up behind closed doors. (This gets kookier because when conservatives aren’t accusing liberals of egalitarianism, they are accusing liberals of elitism. In plain English, I think it means white conservatives don’t wanna be equal with lowly blacks and browns AND resent being bettered by smarter Jews and liberal wasps.) A starker example of this was the communist elite, which enjoyed great power and privilege but ruled in the name of equality. Yet, communism failed because it was unproductive and restricting of elite freedom. The Soviet Union wasn’t brought down by the masses but by its own elites for whom communist brand of power and privilege wasn’t enough. More and more members of the Soviet elite hankered for the good life in the West. There was growing support for Gorbachev’s reforms in the 80s--not so much from the masses from members of the Soviet elite--because even the power and privilege in the USSR didn’t compare to having power and riches in the West. It’s no wonder that once communism fell, many of the former communist bosses became overnight ‘capitalists’ who looted the whole country and became billionaire tycoons imitating the lifestyles of Berlusconi and the like. The only problem was that most of them were Jewish, but once Vladimir Putin came along to rein in, tame, or exile some of the Jewish elite, the new Russian elites seem happier than ever. Eastern Europe underwent a similar transformations from communism to neo-globalism. The fall of communism may have had less to do with the people’s desire for freedom than the craving of the communist elites for the razzle-dazzle lifestyles of liberal rich in the West. After all, few ex-communists were even brought to justice. Rather, many of them became the richest and biggest guys of the New Order.
This goes to show that Nietzsche understood human psychology better than Marx did. Though ideology and ‘justice’ are important, people are really motivated by POWER, WEALTH, PRIVILEGE. It comes to the WILL TO POWER, whether the system is rightist or leftist. Eventually, all the rigamarole about ‘spiritualism’ or ‘egalitarianism’ becomes more hollow as people with talent, vision, connections, and/or ruthlessness seek greater loot for themselves. If capitalism is more useful than aristocratism or socialism, it’s because it forces more intra-elite competition than any other system. Though there were factions within Nazism and Communism, pretty much everyone within the power/privilege structure were united in their concentration of power. Under capitalism, even the top computer makers seek to gain domination over their rivals, and those with new technological ideas may come out of the blue to upset the established status quo. Creative Destruction! (Capitalism in the globalist era may be the force that is most dangerous to nationalism, which is paradoxical given that capitalism has also made nations richer and more powerful than ever before. The rise of Brazil, China, and India wouldn’t have been possible without globalist capitalism. But their very dependence on the global order has restricted their freedom to act nationally. Their entire economies can sink overnight if they were to lose favor with the true controllers of the world system--the Joos! Also, capitalism is so competitive and ruthless--even when if it operates under the ‘rule of law’--that there’s little breathing space to think of ‘higher’ or ‘nobler’ interests. Take the TV series NOBLE HOUSE, based on a novel by James Clavell. The character Ian Dunross, in order to keep his company Noble House at the top of Hong Kong hierarchy, will do anything, even make deals with mainland Chinese communists. His loyalty is not to the white race, not to Britain, not to Hong Kong, not to China. It’s for himself and his company. And other bigshots play the same game, whether they be American, Chinese, Jewish, British, etc. With every company anxious to compete, survive, and win, there’s no time to think of anything other than what’s profitable or strategic. If one chooses higher ideals or vision over profit and advantage, one may not even exist at all. Of course, if a company grows big enough, it can play the positive-publicity spin game through philanthropy, as Microsoft and Walmart often do, but they gained their positions in the market by obsessing about the bottom line and market share. Sometimes, it’s as much a game of face and appearances as anything else. Ian Dunross in NOBLE HOUSE eventually outmaneuvers his competitors, and one could call him the winner; but he has also, in essence, hocked his company to the mainland Chinese. Dunross of Noble House, so used to being SEEN at the top, will make any deal to maintain the appearance of ‘taipan’--a kind of top business warlord. In a way, Dunross’s dealings with the Mainland Chinese--awaiting their takeover of Hong Kong in 1997--parallel American Wasp brokering a deal with the Jewish elites. In Hong Kong, Wasps knew their days as top dogs