Thursday, December 15, 2011
Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascist Review of SOCIAL NETWORK(by Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher).
SOCIAL NETWORK, directed by the supremely gifted David Fincher and surely the most talked-about film of 2010 as well as the most critically acclaimed, could be said to be a flawless piece of work; or maybe too flawless, to the point where flawlessness becomes a flaw in itself. But the problem owes less to Fincher than to the clever--maybe brilliant--but soulless writing and acting, respectively, of Sorkin and Eisenberg. Everything is surface reality and forward momentum. Though the time frame flips between present and past, past and present, past in present, present in past, there isn’t a single moment in the film that settles down to anything resembling thought or reflection(maybe except at the very end, but that’s more of a copout). At one point, a girl tells Mark to go back to his ‘videogame’--his Facebook enterprise--, and it does seem as though these superbly intelligent nerds are manic gamers. The difference is they are not gamblers. Zuckerberg, like Ace Rothstein of Martin Scorsese’s CASINO, is too far ahead of the curve to be leaving much to chance. He’s collecting his chips and moving up to ever higher levels and stakes even before his rivals--and naively trusting partners--have a chance to stake their claims and gauge his bluffs. What motivates Zuckerberg isn’t so much anything resembling work ethic or greed per se as a constant need to play the game and outplay everyone else. Ruthless and cunning competitiveness is in his blood. Even had he born with a billion dollars, he’s not the type to laze around a swimming pool like Billy Madison. It’s not so much the size but the sizzle of numbers that energizes him. If he has a million, he wants a billion. If he has a billion, he wants 10 billion. If he has 10 billion, he wants 100 billion. It’s all a game, but one he’s deathly serious about. If Facebook has 1 million members, he wants 10 million. If 10 million, 100 million. I f a 100 million, a billion. If a billion, 10 billion. And so Facebook became the McNetwork of the internet age.
The concept of ‘work ethic’ assumes the need to be constantly reminded of the need to work hard(even when one doesn’t have to in order to enjoy life), and ‘greed’ implies one’s passions are primarily monetary or materialistic. Zuckerberg doesn’t need a work ethic since his mind is never at rest even if he wanted it to. (However, one might say he practices a kind of ‘jerk ethic’.) He’s the sort of person who always has to think, say, or do something. His mind is such that it can either tune into EVERYTHING--at one point he’s annoyed by something as trivial a video of Niagra Falls at a Caribbean-theme dance party--or shut it all out to focus on one thing as the only thing that matters--as when he listens to Sean Parker’s hipster exegesis on the marketing implications of Victoria’s Secret at a loud dance club. Even the slightest stimuli can send him into a tizzy when he’s bored, but he also has the power to tune everything out when he thinks he’s found gold.
Sometimes, his repressed annoyance(and hurt pride) will crop up later, as when he reminds the Winklevosses that he’d only been allowed into the bike room of their exclusive ‘Final Club’. Zuckerberg has many chips on his shoulder and but more on the table. Happy, sad, angry, bitter, envious, vengeful, or whatever, but he almost never loses his cool. In a way, he has no cool. He’s cold, at least on the outside. Inside, though no romantic with wild passions, he’s a nonstop whirligig of anxieties, resentments, insecurities, injured pride, and other neuroses--as well as contempt, arrogance, disdain, superiority, and nerd-snobbery(snerdery?). In a way, his feelings of inadequacy complement his feelings of superiority and vice verse. His need to completely dominate in areas where he’s superior(intellect and ingenuity)is partly a spiteful response to feelings of being a nobody in areas of coolness and being well-liked(especially by pretty girls and popular guys on campus.) He has strong emotions but instead of exploding with anger--as some of his associates do at times--, his mind is always looking for an algorithm to reconfigure and revamp those emotions into psychic fuel to outmaneuver and even destroy people he perceives to have ‘wronged’ him. (The first vendetta is largely personal after he’s dumped by his girlfriend who finds him, at once, overly insecure and overly arrogant. He goes to his room and uses a computer program to spread negative rumors about the girl all over the campus . He even takes over the Harvard computer system for the night. It’s awful, but Sorkin emphasizes the brilliance and the ‘cuteness’ than the sheer asshole-ness of it all. Btw, what Zuckerberg does to the girl is much like the way Jews, having taken control of the media, use their power and passion to destroy the reputation of anyone who won’t jump on the Jewish-agenda-bandwagon. For a good example of Jewish hideousness and viciousness, consider Ron Rosenbaum’s filthy article on white turkey meat and ‘white racism’. This is the kind of vile Jews that American conservatives pander to) . In a way, Mark is paranoid but so sharply focused that it never materializes into a full-blown clinical phenomenon. Also, he’s too coldly rational to be truly creative or imaginative, i.e. see things that may not exist, as some paranoids really do. He doesn’t so much SEE conspiracies and plots everywhere as SENSE them; he counters them with superior counter-moves. Indeed, his great achievement, Facebook, cannot really be said to be original. Rather, it was a coldly brilliant synthesis of various ideas that were out there. It was a smart concept in the way that McDonalds or Ebay were. McDonalds didn’t invent the hamburger or fast food franchises, but it came up with the perfect formula for global dominance.
In terms of actual technology, Facebook wasn’t the game changer that Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Oracle, and Google have been. The central idea, according to the film, is that Zuckerberg, a guy without friends, created a means by which the entire world could be friends, though one wonders what kind of ‘friendship’ is meant by this. In a way, Facebook friendship is the counterpart to hook-up sex: meet, join up, have fun, no guilt, no commitment, no nothing. It is hook-up friendship. Add a friend, delete a friend, like ordering Burger and French Fries and tossing them out if you don’t like them. Indeed, I’m sure when some clever nerd comes up with a cyber-sex suit enabling online sex-sensations, people all around the world will be virtually fuc*ing one another in what may be called Fuc*book. I don’t mean just sharing videos, pictures, and comments but genuine sensations connected via cyberspace. But what kind of a ‘lover’ would you be if ‘love’ is defined and practiced this way? One could have a 1000 lovers and not really love anyone. So, what is ‘friendship’ on Facebook? Is it really friendship if there is no real loyalty, attachment, obligation, and a sense of honor? And consider how ‘friend’ has become a verb thanks to Facebook. Now, you can ‘friend’ people all over the world. As a result, a ‘friend’ is less a noun connoting permanent attachment than a verb suggesting fleeting contacts.
In the film, the rise of Zuckerberg is juxtaposed with deposition scenes where Zuckerberg and his lawyer face off against former friend/partners and their lawyers to settle a lawsuit or prepare for a trial. As intelligent and complex as Zuckerberg appears to be, there’s a sense that he sees real-life friends as Facebook friends. Though Eduardo(Saverin) worked alongside with him to create Facebook, Zuckerberg essentially ‘deletes’ him out of the picture--rather like how Stalin deleted certain revolutionaries out of Soviet history(and how Jewish historians and media today favor certain figures--gay, feminist, Jewish, Negro, etc--while suppressing the achievements of white gentile males, especially if they happened to be ‘racist’.) Of course, unlike in the world of Facebook, people can and do get sued in the real world, which is why Zuckerberg, we are told, was made to fork over tens or maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars to settle the cases, but as one lawyer tells him, “it’s like paying a speeding ticket.” Where Zuckerberg is going, even such sums are only chump change. With Facebook as the premier social networking site on the internet and with super-Jews of Wall Street financing his company--and with the most talented nerds lining up to work for his company--, Zuckerberg is the sort who will lose a billion to gain ten billion. What does it profit a man to lose a billion to gain a hundred billion? A lot. What about losing his soul? Well, what if he never had a soul to begin with? What Zuckerberg has is a bundle of energy than anything round, soft, and warm as a soul. It’s all electrons, no neutrons.
Of course, I’m talking of the Zuckerberg of the film that the real-life Zuckerberg of whom I know little. My intuition says the real-life Mark Zuckerberg is infinitely more interesting, multi-faceted, and charming person than the movie character who is essentially little more than a bundle of tropes about modern Jewish anxiety. And, ‘adapted from true stories’--the way the film describes itself--suggests there were more facets to the legal wrangling than the movie makes out. Just on physical attributes, the real Zuckerberg is, if not handsome, more pleasant-looking than Eisenberg, who is one hideous-looking gnomic Jew sewer rat--or Jewer rat. The real Zuckerberg looks more like a likable than a nasty Jew, which is what Eisenberg is throughout the film--of course, we should never judge a book by its cover. Justin Timberlake, though slotted in the Sean Parker role, looks more like the real Zuckerberg, while the real Sean Parker, Jewish or not, looks more like Jesse Eisenberg: a schmork.
My lack of interest in the real Zuckerberg may betray a certain laziness on my part, which I don’t deny, but I never much cared for nerds or geeks, a prejudice surely shared by many, not least by geeks and nerds themselves. (Why else are superrich Jewish geeks so eager to own sports teams with stables of big strong thrilling Negroes--as well as some Aryans? Brains means money and power, but brains alone aren’t charisma--except in the game of wits--and manliness. More people are excited by football players than by chess masters. So, Jews with chess-master-smarts make a lot of money and then invest in pop culture and sports to associate themselves with ‘cool’ pop cultural icons. If you can’t be a star football player, why not own the entire team?)
I do not mean to diminish the achievements of geeks and nerds in various fields--especially in science, technology, economic, and finance. However, most people agree that geeks and nerds are NOT among the most compelling, fascinating, or interesting personalities out there, especially since most people know or care very little about science, math, or high-tech. We want to benefit from their innovations, but we feel too dumb to understand the ideas behind their products.
Most nerds and geeks generally don’t have large-than-life or charismatic personalities. I should qualify what I mean by ‘geek’ or nerd’ here. After all, many great writers, actors, directors, intellectuals, musicians, and artists weren’t big hunks, studs, or men of great athletic prowess. Purely on the basis of physical attributes, people like Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Ingmar Bergman, Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut, Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Francis Ford Coppola, Sergio Leone, Jerry Garcia, Mick Jagger, Mel Brooks, and many others could pass ‘nerds’. And if they’d gone into computers or math, they probably would have been labeled as ‘geeks’. Indeed, notice that even big hunky guys into computers and science are often called ‘geeks’ or ‘nerds’. Indeed, even Craig Venter is often called a ‘geek’ though he’s a beefy guy who did a fair amount of surfing and adventuring in his younger days.