were numbered, and so they had to prepare for a day when they would be in good graces with the new overlords in Beijing. Thus, British tycoons could still maintain the aura of importance. When you lose real or absolute power, at the very least you can preserve the face of power. Similarly, American Wasps have sold themselves to the new Jewish elite. This way, Jews have most of the power, but Wasps are allowed to maintain the facade of power. So, the Clintons marry their daughter off to some superrich Jew family. So, GOP candidates play for Jewish approval while pretending to be independent-minded upright wasps. And Obama is a wasp-ized mulatto who ‘went black’ to pick up some street cred but then intelligently found favor with Jews who bought and paid for his campaign and presidency. Obama has no real power, but by playing the game, he’s been allowed to gain and maintain the facade of power. The Ignoble Jewish Louse has gained controlled over the Noble House. Another problem with global capitalism is the nature of friendship. When white people travel around the world to do business, they make friends all over. As such, they become intimately more involved with the lives of Latin Americans, Asians, Africans, or even Arabs than fellow white people in America--so different than in the past when most rich American businessmen hired white workers in cities and towns across America and forged close links with fellow whites, even of lower classes. In NOBLE HOUSE, the American tycoon Linc Bartlett falls in love with some Eurasian tramp in Hong Kong, and he becomes more interested in becoming a globalist ‘taipan’ than in remaining a good ole American cowboy. This is why white Americans shouldn’t expect much help from the white elites in this country. White elites have sold themselves to Jews and are more likely to have non-white friends around the world than have any contact with real white Americans of the middle and working classes, whom they despise as ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘nativist’, etc.)
Anyway, only a stupid man-of-power goes around flaunting his power in this day and age. He becomes the magnet of the resentments and anxieties of the masses. And while good times mean honor and popularity, bad times mean blame and possible doom. (Of course, an iron-fisted ruler may keep power through his lifetime, with his heirs doing likewise, but such a society is likely to rot from fear, conformity, and stagnation. Castro brothers have ruled Cuba since the revolution, but Cuba has been left in the dust by other Latin American nations that have adopted greater freedoms, encouraged competition, and taken risks.)
Traditionally, iron-fisted and openly arrogant man-of-power rarely created a system that lasted long in history. Fear and Force go only so far. Once the object of fear dies or is no longer feared, all hell breaks loose, as with the fall of Gaddafi in Libya.
An intelligent man-of-power, for this reason, invents or adopts a spiritual or ideological/moral formulation to woo, fool, and cower the masses. To be sure, the man-of-power may become blinded by his own invention or justification. Marx and Muhammad surely and sincerely believed in their own ideas and visions; they weren’t simply ploys for gaining power. Even so, both men were driven by the WILL-TO-POWER principle. Will to power can be spiritual, intellectual, cultural, economic, and/or political. Jesus and Buddha didn’t seek political power but they spread their idea of spiritual truth. (Control of ‘Truth’ is a kind of power, perhaps the greatest kind of power of all, at least in terms of long term influence. Jesus, after all, became historically more powerful than all the Roman emperors combined. What distinguishes man from beast is the power of the mind, and the mind seeks the Truth. Most men, unable to think on their own, rely on the Truth of other men, and it is the rare man who comes up with ideas with the power to conquer the hearts and minds of most men. Power of ideas and images means power over minds of man; and if you control the mind, you control the body. Generally speaking, given the nature of power--the way it is concentrated in the elite in any society--, the accomplishment of Jesus and St. Paul is all the more remarkable. Even in a democracy, true power rests in the hands of few who control the government, media, academia, etc. Most people don’t use their freedom to seek their own truth; they just turn on the TV or check Yahoo News for what’s happening in the world; they absorb what they read in highschool and college textbooks, what they hear from their politically or culturally correct teachers. So, the relatively small number of like-minded people with control over the sources of information pretty much control society because they control the minds. As for people without power, it doesn’t matter what they think. If your next door neighbor is a Neo-Nazi or Neo-Stalinist, what does it matter? What does it matter if he worships the Aztec sun god or is into Tibetan Buddhism? What one thinks only matters IF one has power. What American Jews think and do matters because they have the power to impose their thoughts, values, and agendas on the rest of us through their control of media, government, and Wall Street. But who cares what the Peruvian-American community, Palestinian-American, or Laotian-American community thinks? The idea of living in a free democracy gives most people a sense of power, but freedom per se is not power. Power is being ‘more free than others’. Jews are more free to be shakers and movers in America because their free speech and expression get more exposure than those of others. Though even Neo-Nazis have the freedom to say whatever they want, they don’t have the power or influence to get their message across. That in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, but it goes to show that power is everything. In ancient times, Romans and collaborationist Jewish elites held most of the power in Judea. Jesus was a nobody with no control of institutions whether they be political, spiritual, economic, or cultural. So, imagine the triumph of His vision throughout the Roman Empire, the mightiest empire the world had ever known, followed by the spread of Christian faith throughout Northern Europe, Middle East, and North Africa, and later all over the world in the Age of Exploration, Discovery, and Conquest. A Man with no power, by some freak accident of history, became the most powerful Man in history. It is for this reason that Jesus has a paradoxical place in the psychology of power. He’s appealing for His compassion for the downtrodden, powerless, and meek. Yet, His example of going from rags to the greatest Man the world had ever known is the most awesome expression of Will to Power in history. Of course much credit must go to St. Paul, who did for the Jesus legend what Steven Spielberg later did for E.T. No one beats Jews at showbiz. By the way, I wonder what might have happened if Islam hadn’t triumphed in the Middle East and North Africa. Suppose those regions had remained mostly Christian. Would Europe have developed in closer cultural, economic, and spiritual cooperation with the Near East? Ironically, it might have been the competition between universalist religions--Christianity vs Islam--that led to the ‘racialization’ of those faiths and their societies. Since Christianity triumphed in Europe, it defacto turned into the white man’s religion while Islam became the swarthy man’s religion. But suppose there had been no Islam, and Christian rule extended all the way across North Africa to what is today Iraq. Might there have been less of a racial consciousness among whites and Arabs? Of course, finally, with hundreds of millions of non-whites accepting and practicing Christianity as a result of conquest and slavery--with Latin American Indians and American blacks--and through missionary conversion--in China--, Christianity has finally become de-racialized, to the point where it’s outdated as a symbol of White Identity. Though Christianity has HISTORICALLY been identified with the West--or at least Western domination in places like Latin America and Africa--, a new meaning of Christianity is being written everyday as faith declines in the West while expanding rapidly in Africa and China.) Marx devoted his life to study of economics rather than political power, but he sought monopolization of intellectual Truth. He knew he wouldn’t live long enough to see his predictions realized, but he was certain that history would vindicate him as the greatest prophet of all time. All the world would, one day, bow down before his towering genius. Genghis Khan, in contrast, wanted to physically conquer the world but didn’t much care what people thought. But, some men like Muhammad sought to combine the pen and the sword--both conquer and convert all the world. Alexander was somewhere between Genghis Khan and Muhammad. He wanted to conquer more and more but also spread the light of Hellenic culture.
Anyway, raw power--use of fear and force--alone cannot secure dominance for long, at least if a society is to make progress and thrive. Barbarism or gangsterism alone creates a stagnant order as in traditional Sicily--or even modern day Sicily for that matter, where gangster thugs threaten the population into silence(though some news reports say the old mafia is no longer what it used to be). To secure power for the long haul, it has to be moralized, spiritualized, or justified.
Thus, the truly great man-of-power needs to be something of a thinker or sorcerer. He has to persuade his followers that he is a ‘river to my people’. Thus, Muhammad promised redemption and justice to all of his followers. Thus, the communist elite promised land, peace, justice, and equality. Thus, even the Nazis came to power in the name of the people, or at least the ‘Aryan’ or German people.