Why do we label a skinny guy into computers as a geek but not a skinny guy into music? After all, didn’t the young Bob Dylan and Adam Sandler look very much like the typical geek? Jesse Eisenberg could have played either--and indeed resembles Dylan and Sandler more than he does Zuckerburg who, if not for his Jewish nose, could pass for the stupid Irish.
The difference between skinny artistic people and skinny logical people is that the former can shroud their natural geekiness in the aura of style, charisma, imagination, and power. Geeky as Dylan may have been, he sang loud backed up by even louder musicians. Mick Jagger is a skinny dude but sings rock n roll and shakes his ass at girls. (Purely in physical terms, he is now both a geek and an ‘old fart’, but his legendary place in Rock history ensures godlike cult worship. Religiosity, with its hypnotic promise of transcendence, can also overcome/hide geekiness. Though most Hindu gurus are skinny, you don’t hear people call them ‘geeks’. Neither Gandhi nor the Dalai Lama--or Yoda for that matter--has been called a ‘geek’. Some, like the Maharishi Yogi, even had a certain sex appeal, or so I’m told.) If artistic geeks hide their geekiness behind style, gesture, and flamboyance, logical geeks expose their geekiness for all to see. Since they concentrate and dwell on the quietly logical, they present themselves as all mind and no heart/style/body/soul. Even when ‘geeks’ and ‘nerds’ are big and strong and personably warm, their focus on brainy stuff--which few people can even understand--make them seem like super-brainy creatures from another planet. Geeks, like many representations of space aliens, are both pitiful and threatening. Pitiful because they seem small and funny-looking--more head than body(like the aliens in Tim Burton’s MARS ATTACK). But they are also threatening because their superior intelligence is capable of creating weapons to dominate or destroy Earthlings.
After all, geeky Jews--often branded as ‘alien elements’ in goy majority nations--invented the atomic bomb. Both Jews and Asians have been perceived as brainy outsiders by white majority populations in the West; thereby, both groups have been objects of pity/contempt and fear/anxiety.
Paradoxically, World Jewry and Middle Kingdom Chinese don’t see eye-to-eye(even as American Jews and Chinese-Americans meet thigh to thigh in elite college communities). Chinese may be geeks--and poised to ‘conquer’ the world--, but they already possess a great giant nation of their own. Jews are the most powerful people in the world but a small minority in all of them except in tiny Israel. Though Jews run America and much of Europe, they still fret about white gentiles waking up to the reality of Jewish power and running the Jews out of town--and if whites were indeed aware of the Jewish agenda, they would do just that, but of course, Jews control the academia and the media, and so most whites in the West have become mental slaves of Jewish power. Jewish geeks find yellow geeks useful because Jews can ‘scapegoat’ the yellow geek hordes as the great Other that is poised to sabotage, undermine, destroy, and conquer America and the West. By diverting white(and black and brown)rage at the Chinese ‘alien geek invaders’ and by making themselves out as the intelligent friends-saviors of the gentile race, Jews try to persuade American gentiles that Jewish intelligence and geekiness are good--Godly, moral, patriotic--while Chinese intelligence and geekiness are alien, threatening, and sinister. This is all the more ironic given that Chinese geeks tend to be genuinely nationalistic and patriotic--at least for their motherland China--while Jewish globalist geeks have no real loyalty to white, black, or brown America. Jews are merely playing and fueling hostilities among various goy groups in order to maximize and secure Jewish power. After all, the very same Jews who divert white, black, and brown rage at Chinese(and all those ‘Muzzies’) are also busy fanning black and brown rage against whites and of playing divide and rule between the black and brown communities; Jews act as friends of Negroes but then bring in more non-black immigrants(mostly Mexican mestizos) to pit against black interests. Jews play everyone against everyone while also making themselves out to be the best friends of everyone. So, everyone from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton to Karl Rove to Sarah Palin to Rush Limbaugh are busy kissing Jewish ass all night and day. (Dr. Spock of STAR TREK was a kind of interesting fantasy of the super-geek. He was not only smarter than any human--like Jews are smarter than goyim--but also stronger, even enough to beat up the strongest Negro. Though superbly logical like the great Jewish scientists, he was also extremely self-controlled and restrained, like the Nazi ideal of the Aryan Warrior. He was like a super-Jewish intellectual with all the advantages of non-Jews--strength, dignity, self-control--and minus the deficiencies of Jewishness--obnoxiousness, pushiness, and general hideousness.)
Anyway, the REAL geeks and nerds--the dweebs and dorks in science, math, and hightech--are condemned to be uninteresting or less interesting because they must stick to the logically/materially possible while rejecting the spiritually/creatively/emotionally imaginable and expressible. They must use their minds to verbally express what they can do, not what they’d like to do. Though creativity is a part of science, math, and computers, it can never be the flighty, free-flowing, and wild creativity of art. Steve Jobs could design a wonderful I-pad but couldn’t create the stargate sequence in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Computer geeks do have moments of epiphany or Eureka but their ideas must arrive at some functionality. An Rock star can compose and sing whatever he wants, but the stereo system--designed by geeks--has to work according to set principles of electronics and acoustics.
In SOCIAL NETWORK, we see Zuckerberg ‘accidentally’ stumble on ideas to put the finishing touch on Facebook, but in the final equation, they must all make logical sense. Whatever Facebook can or can’t do comes down to ‘codes’ or algorithms. (Perhaps geeks in politics are situated somewhere between geeks in science and geeks in the arts. Men like Lenin and Trotsky stuck to the ‘science’ of historical process, but politics was still a kind of drama. Also, there’s something about political/spiritual power that is ‘sexy’ and charismatic--even for a geek--which is not true of economic power. Obama is a sort of a geek--by black standards anyway--, and he might not have made much of an impression as a CEO in a high-tech firm. It was politics, the art of power, which made him ‘sexy and cool’). Computer geeks may be super-smart and make lots of money, but they are not really cool... which is perhaps why Zuckerberg in the movie is so awed by Sean Parker. Sean Parker may also be a geek, but his brilliance spun forth a sexy kind of nerd-dom. Generally, we assume that good-looking women put out to geeks because geeks have lots of money--or at least a future with lots of money. (Why else would any woman wanna sleep with Bill Gates, who looks like Rusty Trawler in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S?) But, Sean Parker--in the movie at least--was a magnet to the ladies because he was a cool-ified geek, or geek chic. If Zuckerberg’s personality style is fast-forward motion, outrunning the competition in a lonely race, Parker’s is more like a basketball player with lateral moves. Zuckerberg can outrun, but it’s Parker who can outplay. Zuckerberg beats everyone, but he’s not cool. He ignores everything but his desire to win. Parker, in contrast, relishes in the game itself--not just to win but to have fun. And he doesn’t just beat his rivals; he takes an almost sadistic pleasure in grinding them down. Using sex an analogy, Zuckerberg takes pride in being the fastest ejaculator in the world while Parker specializes in having the biggest orgasm. From the beginning of the film, we sense that what’s eating at Zuckerberg is his lack of coolness. This is rather amusing since Zuckerberg, on the one hand, has no use for coolness but, on the other, is obsessed with it. He’s analytical and critical enough to see the phony ruse of coolness(the reason why he disdains his friend’s desperate desire to be accepted into a college club), but he’s also too ambitious to settle for anything but the very best. Coolness, phony or not, is a commodity one must have.
Why was Sean Parker different from other geeks? Why made him so cool? Personally, I know nothing about the real Parker and never used Napster when it was around. But--at least according to the film--, Sean had a knack for public notoriety--which most geeks shy away from--and took on the what is paradoxically the coolest and the most vilified industry--the music entertainment industry. Unlike pimply nerds hacking into boring institutions or pirating music in a piecemeal manner, Sean Parker went whole hog and declared total war on the music industry. Why was this cool? Given the passion for pop music among ‘cool’ or ‘wanna-be-cool’ young people, you’d think they would have seen Sean as the bad guy out to destroy the industry that provides them with ‘great music’. But, part of rock, punk, metal, and rap culture is to rebel against the powers-that-be, and Sean did just that to a giant industry. The music industry has been promoting the image and ideal of the rebel, maverick, thug, lout, subversive, and badass, all the while maintaining a system--enforced with the strong-arm of lawyers and the government--to protect its ‘intellectual property’. In other words, according to the music industry, it’s cool to rebel as long as it’s not against the music industry. The music tells you to burn down a city but not to mess with intellectual copyright. It tells you to shake you booty but not to touch the booty of billionaire C.E.O.s.
In the movie, it’s like Zuckerberg clicks with Parker because he too nabbed the ‘intellectual property’ of others, namely the Winklevoss twins and Narendra. Parker thought it was cool to mess or fuc* with the music industry, and Zuckerberg finds it badass to stick it to overly privileged wasps, the Winklevosses. Voss won’t be his boss. (Of course, if you tried to steal any idea from Facebook, expect Zuckerberg to send his lawyers.) It’s ironic that Justin Timberlake, a big name in the music industry--actually a faggoty maggoty male version of Britney Spears--, plays Sean Parker to the hilt. Even with the napsterizaiton of music, I suppose guys like Timberlake are raking in enough cash to have it both ways--be filthy rich and play the badboy rebel. In a way, central to both rock/pop/rap culture and the revenge of the cyber-nerds is the art of bullshit. Rock culture hasn’t so much been real barbarism as commercialized and controlled barbarism. Go to any rock concert, and everything is closely coordinated and supervised by security and cops. And despite its populist pretensions, those with money arrive in limos and enter through VIP sections and have preferential seats while the rest of the herd stand in long lines and have crappy seats or sit on the lawn. And though the rock/pop/rap star is supposed to be ‘one of us’ than a snobby elitist, he or she remains perched high above and untouchable to everyone, like some demigod. There were instances in the late 60s and early 70s when rock culture tried to be genuinely raw and spontaneous, but it led to the Stones disaster at Altamont and the deaths-by-trampling at a Who concert. And there was much about Woodstock that wasn’t very pretty either. By the 80s, the corporations, parents, police, security services, and media all worked together to create the Reagan-era rock concert--like those for Springsteen and Michael Jackson--where everything was slickly packaged, organized, and executed. Barbarism became banal, or barbanal. And then Rap happened, bringing another troubling element of violence into pop culture, but the utter stupidity of hip hop culture made it an ideal formula/product for manipulation and control by the music industry. Unlike previous form of pop music which required genuine musical talent, rap and hip-hop had a simple recipe, with repetitious rhythm and beat. Any music industry could hire musical hacks to compose, hype, and market hip-hop. It was a lot easier than during the singer-songwriter era of the 1970s that called for genuine eccentricity, originality, individuality, etc. It’s not easy to manufacture another Dylan or Carole King. So, even though the industry in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s sought to control the music, this was easier said than done because even the very best composers and performers could reliably repeat their magic nor could imitators be easily cloned. A rapper can produce 10 more rap albums of more or less same quality. It’s much more difficult to create another album as good as BORN IN THE USA or MURMUR.