In the Nietzschean universe, the great or superior man may be possessed of great visions and ideas, BUT if he’s truly superior, he also know, all too well, that all ideas and visions are, to an extent, cynical machinations serving the will-to-power. Thus, even though the superior man is capable of higher creativity, thought, and vision--and able to spin MYTHS about himself to gain the respect and even worship of the masses--, he mustn’t fall for the MYTH himself, any more than the wizard-behind-the-curtain-in-Oz should. He ought to know he’s playing Santa Claus to some extent. Nietzsche understood the importance of the IRRATIONAL but also knew the superior rational mind understood its pathways and ramifications. The IRRATIONAL was a means to be creative, to gain power and respect, and to gain control over the masses, but it was not to be LITERALLY mistaken for fact or reality. Nietzsche understood the power and importance of human psychology--and how psychological depths were irrational--, but he understood the difference between fact and fiction in the REAL world. It is one thing spin a myth about one’s power and fool the masses with sorcery but quite another to actually jump off a tower to validate the myth and go splat. SILVER CHALICE--starring Paul Newman--is an awful movie, but it effectively demonstrates this lesson.
When people began to literally believe in their own myths, they end up like Adolf Hitler or Japanese militarists. At some point, Hitler really swallowed whole hog the notion of the superior and invincible ‘Aryan’ race. It was as if WWII would play out as a grand opera where the superior heroic race would win, or even if it lost, goes out magnificently as in Germanic myths. And at some point, the militarists in Japan must have really begin to think that they were imbued with some holy Yamato spirit which would enable them to prevail over all the material advantages of the enemy. When the Japanese elite had manipulated the myth of the Emperor to maintain power and national cohesiveness, it worked like a charm. When they began to believe that some spiritual Destiny would favor them against all odds, they had stupidly come to literally believe in their own myths. There is a film called DEVI by Satyajit Ray on a similar theme. A young girl is thought to have magical healing powers purely by accident/coincidence. Initially, the rumors wins her affection and adoration from the villagers, and she comes to believe in her myth. But when her healing powers fail, she goes mad.
Nietzsche understood that much of what we call ‘reality’ are ‘creative’, ‘spiritual’, wishful, and irrational processes of the mind and senses. Our SENSE of reality incorporates things we see, feel, assume, believe, think, dream, and imagine. Thus, reality is an unstable entity dependent on the tricks and games of the mind--which is why Nietzsche’s influence can be seen in the likes of Jacques Derrida who approached reality as a series of ‘interpretations’. The danger of this POV is some people take it too literally, mistaking mentality itself for reality. These sorts are to be found in the anthropology and ideologies of both right and left. So, it’s not surprising that Mao Zedong embarked on the disastrous Great Leap Forward by reciting poetry or that Nazi battle strategies were named after mythic heroes--as if myths can literally move mountains.
In reality, Germany couldn’t win because it couldn’t produce as many tanks and planes as the Soviets. Of course, mind is important, and the idea of mind-over-matter is true to some extent. Winning a marathon requires more than a healthy pair of legs; it requires confidence, a certain faith in the sport, an heroic will. Also, the victory of North Vietnam over South Vietnam(with bigger population and better weapons provided by Americans)demonstrated that a materially weaker force can prevail with greater discipline and faith in its cause. But, even as ideas and values can mold people’s hearts and minds(and be crucial to the course of history), they are not to be confused with real reality.
Anyway, the liberal elite is very clever and creative, hardly surprising since World Jewry comprise its elite-most members. Jews finally arrived at the sure-fire formula for controlling the world. This was done not only by making history but by creatively reacting to history. A lot of Jews had gained considerable power under the old aristocratic system but still remained at the mercy of the gentile nobility. Back then, even the most powerful Jews had to win favors from the gentile elites who held political, military, and legal power. Jews experimented with the communist way to power. But, communism wasn’t about rule-of-laws but of rule-of-ideology. As we know, an ideology is an unstable basis for individual freedom and justice. It was only a matter of time before Jews would come under the heel of the majority population. As more and more Russians became communists and joined the system, Russian communism became more nationalist than trans-national or legalistic.
Jews also experimented with the democratic way to power and found the greatest success there, but they still faced two problems. Rise of democracy had accompanied the rise of nationalism. Democracy electorally favored the power of the majority, sometimes manifested in the rising hostility of the gentile majority against the ‘alien’ elite made up of Jews. If the Old Aristocracy protected the Jews from the masses--as both the nobility and the Jews shared a contempt for the unwashed gentile masses--, the rise of mass democracy meant that Jews increasingly came under pressure from the mob(with no more protection from their gentile aristocratic patrons). It also didn’t help the Jews that nationalism often accompanied the breakups of empires. Empires tended to be diverse, so there was less danger of everyone uniting against the Jew. This is why Jews felt safest in the Austro-Hungarian Empire--not because various ethnic groups liked Jews but because the various groups were too busy at each other’s throats to unite against the Jews. For example, Austrians, Czechs, Serbs, Hungarians, Slovaks, and etc all came distrusted and even loathed one another. How could they unite against the Jew?
Also, prior to WWII and the Holocaust, there was no shame attached to ‘antisemitism’. Since Jews were seen as ‘alien’, immensely rich and powerful beyond their numbers, and gross and hostile as either finance capitalists or radical communists, one could raise alarms about Jewish influence and power like we do today about the Muslims or the Chinese.
If WWII and the Holocaust hadn’t happened, antisemitism would still be fashionable, and the greatest tragedies commemorated by humanity would be communist mass killings. But, the Holocaust happened, and though horribly damaging to the Jews in the short run, Jews cleverly, obsessively, brilliantly, and spiritually used it to build a new religion around themselves. We tend to think of there being Five Great World Religions, but we might have to add two more: Holocaustianity and the MALK faith--or Martin Luther King Faith. Though one is Judeo-centric and the other is Afro-centric, they were both the creations of Jewish minds. NAACP was a Jewish creation. MLK, like Obama(perhaps the 8th great religion if Jewish media would have it), was essentially tailored, funded, and promoted by the Jews. Of course, Marxism or Neo-Marxism is another mega-faith of the 20th century, along with related Che-Guevara-Faith.
Jews thought long and hard about what could be done with the Holocaust. It could be used to suppress ANY criticism of Jewish power and influence. (To be sure, this has been all too easy given tha much of anti-Jewish criticism tended to be of Neo-Nazi Holocaust denying school. Holocaust Denying is the gift that keeps on giving to the Jewish community. Whenever the intelligent Right begins a discussion on Jewish power, some neo-Nazis come out of the woodwork and yells ‘Heil Hitler’ or makes a mockery of the Holocaust, conceding the moral high ground to louts like Abe Foxman. Anyone browsing through white nationalist literature and sites would have noticed that the movement is unfortunately teeming with neo-‘Aryanist’ white supremacist clods. Stormfront might as well be run by Jews since its only achievement is making the white right look evil and stupid. All Jews have to say is ‘go check Stormfront’, and people will get the impression that most pro-white advocates are Hitler-lovers or Holocaust-denying ignoramuses. While I support the freedom of speech, using it stupidly is a surefire way to lose respect and power, and the White Right’s tolerance of Neo-Nazis like Alex Kurtagic and Greg Johnson amounts to digging its own grave. Why does criticism of Jewish power so often degenerate into lurid theories about Holocaust having been a hoax? What begins as legitimate discussion of Jewish power and abuses turns into something like UFO theorizing, and it’s not long before the whole thing turns into a sick farce, once again conceding the mantle of (relative)sanity, truth, and justice to Jews. Given such fools, it’s no wonder why mainstream Republican politicians are wary about white nationalists. It’s not long before they find themselves in the company of the likes of Don Black.
Same goes for Iran’s Ahmadinejad. Had he kept his criticism of Zionist power to Wall Street, Hollywood, Israel’s oppression of Palestinians, and AIPAC, he would have held the ace against the Jews. But, every time he opens his mouth about the Holocaust, he discredits himself as the Joker. Perversely enough, some white nationalists admire Ahmadinejad as a defender of free speech, but they’ve misread his intentions. Admadinejad held a Holocaust-denying cartoon convention not for the sake of free speech but in retaliation against cartoon satire of Muhammad protected by free speech in Europe. Ahmadinejad wants the West to restrict free speech and suppress any show of disrespect toward The Prophet. His Holocaust cartoon convention was merely to expose the hypocrisy of the West that criminalizes Holocaust denial but allows Muhammad-bashing.