Even though the Monkees had their success, they couldn’t take the place of the Beatles--or even the Hollies or Moody Blues for that matter. In time, people came to see what was real and what was not. But the nature of hip-hop favored the formulaic hacks over genuine artists since the music was all humpity-dumpity, hippity-hoppity, jiveass-liveass. It could easily be mimicked, ‘mastered’, and recycled.
Neil Diamond was not an all-time great, but he did come up with some uniquely catchy tunes. If the magic/trick of 60s Rock/Pop was to sound different from others, the rule of rap seems to be trying to sound just like all the others. This isn’t to say there weren’t prevailing musical styles in the 60s--psychedelia, surf music, folk rock, etc--, but an artist staked his claim by being original and ‘special’, which is one reason why Dylan took time off when his fans demanded he live up to some pop-cultural expectation as ‘the voice of his generation’.
So, the irony is that rap, the most thuggish and troublesome of all musical genres, became the most easily controlled product of the music industry. It went from packing heat to packing meat. Any talented hack could reproduce it as porn pop--or porp music.
Justin Timberlake is just a pussyass maggot faggot with no discernible musical talent. A former Mickey Mouser--like Spears and Aguilera(Disney has become Sleazney)--, he became a mega-teen-idol product of the music industry.
For this very reason, guys like Timberlake might feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. In one sense, he was, from a young age, a puppet of the industry, singing Mickey Mouse songs as a child and then remolded for an ‘R&B’ career; he’s always been a dogg on a leash.
On the other hand, his musical persona is that of a rebel and maverick. He sings about doing things his way but has his puppet-strings pulled by an industry(that came to own ‘rebellion’ by turning it into money). Of course, this goes back to the King of Rock n Roll himself, Elvis. Despite his persona as a stud rebel, he was the pet of Colonel Tom Parker.
So, Timberlake--assuming that he has a brain--might well be aware of the irony of his situation. Kids idolized him as badass, but he was just a maggoty-faggoty teen toy packaged and sold by the industry. The industry made him rich and famous but also castrated him into a maggot-faggot running dog. He is like a ‘house wigger’ of the music industry. The industry turned him into a ‘success’ but also kept him under wraps. And even when he got out of line, it was grist for the mill owned and controlled by the Big Media(which has a way of cashing in on just about anything; call it ‘cash for trash’). No matter what he did, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, he was controlled by Big Music and Big Media. So, even though Parker was undermining the very industry Timberlake depended on, the latter still may have rooted for Parker’s bad boy antics--like a ‘house nigger’ might privately root for the ‘field nigger’ burning down the master’s house.
But of course, biggest rebels also make the biggest tyrants, and we see this in Sean Parker(as presented in the movie). Though very proud and sure of himself as a Spartacus-like rebel-hero, he has all the instincts of a vengeful bully, sadist, thug, and tyrant. He’s out to bring down the music industry, but he wants to control what shall replace it as the next big thing. As Mao said, ‘No Destruction, No Construction.’ Or, from a capitalist angle, ‘Creative Destruction’.
Still, the Parker we see in the movie seems more into destruction than construction or creation. He likes to knock things down just to see them fall. He also loves to stab people for the pleasure of twisting the knife. I don’t know if the real Sean Parker is like this, but such people do exist of course, not least in the world of big business. (NOBLE HOUSE for example.)
As with most films purporting to be ‘based on a true story’, it’s been duly noted that SOCIAL NETWORK is more fiction than reality. A well-informed insider remarked that the film is, at most, only 40% accurate. Given the limited length of an average film, competing/contrasting accounts, legal issues, the ideological biases of filmmakers, commercial concerns, and a thing called ‘artistic license’, it should come as no surprise that films based on real events are rarely trustworthy. Not only do these films have little to do with what-really-may-have-happened but with the books that serve as source material.
So, ‘based on true story’ films are like a double-distortion of reality; it further distorts what was distorted in the first place in the book itself. I have no idea how trustworthy WISE GUYS--made into GOODFELLAS--and PRINCE OF THE CITY are as books, but their movie adaptations are very faithful.
In contrast, I was told SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISHER has almost nothing to do with the book. And BEAUTIFUL MIND the movie has absolutely nothing to do with the book except that the character is also named ‘John Nash’. This is less problematic with stories that gained fame as myths or legends to begin with. The stories of Billy the Kid, Jesse James, and Wyatt Earp spread like wildfire through songs, hearsay, rumors, sensationalistic journalism, and tall tales. So, no one expects to see real reality or how-it-really-happened from films such as JESSE JAMES, RETURN OF FRANK JAMES, LONG RIDERS, I SHOT JESSE JAMES, LEFT-HANDED GUN, PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID, MY DARLING CLEMENTINE, TOMBSTONE, etc. We see them as myths, and indeed, the filmmakers approached them as larger-than-narratives to romanticize or canvases on which to project our collective national/historical psyche. Given the mythological nature of the Western, we expect and indeed demand that the imagination run as wild as the horses--not least because the Western isn’t only about physical expansion but spiritual redemption(where the gun serves as the ritual instrument of sacrament).
But different rules apply to films purporting to tell the truth about our world, especially about the here and now--and what can be more ‘here and now’ than Facebook? (It appears social/political events are being reflected in movies much faster than in the past. Traditionally, a movie about a president or famous person was made long after his decline, retirement, or death. But W was made while Bush II was president. The exception was THE GREATEST, the Ali movie made in mid-70s when he was still champion. Generally, instant history docu-dramas, on the occasion when such were made, were slated for low-budget TV. Now, the big screen responds to famous people and major events like cable news. It was soon after 9/11 that Paul Greengrass made UNITED 91. Of course, certain events and issues--such as black ‘youth mobs’-- are almost never reflected in movies. People say THE WIRE is realistic, but it’s mostly hokum, with ultimately trite conclusions. Or a movie like CRASH--about the problems of diversity in L.A.--will pretend that the blame belongs equally to all.) The moral claims of these films seem to a kind of journalistic standard, the courage to tell the truth challenges the powers-that-be or counters majority biases/prejudices. They claim to favor truth over partisanship. So, when a film purports to investigate and tell the real story, it should try to stick to facts and actual events as much as possible. It’s one thing to shorten, summarize, or simplify non-urgent events--with little direct relevance to or impact on our times--for dramatic effect but something else to counter official lies with unofficial lies. (Given SOCIAL NETWORK was made by Hollywood, the official entertainment complex of America--as well as the world--, how unofficial or alternative is Sorkin/Fincher’s treatment, by the way?) ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN is effective as narrative but more fiction than fact. It counters Nixon’s BS with Hollywood BS. MISSISSIPPI BURNING, I am told--I haven’t seen it--, is mostly BS. It presents the typical FBI agent as wonderful ‘progressive’ in sympathy with Negroes--which pissed off the leftwing Jew Jonathan Rosenbaum(who, however, was never offended by communist films covering up the deaths of tens of millions of non-Jewish people)--, and it showed Negroes as just the gentlest, noblest, and saintliest folks in the world--which pissed off the likes of Pat Buchanan who know real Negroes to be aggressive, abrasive, and wild(and lusting after white man’s blood and white woman’s pussy).. MISSISSIPPI BURNING also indulged in one of the favorite liberal Hollywood tropes of the helpless white woman battered by her abusive white male husband--also found in movies like FRIED GREEN TOMATOES. (It is a dirty Jewish trick to make white women see white males as resentful, repressive, and patriarchal oppressors. If white males are little more than bigots and wife-beaters, then the logical thing for white women is to seek political and sexual liberation by marching and fucking with wonderful Negro men. Propaganda such as MISSISSIPPI BURNING and FRIED GREEN TOMATOES turned countless white women virulently against white males and orgasmically for someone like Obama. And now, white women, rich to poor, are lining up to either adopt African babies or have mulatto babies--or Obama babies or Obabies--with Negro men. This is what Jews have wrought on white civilization.) In reality, of course, most Southern white women shared the fear of white males toward the Negroes, but the dirty Jews of Hollywood love to play divide-and-conquer. So, films like MB and FGT encourage white women to believe (1) white males are their oppressors than protectors (2) they, as women, are victims, along with Negroes, Jews, and gays of evil white heteronormative males (3) white women can be historically forgiven for ‘white racist’ sins if they put out to hairy Jewish men and filthy Negro men and support ‘gay marriage’. And this dirty Jew strategy seems to have worked. Nearly all Democratic white women are for ‘gay marriage’ and interracism, and even ‘conservative’ women like Hasselback(of the View), Laura Bush and her skanky daughters, and John McCain’s bimbo wife endorse that kind of garbage. Jews must be cracking up. They pull the strings on goy behavior and push the buttons on goy psychology, and stupid goys become puppet toys of Jewish power.
So, what can we say about SOCIAL NETWORK as an example of journalistic cinema? It’s mostly BS. The movie essentially looks and sounds suspiciously like a Judeo-centric apologia for Jewish power. In a way, it’s a variation of Norman Podherotz’s book WHY ARE JEWS LIBERAL? Podherotz, as a ‘conservative’, initially pretends to criticize Jews for their benighted liberalism and other foolishness, but the book is really an excuse and moral rationale for Jewish liberalism. So, even as Podherotz claims that Jews are politically and economically wrong-headed, he says they are wrong-headed for all the right reasons: liberal Jews are so compassionate, so sympathetic, so loving toward the downtrodden, so helpful to the poor, and still so traumatized by thousands of years of victimization at the hands of Christian gentiles. So, even if Jewish liberals perpetually fail to notice that the world has changed--with white Christians being their best friends and Muslims being their main enemies--, their sense of history, morality, and decency keeps them duty-bound to the Left. Now, I don’t deny that there is some truth to this. Holocaust does matter a lot to Jews--as it well should--, Jews were discriminated as a minority in Europe(though never as much as pagan peoples who were treated a thousand times worse by Christians who adopted the intolerant God of the Jews), and there is a strong moral component to Jewish heritage(though it had been mostly tribal than universal until the late modern era). And indeed, there are a good number of not-so-smart Jews who sincerely seem to embrace the Jewish-compassion narrative. But Podherotz is lying about the Smart-Jews and Power-Jews. They are liberal not because they are color-blind universalists but because they see liberalism as the more potent weapon to maximize and secure Jewish power in nations where they are minorities. Power Elite Jews in the US will not sleep well unless they can take it for granted that US is too diverse for any single group to unite and challenge Jewish power. This is why Jews are out to undermine white power in the US. If the majority of Americans were Jews, would Jews be eagerly opening the gates to all those Mexicans, Africans, and Muslims? No, the current Jewish support of ‘open immigration’ and ‘diversity’ to pit the white goy against the non-white goy. (When Jews say, ‘diversity is our strength’, they mean ‘divide-and-rule is OUR advantage.’) So, Podherotz is nothing but a dirty Jew, just another bullshit con-artist.
And the same applies to Aaron Sorkin. Just look at Sorkin’s face, and he looks like your typical dirty, disgusting, repulsive, devious, self-righteous, and low-down Jew. He looks like a cousin of Jonathan Rosenbaum. Just get a load of that venomous, smug, self-satisfied mug.
So, what is the real message of SOCIAL NETWORK? Just how is it an apologia for Jewish power? In a nutshell, it says Jews are ambitious, driven, hostile, devious, cunning, and ruthless assholes because (1) they are too truthful (2) they can’t get girls because they’re too truthful (3) they are surrounded by big, strong, handsome, dumb, popular goyim who want to use them and squeeze them (4) the world is full of assholes and sharks(with many being hostile to Jews), and the only way to succeed is out-asshole and out-shark them. The movie begins with Zuckerberg speaking very honestly to a girl. He’s blunt and truthful, but that turns the girl off. So, the first lesson he learns is that you are rejected for saying it like it is. You won’t get any pussy if you speak your mind--if you’re a honest Jew. But what was he being so blunt and truthful about? About being accepted to elite(and not-so-secret)clubs at Harvard. He obsesses about superiority because he wants to be ‘popular’. And he honestly argues that status matters to his girlfriend, and of course it does. But she feels insulted by it because he’s a Harvard guy and she’s a Boston U girl. She senses condescension on his part.
So, Zuckerberg is introduced as a both a lonely outsider(a Jew at that)who’s locked out of top clubs/societies(which are presumably still controlled mostly by big tall rich wasps!) at Harvardowicz AND as a guy with the balls to speak the truth. Well, double-whammy for him. Not only does he lack the physical/ethnic attributes required for inclusion into elite clubs but his honest discussion on the matter drives his girl away. (The narrative of the Jew-rejected-by-wasp-world-then-going-off-to-create-an-alternative-and-indeed-bigger-empire-of-his-own is, of course, the legend of Hollywood itself. Zuckerberg’s failure to be accepted by established exclusive clubs but then embarking to create a worldwide club--Facebook--where he’s the undisputed emperor fits into this grand narrative.)
No club, no girl. What a victim, eh? So, what does the jerk do? He strikes back at the girl and the entire Harvard community by devising an online quiz that attracts the attention of thousands of students and scandalizes the college community. He’s clever and brilliant but hasn’t yet learned to channel his personal angst toward something more useful. But his little stunt attracts the attention of the Winklevoss twins who look like Nazi SS clones. WinklevoSS are from a very rich family, we are told, and they are members of the most elitist club at Harvard. Their idea is to hire Zuckerberg as their nerd-geek-Nibelung-worker-ant to do all the hard work while they themselves spend most of their time at being ‘big men on the campus’. Zucker is their sucker. Winklevoss twins are Odin and Thor trying to steal the ring of power from the Nibelung Jew. As in the Nibelungen myth, Zucker does steal the basic idea(clump of Rheingold) from the Winkles, but it is he who crafts it into something of real genius, promise, and power.
A close partner of the Winklevosses is an Asian-Indian guy named Divya Narendra(Max Minghella), who’s also a member of the exclusive club--which kind of undercuts Sorkin’s point that it’s an Aryan-Nazi organization for only blonde-and-blue-eyed supermen. But, there is this image of the Asian-Indian as a toady-sidekick of whites, especially the Anglos who ruled India for two centuries. Narendra may be tough-as-nails, but he’s essentially presented as a minority who wants to be accepted into the Wasp order. Consider the casting itself. The real-life Narendra looks rather hunky and manly, but the actor in the movie looks kinda small and effete. He’s like a small Asian sucking up to whites. Also, the real-life Winklevosses strike me as more gangly than superhuman-like. Sure, they were rowing stars, but rowing is for ath-geeks, not for the best athletes. In this youtube video:
the Winkles come across a couple of awkward kids than awesome SS Aryan-overlords that the movie makes them out to be. Also, they seem to be dumb as a doorknob in real life. In the movie, they seem like very smart people who, however, aren’t smart enough for the big times. They take pride in their 3.9 G.P.A. which is good, but the movie begins by informing us that Zucker got a perfect score on the SAT. So, Winkles’ great pride in their G.P.A.--especially in an era of grade inflation--is like a basketball player boasting that he scores 15 pts a game. Impressive indeed... except to someone who scores 30 pts a game. Zucker, the 30 pt scorer, doesn’t wanna play second-fiddle to Twinkle Doo and Twinkle Dum.
Anyway, what’s truly hilarious about the youtube video is that the Winklevosses are dumb enough to think SOCIAL NETWORK is on their side. With Wasps this dumb and clueless, no wonder Jews control everything. SOCIAL NETWORK should really be called ‘social networking’--among Jews that is. It is nothing more than a Sorkin-Zuckerberg-Hollywood tag-team match to justify Jewish power and make us feel sympathy for the Jew. It’s like what Marx Brothers did to rigidly dimwit goyim in their movies. Sure, Groucho, Chico, and Harpo might get on each other’s nerves sometimes, but they always work TOGETHER to mess up goyim far worse. Take the lemonade scene in DUCK SOUP. Initially, it seems like Chico and Harpo are getting in each other’s hairs, but they then collaborate to drive the goy lemonade seller crazy. (In a way, Groucho, Chico, and Harpo represent the trinity of the Jewish soul. Groucho is the dandy who feigns respectability to rub shoulders with elite goyim. He plays it slick. Chico is the aggressive Jew with boundless chutzpah and daring. Harpo plays the dumb-and-deaf Jew who subversively works to humiliate the unsuspecting goyim. Look at any powerful Jew, and he employs Groucho-ism, Chico-ism, and Harpo-ism. As a Groucho-ist, he acts like he wants to join the club and go along. As a Chico-ist, he sticks his nose into everything. As a Harpo-ist, he acts helpless and weak--by invoking the Schmolocaust--, but is indeed using that ‘weakness’ to maximize his strength. Btw, if Holocaust is the historical event itself, ‘schmolocaust’ is what Jews have made of the event to further their power.)
I’m not saying Sorkin and Zuckerberg got together and made this movie in a conspiratorial plot to fool us. No, Jews don’t need to do this--not all the time anyway--because there’s an unspoken understanding among Jews as to who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them’. Whatever negative feelings and doubts Sorkin may have about Zuckerberg, Zucker is still a figure and symbol of Jewish prowess, genius, brilliance, ambition, power, and mastery. So, Sorkin was bound to side with Zuckerberg against all his rivals and enemies. Simply put, Jews stick together. But, judging by their interview on youtube, the real-life Winklevosses don’t seem to realize this. Because the movie shows Zuckerberg to be an ‘asshole’ who stole ideas from others and betrayed a dear friend, the dimwit Winkles have concluded that the movie is harshly critical of Zuckerberg and indeed on their side. ROTFLMAO!!! These Winkles are to Sorkin what Elmer Fudd is to Bugs Bunny. They just don’t get it. While the movie does present Zuckerberg as often rude, resentful, dishonest, cunning, and ruthless, those negative traits are contextualized and thereby rationalized/justified. Zuckerberg’s assholism is explained as a defense mechanism against the world that is hostile toward people like him. Indeed, Zuckerberg isn’t even presented as a typical Harvard student but as the perpetual outsider. Even though he attends Harvard, he’s not allowed into any cool clubs. He hasn’t much access to good-looking women, and the one cute girlfriend he has dumps him. He’s a poor sad lonely lad. And though he may be a jerk, he doesn’t know he’s being a jerk because he’s so damned honest and brash.
When the movie begins, we’re made to feel Zucker might have been content if he’d been admitted into an elite club and popular with girls. But feeling rejected--like Alberich in the opening of Wagner’s Nibelungen--, he immerses himself in revenge against not only the girl but against the entire Harvard community. The online quiz he creates pits the faces of various students against one another in a kind of ‘beauty contest’. The Jew, feeling angry with the world, creates discord and dissension among people of the world. So far in the movie, one is inclined to see Zucker as a serious jerk. But we also root for him because his mischief is irresistible. And since most viewers of the movie are not Harvardites, what do we care if Zucker is pricking the egos of Ivy League students? (Besides, Zucker artfully taps into the cruelty latent in everyone’s soul. Even as Harvard students find the quiz pretty nasty and mean-spirited, they can’t get enough of it. Everyone has both a superiority complex and inferiority complex, however repressed both may be in our ‘egalitarian’ PC order. People like to feel superior to others and like to hate others who are deemed superior--in looks, intellect, athleticism, riches.)
SOCIAL NETWORK is an Art House version of REVENGE OF THE NERDS. Or maybe it’s something like revenge of the freaks--freakdom being the specialty of Howard Stern. The appeal of the Stern show is predicated on the notion that most of humanity is misshapen, ugly, and freakish--if one takes a close look--, so Howard Stern’s wild antics and his rise as the ‘king of all media make all the ‘losers’ empowered, or at least relevant. One wonders to what extent Stern is a real freak or a clever shyster exploiting the mass-neurosis of freakdom. Maybe if Travis Bickle had listened to his show, he wouldn’t have felt so isolated. (If Stern’s message is “we are all ugly but ugly is powerful if we all unite”, Oprah’s marketing ploy is “we are all beautiful if Oprah loves us and we love her.” If our love can transform a fat ugly black woman into a soulful beauty, maybe her love can make us beautiful too. It’s the feeling that counts, after all. Of course, while most people get feelings, Oprah and her Jewish masters get the dough. I’ll bet they FEEL just a little bit better than most people.)
Much has been said about the duality of the Jew, and perhaps there is a dual aspect to Jewish ugliness as well. Though it’d be wrong to say all or even most Jews are hideously ugly, some Jews do indeed look really unpleasant: Woody Allen and Barbra Streisand. And their obnoxious or pushy personality--as well as arrogance and contempt--can make them seem even uglier than they really are. Alan Dershowitz may not be horribly ugly, but his vile personality makes him one of the most repulsive people on the planet. Jewish ugliness can be used to set Jews apart from other races, but it can also make most people identify with Jews. (A French taxi driver once said he loves Woody Allen movies because he can identify with the Jewish comedian. Allen, like most people, is ugly. But he gets the girls, and so, by identification with Allen, all the ugly guys down on their luck can fantasize about making it too. It helps that while many Jews are low in the looks department, they are high in the brains department. Brains, more than looks, lead to riches and power. So, when ugly Jews gain power and wealth, many ugly goyim maybe actually feel identification with than resentment toward the Jew.) Antisemites, Nazis especially, formulated a dichotomy of the noble handsome ‘Aryan’ vs the noxiously hideous Jew. ‘Aryans’ owned all of beauty while Jews owned all of ugliness. But the problem is that most white gentiles are not handsome or anything special. (Similarly, the GOP’s appeal to the rich and successful has its downside. Though most people wanna be rich and successful, most people simply are not and will never be. So, all this ‘low taxes for the rich’ and ‘have-nots are a bunch of sore losers’ rhetoric of the GOP drives many people away.) This was certainly true of many Nazis themselves. Hitler looked like a shabby child of Satan, Goebbels looked like a geek, Hess looked like a dumbass, Himmler looked like a dork, etc. Goering was actually a good-looking guy before he turned into Mr. Lardass. And there are plenty of Germans who look Neanderthal, pig-necked, and Teutonic, like the Shirley Stoller in SEVEN BEAUTIES. Given most people are plain or ugly, they might identify more with the ‘ugly Jew’ than with the ‘handsome Aryan’. Most guys may wanna look like Sean Connery, but their looks may be more on the level of Sacha Cohen. While it’s true that most men aren’t as ugly as Woody Allen--even among Jews, he is one ugly motherfuc*er--, they may still identify with or root for him in the way they did with Charlie Chaplin. They wanna see the little tramp trump the big guys. And maybe this is one of the appeal of SEX AND THE CITY. Sarah Jessica Parker is an hideously ugly Jewess, but if she’s supposed to be sexy and getting all the guys, there may yet be hope for all the other women who aren’t much for looks either. So, even though the Jews are the big winners of modern society, the powerful members of the elite, they do play on a cheesy populism where their underdog Davidian victory over Goliathans of the world is supposed to embody the repressed dreams of the masses of geeks, freaks, dorks, and uglies who remain losers in life. Jews win power as ruthless and brainy winners but also garner sympathy as perennial underdogs fighting against all odds.
For the Jew to win ‘against the odds’ in a hostile world, Jews must themselves be hostile. Kevin Macdonald formulated the theory of Jews as a ‘hostile minority’, but Jews have long seen the world in terms of the ‘hostile majority’. The only way for Jews to survive and thrive in such a world is to be devious/subversive or pushy/tough. Take Bob Dylan and his Jewish manager in the movie DON’T LOOK BACK. Dylan is a nasty Jew and his manager is a pushy Jew. (Allen Klein, manager of the Stones, in the 60s, was also a very tough Jew.) Though Dylan often acted the jerk and asshole, it was just the kind of rebel-image that the counter-culture generation found irresistible. Dylan, as their representative, could really stick it to The Man.
Jewish toughness is inseparable from Jewish ego. East Asians, being of a culture with greater emphasis on loyalty, obedience, humility, and respect, have smaller personal or individual egos. Therefore, most Orientals are content to go along and get along. Also, since most of East Asian history is about East Asians ruled by other East Asians, submission to higher authority could still make one feel empowered. A Japanese guy who bows down to his superiors still takes pride in the collective power of Japan. The history of Jews, on the other hand, long dwelt in the lands of goyim. Since Jews saw themselves--and were seen by the goy majority--as a people apart, Jews only feigned loyalty to goyim. Jews felt no natural affinity for goyim--though Jewish men had explosive Portnoic dynamite hardons for blonde shikses. Jewish success and power didn’t make Jews feel successful and powerful AS JEWS; no matter how rich or privileged, Jews felt as dependent sidekicks caught between goy elites and goy masses; Jews felt they had to undignifiedly suck up to goy elites for protection from the angry goy masses. (Now that Jews have totally taken over as Western elites--and with goy elites sucking up to Jews--, Jews fear goy masses more than goy elites, the typical representatives of whom are Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, both competing for the privilege of licking the rectum of the Jew. Though Jon ‘Stewart’ Lebovich mocks Republicans for toadying up to Jewish power, he doesn’t mention that this is so because Jews are all-powerful in America, with control of media, government, Wall Street, law firms and courts, academia, Silicon Valley, Big Pharma, Hollywood, etc. Gingrich and others are whores to Jews because Jews are the pimp elites of America. But Stewart ignores the context and blames the whores instead of the pimps, not least because pimps are Jewish just like himself.) And once Jews realized, especially since the 19th century following Emancipation, that they were smarter than goyim, they began to feel even more contempt for goyim. Prior to this knowledge of their intellectual superiority, Jews had felt victimized for spiritual reasons. But once Jews knew of their own superior smarts, they felt oppressed by the brute dumbness of goyim. This is why Jews rail against anti-intellectualism as a hidden form of antisemitism. Whether it’s the mindless lunacy of the Nazis or braindead gushing of the Christian Right, Jews see it as the brute animal passions of dumb goyim. This isn’t to say that Jews really want to intellectually elevate the goy. While Jews do have a genuine appreciation of intellectualism, they also fear that goyim may become more dangerous and formidable if goyim were to adopt what Kevin MacDonald calls the Culture of Critique and learn to think rationally and independently. After all, genuinely honest and independent thinking based on facts, reason, and science would reveal the following truths: Jews are smarter, Jews are mostly liberal/left and have an agenda to undermine white power, Jews and Negroes have formed a political alliance against whites, Jews are pushing the filthy radical gay agenda, Jews control Wall Street-Hollywood-Government and much else. Jews would be frightened if masses of white goyim discovered and discussed the REAL TRUTH in terms that are intellectual and rational. So, even though Jews champion intellectualism as an ideal, they don’t want white goyim to think intellectually but to be indoctrinated with pat pseudo-intellectualisms defined by Jewish interests and biases. What Jews think and say in their own world behind closed doors and what Jews say publicly are two different things. Jews know they are smarter; they know they’re using the Negroes and Illegal Aliens against white people. In private, Jews know the planets revolve around the Sun. But publicly, Jews impose a kind of Social Ptolemy-ism on the goyim. They come up with ever loopier and more ridiculous arguments to prove that ‘race is just a myth’, ‘there are no significant racial differences’, ‘Jews are not smarter and don’t enjoy special power and privilege in America’, etc, etc. Sure, Pakistanis run the US media and Wall Street is owned by Iranians; and illegal immigration and more ‘diversity’--more illegal invaders from the South and more hideous Negroes from Africa--are just wonderful for EVERYONE in this country. Jews take us for fools, but then many of us are fools because we swallow everything Jews shove down our throats hook, line, and sinker.
Most goyim don’t even see the irony between Jewish style/behavior and Jewish claims. After all, so much of Jewish pride is premised on the notion of the Jew-as-outsider-subversive, and Jews really revel in this shtick--and even show it off. We have Larry David pissing on Jesus and Sarah Silverman joking about wanting to kill Jesus all over again. Yet, we are also supposed to believe that Jews are American as apple pie, the most kind and generous people, the most friendly and warm folks on Earth, and etc. This is like having someone spit in your face and then praising him as your favorite neighbor on the block. If a Jew raped your mother, you’d probably say he was just spreading the love around.
Yet, it all makes sense when we consider two things: Jews can’t help but be nasty, cunning, vile, vicious, and tough. It’s just in their biological and cultural nature. If a Jew tried to be nice and normal, he would go crazy. Woody Allen has to be Woody Allen, Alan Dershowitz has to be Alan Dershowitz, Bob Dylan has to be Bob Dylan, Jonathan Rosenbaum has to be Jonathan Rosenbaum, Naomi Klein has to be Naomi Klein, Ayn Rand had to be Ayn Rand, Karl Marx had to be Karl Marx, Pauline Kael had to be Pauline Kael, Michael Savage has to be Michael Savage, Mark Levin has to be Mark Levin, Elliot Spitzer has to be Elliot Spitzer, Howard Stern has to be Howard Stern. They can try to be nice, but being nice doesn’t come naturally to Jews... anymore than acting vanilla comes naturally to Negroes. For most Negroes, acting white is a tactic to toy with the white boy. A Negro only truly feels like himself when he be acting like a jiveass motherfuc*er.
Jews equate niceness with stupidity or simplemindedness--like good table manners for children or obedience for dogs. Jews, possessed of huge egos, feel they must speak their minds and express their profound thoughts, even or especially if they ruffle the feathers. After all, was God afraid to express His wrath with mankind? No, God said it like it was. So, the modern liberated Jew feels the same way. He or she must say it like it is because he or she knows The Truth. (Of course, as with most things, Jews play a two-faced sneaky game. On the one hand, Jews relish playing the rude crude clever cunning subversive bundle of vitality challenging the powers-that-be. In the 50s and 60s, Jews took pride in figures like Lenny Bruce, Allen Ginsberg, and Norman Mailer and in the way they shook up the ‘bourgeois’ mores of wasp-dominated society. At a time when wasps were still at the top and Jews were still climbing--albeit rapidly--, it was in the interest of Jews to shake the foundations of society as much as possible to make wasp elites fall from the top. So, the main Jewish message to the masses of goyim was, “act wild and crazy and do and say whatever you feel like.” But once the wasp-dominated order faded and the Jewish-dominated order took over, Jews were suddenly less enthusiastic about ‘wild and crazy’ goy masses. After all, what if all those Woodstock freaks were one day to become Neo-Nazis? Wild passions can go either way: left or right, pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish. Since Jews got rid of traditional mores, morals, and values--associated with wasp control of society--, Jews had to find new social controls, and that was political correctness. This is where Cass Sunstein and Steve Pinker have much in common. So, one can still act like ‘wild and crazy’, BUT it must never be against favored groups such as Jews, gays, Negroes, and illegal aliens. To be sure, it’s okay for non-whites to feel ‘wild and crazy’ hatred against whites, but whites must not feel any ‘wild and crazy’ feelings toward non-whites, especially toward Jews and Negroes--unless it’s wild and crazy mudshark lust for Negro studs. It’s a kind of Jewish mind over Wasp manner. Jews know that ‘wild and crazy’ attitude among goy masses is useful to the extent that it undermines the moral unity/harmony of goy society; but Jews also know ‘wild and crazy’ attitude can morph into ‘virulent antisemitism’ or ‘rabid racism’; and so, Jews have found a way to mold and shape ‘wild and craziness’ according to PC dictates. So, a white goyess can shake her ass like a wild ape and howl like a monkey while having sex with ‘niggaz’, but she cannot say ‘nigger!’)
Now, this Jewish egotism--like Negro wildassism--can be off-putting to lots of white goyim. In extreme cases, white goyim can be driven mad by the crazy ego of the Jew and develop something like National Socialism. So, even as the modern Jew drives everyone crazy, he tries to convince the masses of goyim that he speaks for them. Consider how Karl Marx and Ayn Rand claimed to be speaking for all of humanity. Thus universalized, the massively crazy Jewish ego is legitimized and even romanticized. Jewish nastiness and toughness are hyped as great passion, powerful moral vision, inspired revelation of the great truth.
And this is no less true of the movie SOCIAL NETWORK. Now, I’m not here to belittle Zuckerberg’s achievements or deny his place in the pantheon of American business greats. Still, it could be that the real Zuckerberg is an asshole and a weasel without any scruples whatsoever. What I find most offensive about the movie is its trying to have the cake and eat it too. On the one hand, Sorkin pretends to be exposing and critiquing the real Zuckerberg, no holds barred. The movie does have the feel of tough journalism. Yet, upon closer inspection, it is more mythmaking than journalism, more fabrication than fact. It is also essentially an argument for the defense, though I suppose dimwits like the Winklevosses are too dumb to figure this out. The words that spew out of Jesse Eisenberg’s mouth have the ring of final truth. And even when Eisen-Zuckerberg doesn’t win by argument, he comes off better through attitude, smart one-liner, ad hominem attack, or just plain goofiness. (It’s like the hip people sided with Dylan even when he was being a total prick in DON’T LOOK BACK against people who meant him no harm--especially the TIME reporter.) In the legal proceedings, Eisen-Zuck(or maybe the character ought to be called Sorkinberg)pretty much has the last word: Winklevosses are presented as spoiled and pampered preppie Wasps with an entitlementality who always got everything handed to them on a silver platter, and so they deserved to get their comeuppance by being bitch-slapped by a feisty Jew. Never mind the legal issue involved; in our politically correct era of anti-white-male rage, such ad hominem attack is honey to the ears of many people, even white males who’ve been castrated into liberal pussyboys. But, the howler is that the real-life Winklevoss twins think the movie is on their side. What a couple of sorry morons. They are so stupid that I’m almost inclined to agree with Eisen-Zuck that they don’t deserve all the cash and prizes.
A bigger problem dilemma arises with the legal issues involving Eduardo Saverin. Not only was Saverin a close friend of Zuckerberg but he’s Jewish to boot. It was a Jew stabbing another Jew in the back. Though, based on the movie, Zuckerberg did pull a dirty one on Saverin, we can’t help feel that Zuckerberg did the right thing by doing the wrong thing. Saverin, though a loyal friend and smart guy, also comes across as weak, wimpy, pathetic, pitiful, and a pushover--until it’s too late. The one time he really stands his ground is after getting fuc*ed real bad and then taunted by Sean Parker. (In some ways, it’s as if Zucker and Parker did him a favor by toughening him up a bit in a dog-eat-dog world.) But at the legal proceedings, he’s back to his pussy-putty self, at times even unable to face Zuckerberg and look him in the eye.
As a Brazilian Jew, Saverin lacks the chutzpah fervor of the American Jew. He’s to Jewishness what Samba is to blackness: too mellow. Jews in America defined modern Jewishness while Latin-American Jews, no matter how successful, tended to be more quiet, more eager to get along--perhaps because Latin America had weaker rule of law, Jews had to be more sensitive about whom they had to cozy up to(as in the Old World). In America, in contrast, not only did Jews enjoy more protection in the way of rule of law but they came to control the law itself. (Also, American wasps, perhaps the most principled elites and people in the world history,
magnanimously stepped aside when Jews bettered them in the game of power. Of course, there has long been a history of wasp/white privilege, prejudice, and preferences throughout American history, but when we compare the principles/practices of American wasp power to those of other elites throughout world history, Wasps come across in flying colors. Would Jews have risen so high and so fast in America if non-Wasps had founded, defined, and settled America? Of course not. But ungrateful and disgusting Jews only highlight the dark side of Wasp history and keep sticking it to the Wasps as uniquely evil. Worse, idiot Wasps do nothing but praise the Jew at every turn, when any virile Wasp should look the Jew right in the face and see him for what he is.) So, American Jews not only rose as high as they could but now employ the law as a stick to shove up everyone’s ass.
Saverin, from the very beginning, represents very much the Old School Jew who is anxious not to ‘rock the boat’. (Zuck, in contrast, not only rocks but overturns the boat of the Aryan Clones.) He seems as if he’d be perfectly happy if Wasps accepted him into their club, find a cute-enough girl, and make enough money--millions than billions. Early in the movie, we see him at a Jewish club or fraternity, and we are supposed to believe that poor Harvard Jews must make do with leftovers. They put on a cheapie party, and the kind of women they attract are short Asian chicks who can’t dance than ‘Aryan’ goddesses. (This is hilarious when we consider the fact that powerful Jews in government, Hollywood, porn, Wall Street, and etc use blonde shikses as pussy meat all night and day.) Presumably, according to Sorkin, the real lords of Harvard are wasp jocks like Winklevosses who not only belong to the most prestigious clubs but have gorgeous blondes bussed to their palaces for EYES WIDE SHUT-style high class orgies. (I don’t know if any of this is true, but my gut instinct tells me Sorkin is a lying disgusting Jew.)
In all these Hollywood movies, Jews are either sympathetic outcasts or helpless saps. Take MEAN GIRLS, where the nastiest girl is a blonde while a Jewess turns out to be not-so-mean but only eager-to-please the meaner goyesses. Oy vey(when it’s not ‘goy gay’, a big agenda of the Jew). Anyone who’ve been around Jews know this is a just a lot of crock. Jewish American Princesses are among the nastiest, most vicious, vile, disgusting, hideous, venal, venomous, sadistic, cruel, and obnoxious scumbitches on Earth. Some of them are even worse than Jewish males.
Anyway, Saverin in the movie fits the template of the Jewish weakling without balls. Though Saverin provides crucial help to Zuckerberg at the outset, he soon oscillates, hesitates, and mopes until Facebook is finally brought to fruition WITHOUT his input. So, even though Zuckerberg did pull a dirty trick and cheated Saverin out of what would have been many billions, there’s no real sense of outrage. It’s like when Michael Corleone in the GODFATHER saga demotes Tom Hagen and exiles(and then finally knocks off)Fredo. Saverin is like half Hagen, half Fredo. He’s smart like Hagen, but he lacks passion and red-blood cells(especially of Jewish tribalism). He conforms too closely to business-as-usual to ever possess the vision thing. Remember that Tom Hagen’s argument for making the deal with Sollozzo(aka The Turk) in THE GODFATHER was logical and rational, but then, TOO logical and rational given what had happened--Sollozo’s attempt on Don Corleone’s life. Michael, in contrast, plays it like it’s all business but really takes it all personally in the Sicilian manner. Eisen-Zuck similarly acts like it’s all just business, but he’s riled up by the Jewish identity of resentment and revenge.
Saverin is also like Fredo because he comes across as weak, unsure, and beset with an envy(of the impotent kind). Zuckerberg is full of envy too but has the ruthless will to fight and defeats the objects of his envy. He knows how to turn feelings of inadequacy into fuel for power. Saverin, in contrast, just looks flustered when others humiliate or step all over him. When he first meets Sean Parker, his envy and resentment render him confused and disoriented, and it really shows. Saverin is someone who cannot handle the potent drink of power. His face goes flush; he’s overcome with paralysis. (Saverin is also more Mr. Profit than Mr. Prophet. Paradoxically, it’s his focus on profit that makes him unsuited to make the really big profit. He’s satisfied with hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars. He doesn’t even dream to believe that Facebook could be a golden goose of billions, even tens of billions. When he sees cash, he wants to grab it while the going is good than risk everything by going for bigger stakes. Zuckerberg loves profit too, but Facebook for him is more than a cash cow. It is a means to gain power and control over friendkind. If Marx gave the world modern communism, Zuckerberg gives the world modern companionism. Zuck is the ultimate propheteer.)
So for Zuckerberg to go where he’s going, he’s gotta throw Saverin overboard. It’s like when the Beatles got rid of Pete Best, or when The Who replaced their first drummer with Keith Moon. Zuckerberg believes he has the next great idea(or maybe the greatest idea that internet could ever come up with), and it is Sean Parker who understands(and cleverly exploits) his dreams, motivations, and hyper-ambition. Increasingly, Parker becomes Zuckerberg’s guru(even a doppelganger) while Saverin feels more like dead weight. In ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, Max betrays Noodles(and Patsy and Cockeye)because he has bigger dreams. Noodles is content with what he has whereas Max wants to shoot to the top. Ironically, Max has to do something monstrous to earn legitimacy in high society(under the cover of new identity). Of course, there is a difference between Noodles and Saverin. Noodles is a tough guy with limited ambition whereas Saverin has the ambition but not the toughness. Saverin really doesn’t know what he wants in life. Even his love life is rather pitiful. He has a not-so-pretty Asian slut girlfriend who pushes him around. What kind of Jewish guy gets pussy-whipped by a Chinese-American bitch? He has no balls, no guts, no nothing. He has brains and amiable personality, but they aren’t enough in the game of winner-takes-all. Like sports, business is not won by nice-guy antics alone.
And so, Zuckerberg’s betrayal of Saverin is made to appear like a necessary evil. If you’re gonna go to the top, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Blood must be spilt. Saverin just didn’t have it.
There is a scene in Kurosawa’s RAN where the second son watches his fallen father, traumatized into madness, wander off into the mist. The son’s right-hand man tells him, what’s done is done and there is no going back. Saverin’s problem is he doesn’t invest himself 100% into the project but then later expects his full share when the company’s star begins to rise. He learns the hard way that if you don’t have the hardon for the big pussy in the sky, you get it in the ass.
Of course, this is all according to the script by Sorkin, a dirty sniveling Jew. The script seems less interested in journalism and veracity than spinning a narrative apologia for Jewish power and hostility. Within this context, the likes of Saverin must be kept on the sidelines, just as Fredo is given ‘mickey mouse’ jobs in THE GODFATHER saga. The Corleones simply cannot trust Fredo with things that really matter. Fredo didn’t even know he was being set up by Roth and Johnny Ola in an attempt hit on Michael. Worse, Fredo doesn’t even know himself; subconsciously, he may indeed have wanted to kill Michael when he made the deal with Roth. Saverin, unlike Fredo, has brains, but like Fredo, he’s ‘weak’. He has no balls, and also like Fredo, he doesn’t know or trust himself. He’s a pushover Jew than a pushy Jew. (To be sure, SOCIAL NETWORK may also highlight the Jew-vs-Jew narrative to dispel any ‘myths’ about Jews sticking together. During the Madoff scandal, the Jew-controlled-media went out of their way to report that helpless decent Jews were ripped off one bad Jew--while ignoring the fact that Madoff first ripped off non-Jews to fatten his fellow tribal brethren & sistren before finally failing them as well. So, sniveling Sorkin could well be playing it both ways, something that comes naturally to weasels of his tribe. Similarly, remember that Jews played it both ways with South Africa. Zionists appealed to ‘white nationalist’ support by arguing that Jews and Afrikaners were in the same boat: beacons of Western Civilization surrounded by murderous savages and barbarians. But Jews also supported black seizure of power in South Africa by arguing that Jews and blacks are fellow victims of ‘white racism’. Never trust a Jew, who looks upon goyim as dummies to exploit and manipulate.)
And so, within Sorkin’s Jew-centric context, we naturally side with big-balled Eisen-Zuck over limp-dicked Saverin. Zucker may be a fucke*, but he’s a badass motherfuc*er. He lives by the rule: ‘you fuc* the other guy’s mother before he fuc*s your mother. Of course, Jews in business don’t kill one another like the mafia do. Instead, they settle things through lawyers--most of them probably being Jewish themselves--, and everyone gets a piece. (Or Jews use their control of the media to character-assassinate anyone they don’t like as ‘anti-Semites’ or ‘racists’, destroying their careers for all practical purposes. Indeed, Jews ‘destroyed’ many more careers than Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover ever did. Jewish media constitute a kind of media-mafia or mefia. And with control over 100s of millions of eyes, ears, hearts, and minds of Americans, Jewish assassinations are far more effective than any literal killings by dumb Italian-American ‘greaseballs’.) But just think: Zuckerberg is now worth over 20 billion while Winkles had to settle for tens of millions--peanuts in comparison. Saverin’s settlement was better than that of the Winkles, but he too got screwed over. (By the way, the counterpart of the Winkles in THE GODFATHER movies would be Senator Geary. Though Winkles don’t explicitly say anything about Jews, the first two encounters between them and Zuck read like: “Hey, ugly little Jew who can’t even keep a girlfriend. How about you work for us Aryan hunks, and maybe we’ll throw you a crumb? Maybe we’ll even let you have a piece of our leftover whores? And here’s a HAM sandwich, you sewer rat Jew, Haha. Now, fuc* off and work on the program, dirty Jew, and call us when it’s finished.” Remember the scene in ANNIE HALL where Allen--as Alvy Singer--complains that someone said “Jew eat?” instead of “Did you eat?” and that some big tall ‘Aryan’-looking guy went up to him and said there’s a sale on Wagner records? The script of SOCIAL NETWORK might as well have been written by Alvy-Woody-Singer-Allen. The basic conceit also has something in common with REVERSAL OF FORTUNE, a movie that presented the upper crust Wasp society as one of snotty entitlement while the Jew Dershowitz was presented as a noble crusading lawyer who took on the famous case just to raise funds to save two helpless innocent black kids from the death penalty. The kids on death penalty were white in real life, but Jews love to promote the myth of Jewish compassion for blacks as a cover for Jewish power. Anyway, the Zuck vs Winkles dynamic in SOCIAL NETWORK follows the style of Wasp vs Jew in REVERSAL OF FORTUNE and in Firing Line debates where William F. Buckley squared off against Dershowitz, who usually whupped Buckley’s butt. Feistiness with wit beats dryness with wit, especially if the feisty wit is superior to the dry one.)
We aren’t only encouraged to root for Eisen-Zuck as the underdog-Jew against the Twinklevoss Nazi twins and favor Eisen-Zuck the tough Jew over the wimpy Jew Saverin but also made to think more highly of Eisen-Zuck than of Sean Parker. If Saverin is to Zuck what Fredo was to Michael Corleone, Parker is to Zuck what Sonny was to Michael. Remember Sonny had big balls. He was a tough guy, in some ways tougher than Michael. He was a real man, real badass. But he was careless and got over his head. He sometimes let his emotions get the better of him. Though Parker isn’t a hothead like Sonny, he’s too much of a wild party animal and gets in trouble, endangering his relations with Zucker. If Saverin is too wimpy-careful, Parker is to wild-careless. Indeed, though Parker takes great pride in his Napster enterprise/stunt, the fact is it failed because he relished being a bad boy than trying to work out some long-term solution and compromise. Though Zuck is fascinated and impressed by the bad boy side of Parker, he doesn’t just wanna make a splash but swim long distance. So, if Saverin is too afraid of the water and if Parker splashes around too much, Zuck has the mind and concentration to swim across vast distances. So, Zuck wins again in the hearts and minds of the movie audience.
Though SOCIAL NETWORK seems to the draw, consciously or subconsciously, from THE GODFATHER movies, it also works like REVENGE OF HYMAN ROTH(or at least his great-grandson). In GODFATHER, the less intelligent Italians with muscle moved in on the smarter Jews who’d envisioned and created Las Vegas. (We are also shown the mafia using its muscle to get what it wants from Woltz the Jewish mogul in Hollywood.) The Sicilian-Americans of the GODFATHER have dual significance in the movie. In one way, they are like surrogate Jews against the Wasp Establishment, but in another way, they are like gentiles at war with Jews. Both Italian-Americans and Jews arrived in huge numbers around the same time, and they went through similar experiences. Both groups had to compete with Wasps, Irish, and other Northern(or whiter)European-Americans for dominance, not least in major cities like New York, Jersy, and Chicago. So, in a way, the rise of the Corleones could be seen as an allegory of rise of immigrant power in the US at the expense of Wasp power; this aspect of THE GODFATHER probably appeals very much to Jews. But the other side of THE GODFATHER is about Italians(or gentiles) vs the Jews. In the first GODFATHER movie, the main nemesis of the Corleones seem to be Sollozzo the drug-dealing Turk, a corrupt Irish cop(with weird skin), and Barzini(and heads of the five families). Yet, there is also Moe Green the Jew. And the first confrontation in the movie is between the Corleones and Woltz the Jew. This is significant because the Jews, unlike Italians, were smart enough to succeed in legitimate enterprises like movie industry and legalized gambling. The less intelligent Italians were into illegal gambling, prostitution, and drugs. In GODFATHER, The Corleones, unlike the sleazy and dumb dagoes of the other families, want to go legitimate. This means they have to move in on something legitimate: Hollywood or Las Vegas. But since gambling is less creative, gambling it is. But since the Italians don’t have the brains to create something like Las Vegas on their own, they must take over what the Jews created, assembled, and organized--just like dumb gentile thugs under Putin muscled out the Jews who set up the new economic order in the post-Soviet Russia. To be sure, Vito Corleone and his son Michael are shown to be exceptionally intelligent. Vito is even shown to be a decent man at heart. In GODFATHER II, we learn that he hadn’t wanted to enter the life of crime but was ‘forced’ by circumstances; even so, he never forgot where he came from, and if someone does him a favor, he will return the favor. Michael is a brilliant, ruthless, and cold-eyed strategist, the only guy who can go head-to-head against Hyman Roth in GODFATHER II. Even so, it is not brains that makes the Corleones come out on top in the end. In part I, when push comes to shove, they must murder the competition in a gruesome bloodbath. And in part II, after Hyman Roth gets the better of Michael, it is not wits but tribalism and muscle that finally puts Michael over the top. If Pentangeli had spilled the beans on Michael, it would have been over for the Corleones. Pentangeli finally sticks to the code of omerta because his brother shows up at the trial and makes him feel ashamed as a ‘rat’; he also fears for his brother. As for Roth, Michael sacrifices one of his henchmen in a hit against the Jew. In the end, it is Italian-gentile muscle that wins over Jewish wits. Part of GODFATHER saga’s appeal is this ‘get the Jew’ element for the goy audience. We all know arrogant asshole Jewish moguls run Hollywood, so how fun to watch a rich powerful Jewboy get scared out of his wits by finding his prize horse dead under his blanket?
Now, take the Scorsese film CASINO which follows a similar trajectory as the GODFATHER movies but from the Jewish POV. Again, the top brains of the operation is a Jew, Ace Rothstein. He knows gambling better than anybody else. At one point, a gentile bigshot calls him the GOLDEN JEW. As long as he’s running the casino, the money keeps rolling in for the ‘greaseball’ mafia bosses. Rothstein is a big guy in Las Vegas and becomes very rich, but he can never be the master of Las Vegas, indeed not even of the Casino he runs. In the end, he’s a hired gun for Italian-American mob bosses and a ‘guest’ to the western-wasp local yokels. The Mob world has little use for the rule of law, except when providing protection for its ‘right’ to rob, cheat, and kill. Italian-Americans, in their clannishness, generally lacked the sense of mutuality so essential to the maintenance of rule of law. Rule of law works only if all sides respect and play fair according to agreed-upon principles. If one side abuses the protection and rights guaranteed by the law to indulge in tribal corruption and crime, others will do likewise, and the rule of law turns into the law of the unruly. What good is the rule of law in a place like Detroit where it means nothing for Negroes but “exploiting the system to take more from honkey”? What good is rule of law in South Africa if it means using the law to grab as much loot as possible?
So, the rule of law means different things to different peoples. For the law-abiding, it means living under lawful social order. For criminal elements, it means hiding behind laws to commit crime. That is the paradox of the Rule of Law. In some cases, the rule of law can lead to greater unlawfulness if society has an excess number of cretins and bums. There was a time when blacks weren’t as crazy and dangerous precisely because they didn’t have full protection under the rule of law. White man sometimes used extra-legal means to remind blacks not to act like ‘crazy niggers’. When blacks gained full protection under the rule of law, it meant the opportunity to get away with a lot of ‘bad shit’. In the past, if a black guy acted out of order, he would be ‘taught a lesson’. But under rule of law, even a scumbag black criminal got legal protection and would often walk away scot-free since the law hadn’t ‘proven beyond a reasonable doubt’ that he was guilty. The thing about Rule of Law is that everyone, even criminals, must have legal protections and their day in court. This gives them a lot of leeway to get away with a lot of things, and this is why the Italian Mafia did much better under democracy than under Mussolini’s Fascist rule.
In CASINO, Ace Rothstein the Jew is smarter than all the Italian-American gumbas and greaseballs put together. But his chosen field is gambling, an illegal-criminal enterprise run by the Italian-American mob. He is liked and valued by the mafia guys because he makes them money, but he cannot be a real insider since he’s a Jew and not one of them. By the 1970s, Jews had gained prominence in many legitimate areas like law, media, medicine, academia, Hollywood, etc, but the illegal world was dominated by non-Jews, with Jews, no matter how smart, serving as sidekicks. (Also, if Jewish gangsters of yesteryear raised their kids to succeed in something other than crime, the kids of Italian gangsters often followed in their dads’ footsteps since they were too dumb to be doctors, lawyers, or professors. If they did go legitimate, it was more likely something like opening a pizzeria or getting a government job; but then, many pizzerias were fronts for the international drug trade.) Ace Rothstein, for whatever reason, chose the world of illegal gambling. No matter how good he was, he rubbed shoulders with hoodlums. (Jewish-Italian relations are as interesting as Jewish-black relations in their blend of mutual affinity--usually at the expense of Wasps--as well as hostility.) But he got the chance to go legitimate when offered the chance to run a casino in Las Vegas, one of the few places where gambling was legal. Of course, the mob bosses back home were skimming off the top--and many or most casinos at the time were indirectly owned by underworld figures--, but Ace finally got a shot at working within the Rule of Law--even if much of the Law was corrupt and compromised. He could become like other successful Jews in more respectable fields. But the problem was Las Vegas was too much a playground for the mob; there were too many criminal elements doing as they pleased, and the local yokel western wasps were tribal and recalcitrant in their own ways. When Ace fires an uh-shucksy ‘stupid white man’ for incompetence, local wasp chieftains try to derail Ace’s hopes of legitimacy. In the end, there is no real or at least perfect Rule of Law. (And given Ace’s own crooked double-dealings, he doesn’t have much of a moral case either.) To the extent that the Rule of Law is supposed to impartially and meritocratically reward the best and the most talented, Rothstein was on firm grounds in his rise to the top. But it was bound to be shaky given the mob’s muscle and local yokel’s clout. Also, especially back in the 1970s, Italian-Americans and western wasps--the cowboy types--tended to be far more ethno-tribal and lacking in ‘white guilt’ bullshit that the Eastern and West Coast wasps(and other white suckers)had fallen for. To the Italian-Americans in CASINO, a Jew is a freaking Jew; he ain’t no specially holy Mr. Holocaust Victim. And western wasps with cowboy hats didn’t like people messing around in their territory. They still had some thick cowhide for flesh. (Of course, with the decline of the mafia and the wasp-ization of Italian-Americans, with states like Nevada filling up with more white liberals and minorities, and with impact of political correctness via mass-media, public education, politics, and popular culture, things surely have changed much since the 1970s and early 80s. Italian-Americans and western wasps too have been considerably faggotized and pussified.) Against those odds, the Jew cannot win in the world of CASINO. He can do very well, but he cannot be the boss. But the movie ends with the implosion of the Italian-American power over Las Vegas. The problem wasn’t so much greed as stupidity, crudity, boorishness, and recklessness. In the end, they were more muscle than brains, and lost to the guys with brains. The Feds finally catch a bunch of them while others massacre one another. When push comes to shove, they only know how to solve matters by killing. Such world is just too stupid and crazy for a Jew to rise to the top in. But, the movie tells us that after the fall of the mafia in Las Vegas, a newer and bigger paradise was built in its place. Instead of the investment cash coming from the mob-owned Teamsters, it came from Jewish-controlled Wall Street. With Jews funding the operations, Jews got to own the whole thing. Since then, Jews have owned Las Vegas more totally than the mafia ever could. Besides, if the mafia had to remain underground and pull the strings from afar, Jews in Las Vegas own and run everything out in the open since they are completely legitimate. Jews really thought big whereas mafia dagoes(or is it dagos)could only act like pigs, with little understanding of the real potential of Las Vegas. Mafia hoods saw the casino merely as a big fat cash cow, a big teat to suck on. For Ace Rothstein and the Jews who later came to own Las Vegas, it was more than just a money-making machine but a dream, like Hollywood was a dream. (As with the rise of Joseph in Egypt in the Genesis, it’s as if modern Jews can dream and see the future. Similarly, Jews negotiate like they play chess. They see many moves ahead in a game of psychological chess or psychess.) Jews couldn’t have succeeded with Hollywood if they’d only obsessed over money. They were swept up with Hollywood’s potential as a Dream Factory. This is what most anti-Semites don’t understand about Jews. They think Jews only care about money and influence, but there’s another element to Jewish power. Jews are fascinated with things of great creative/innovative/visionary potential, such as law, medicine, publishing, movie-making, music-making, gambling and other recreation activities, high-tech, etc. Jews want money but aren’t only in it for money. Though one side of Jewish history is characterized by the money-grubbing merchant, the other side is the rabbinical scholar who seeks the secret to all things. Mark Zuckerberg is no doubt a greedy Jew who wants to be the richest guy in the world, but he didn’t make it through greed/smarts alone. There’s a side to him that’s obsessed with the potential and promise of an idea/vision regardless of its profitability.
In the end, why does Ace Rothstein continue with gambling even after losing his big chance? Win or lose, he had a genuine love of gambling--as an art, craft, science, etc--, which is a lot more than what could be said of dumb Italian gumbas for whom Las Vegas was just a cash cow. There’s a movie by Francis Ford Coppola called TUCKER, and there is a Tucker in every great Jew. He may be a ruthless son of a bitch, but like Tucker, he’s not just after the money but the dream! There is a bit of Tucker in the Zucker. It’s about the geek and his dream.
What Jews couldn’t do in the world of organized crime or ethno-politics--like Irish domination of big city politics--, they could do in the realm of the Rule of Law as instituted and enforced by the Wasp elite. Of course, social rise via the Rule of Law was open to all groups--or at least all white groups--, so why were the Jews the ones to topple the Wasps? Why not the Irish, Polish, Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, etc? Surely, the Wasps didn’t favor the Jews over other white groups. The crucial factor was that non-Jewish/non-Wasp whites weren’t smarter than Wasps, and so Wasps, who’d gotten a head start in America, could maintain control over them. As for the non-Jewish/non-Wasp whites who did make the social climb, their ambition was to be accepted into the Wasp order than challenge and replace it. Some say Jewish success owes to Jewish social-networking, and this has undoubtedly been an important factor, but it doesn’t get to the core of the issue. After all, Italian-Americans were just as or even more tribal than the Jews. And the Irish were notorious for their clannish control of political patronage. Why didn’t they pose a fatal challenge to the Wasp order like the Jews did? Italian-Americans controlled organized crime, and the Irish gained control of some big cities, but they never could gain control of the entire country--though, as individuals, they could gain acceptance into Wasp overlordship. Indeed, non-Wasp whites who rose very high became very much wasp-ized. (Paradoxically, Northern European Protestant culture/community would prove to be both most hostile and hospitable to Jews, and most smart Jews surely understand why it came to be thus. The relative physical purity--lighter skin, Nordic/Celtic features, etc--made Northern Europeans more racially conscious than other European peoples. A Jew in Italy, Greece, or Spain might melt in among the swarthy masses if not for his religious/cultural differences. But the curly haired darker Jew would stick out in Northern Europe. Also, Protestantism was noted for its spiritual puritanism, which could be very intolerant of heretics and blasphemers, among whom were Jews. Though Catholics called Protestants ‘heretics’, Protestantism grew out of a conviction that the corrupt and idolist Papism of the Catholic Church was the true heresy against God. Such attitude could make Protestants even less tolerant of Jews, and indeed Martin Luther came to loathe Jews, almost to the point of wanting to exile and kill a whole bunch of them. Though Southern Catholic Europe was also often hostile toward Jews, the messier cultural/social realities made it easier for Jews to mix in. The legacy of this was evident in the 20th century when we compare Italian Fascist antisemitism with German National Socialist antisemitism