Anyway, back to the soft and fashionable Nietzscheanism of the liberal elite. If Nietzscheanism is about individualism and elitism than group think and conformism, then today’s liberal elite comes closest to fulfilling this ideal. This isn’t to say that they are true or good Nietzscheans. It’s merely to say there aren’t better Nietzscheans around. Sure, elements of the White Right mouth off about Nietzsche here and there, but most of them never read Nietzsche, and they honor him because he wasn’t Jewish but maybe the prophet of Nazism. For such White Rightists, Nietzsche is just a cool nationalist symbol of white power and pride. He is to them what Che Guevara is to Hollywood celebrities--radical as rock star. But, if people must be judged by their actions and achievements than by words and bluster, Nietzscheanism is today practiced more on the Left than on the Right. To be sure, there are courageous people on the Right like Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor, but they are not Nietzschean in any sense of the term. MacDonald’s social ideal is bland conformism, which is to say he wished all white people would conform to white nationalist group think than fall under the sway of Jewish Culture of Critique. But, Nietzsche was a modernist, an individualist, a trouble-maker, the king-daddy of all critique-mongers. Marx’s attack on religion as opiate of the masses was nothing to compared Nietzsche’s far fiercer condemnations in THE ANTI-CHRIST. Nietzsche was for a world ruled by superior individuals, not by some mythical superior race. Nietzsche didn’t sit well with collectivism. Marxism was collectivist but so was Nazism. Marxism says the masses--most of them proles--should all think and act as one in the progress of mankind. Nazism says that everyone with ‘Aryan’ blood is superior or part of one happy family. Both are forms of therapeutism. In a communist state, even a dimwitted worker is a hero. In Nazi Germany, Germans--most of them not particularly bright or talented--were supposed to be a bunch of Siegfrieds or Beethovens. The therapeutism inherent in Marxism and Neo-Nazism is palpably obvious today. By adopting Marxism, any second-rate intellectual can think himself a radical revolutionary. By adopting Neo-Nazism, any white trash can regard himself as superior.
Nietzsche envisioned a world where superior men would rule over the inferior--99.9% of mankind--, but this superiority had to be proven on an individual basis. It’s too easy to claim superiority on the basis of one’s class or race. Collective pride is as misguided as collective guilt, and FEELING superior is not the same thing as BEING superior.
In the Nietzschean universe, the SUPERIOR MEN would the most intelligent, creative, cunning, shrewd, deceptive, inspiring, adventurous, and individualistic. They could be Germans, French, Jews, Russians, Hungarians, etc. It didn’t matter. What mattered were INDIVIDUAL qualities. Since such individuals were bound to be rare, the ideal of equality could only be a false religion favoring mediocrity--like the music of Winglord that gave Kurtagic such a hard-on. Not everyone could be a superior individual; and if everyone were equally superior, superiority itself would be mediocre--as they say, in a world of blind men, the one-eyed man is king.
For there to be superior individuals, there MUST be inferior men. In other words, among cheetahs, one that can run 60 mph hr isn’t that special. Among birds, one that can fly is dime-a-dozen. In relation to non-human life forms, all humans are indeed godlike and special. Even a dumb human is far superior to a dog in intellect. But, being human alone isn’t enough to tower over other humans. One must be a kind of meta-human, a person with rare intelligence, charisma, talent, vision, creativity, etc. And no single man can claim ultimate superiority since most superior men have their own limitations. For example, a tough brave man may not be too bright. A charismatic man may not be good with logic. A genius at math may suck at writing. A great painter or sculptor may suck at social skills. A great musician may be physically weak. A beautiful person may have a dopey voice. A great singer may be fat and ugly. A great thinker may be a physical coward. And even those with superior talents don’t have it all the time or forever. Artists lose their muse, rulers lose their sense of destiny, shamans lose sight of the Other World, singers lose their voice, businessmen lose their acumen. And so, the idea of the god-like overman always been a fantasy. For any kind of system to survive and thrive--at least for a time--, it depends on the gathering of GREAT MEN sharing and competing with their myriad talents.
National Socialism certainly would have fared better if Adolf Hitler hadn’t bought into his own myth as the god-man of Europe. Though he rose to power by caution as by daring, he stopped listening to the advice of men of superior talent or wisdom in military, diplomatic, and economic matters and shouted orders as if his voice itself sanctified and validated everything that came out of his mouth.
So, the concept of Superior MEN is far preferable to Superior MAN. Superior qualities are most formidable when they complement one another than when one man imposes his supposedly all-knowing superiority on everyone else. Stalin was at his worst when refusing to trust everything but his own instincts. Despite his communism, Stalin too was a debased kind of Nietzschean who turned himself into a god-man. Stalin’s interference in scientific matters led to Lysenko-ism. His refusal to heed the warnings of others nearly led to defeat in WWII. And Mao was most insane when he unleashed the GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Impatient and regarding himself as wise on all matters, he decided to play god who would transform his nation into a superpower overnight.
Our globalized culture is essentially Nietzschean in its obsession with superiority. A dimbulb may miss this since the OFFICIAL values of the ‘liberal elites’ preach politically correctness, egalitarianism, and ‘social justice’, but don’t judge a book by its cover and action speaks louder than words. For all their professed ‘egalitarianism’, the Western elites--especially the Jews--are the most cunning, ruthless, and creative ambitious Nietzscheans around. (And they don’t need to invoke Nietzsche all the time because they are DOING Nietzscheanism is so many fields. If Kurtagic goes for cookie-cutter symbolic Nietzscheanism of pasting together comicbook Viking hero images on black metal cds, Jews and their allies are remaking the world with profound advances in science, technology, medicine, genetics, communication, etc. They don’t need Nietzsche as a crutch of ‘superiority’ since their superiority is so obvious in their will-to-power achievements in economics, politics, culture, and all forms of power.) Globalist Jews and their allies justify globalism in glowing terms of uniting humanity--and they may be sincere in their idealism as far as it goes--, but what they are really after is the coming together of the best of the best around the world. The truly ambitious don’t wanna be limited to or restrained by allegiance to dummies at home. Imagine a very smart kid in a small town. Suppose people in the community want him to stay put and work for the good of ‘his’ people--like George Bailey in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. But if he’s smart and ambitious, why would he want to be just another local yokel? No, he would want to travel all around to meet others like him, to compete with them, work with them, to feel superior in their company. (It’s like Yao Ming felt honored to be play in the NBA than on some Chinese team. Playing with Negroes in America, he knew he was competing with the best of the best.) Well, in today’s globalized world, even a nation as big as the US is too small for the GREAT MEN. They want to operate and succeed on a truly global scale. They wanna have homes, businesses, lovers, friends, associates, and etc on all five continents. They’d rather rub shoulders with the BEST of other nations than with the dummies of their own nation. A GREAT FRENCHMAN wants to meet with GREAT AMERICAN MAN than waste time with dumb French men; a GREAT AMERICAN MAN wants to associate with a GREAT FRENCHMEN than with dumbbell Americans, especially in hick towns. And there is some of this on the Right too. Many American white rightists are into European thinkers, and they prefer associating with European rightwing intellectuals than with Republican dummies who cheer for Sarah Palin. To an extent, the concept of EU is left-wing in its breaking down of national(ist)borders, but it’s also partly closet-Nietzschean in allowing the best and brightest of Europe to come together and cooperate/compete with greater ease. Globalization is better for the elites made of high IQ superior men than for the lower IQ rabble that makes up the middle and working classes of any nation. Of course, globalization is also good for the underclasses of all nations since it means easier access to rich nations and more international aid.
In this sense, the Nietzsche obsession on the white right is as foolhardy as the pro-Zionist obsession among most Republicans. Republicans bend over backwards to support Israel when most Jews hate white conservatives; similarly, white rightists keep invoking Nietzsche when the most Nietzschean amongst us--in action if not words--are liberal global elites most committed to anti-racism and anti-nationism. (Anti-nationalism opposes nationalist sentiments but not necessarily the political, legal, and social concept of nationhood. Anti-nationism opposes the concept of nationhood itself. Pro-illegal-immigrationism is a form of anti-nationism.)
To the extent that DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY shows us this world of men of superior wealth, power, privilege, and talent, it serves as an ideological mandala through which to understand the changes in world cultures and politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment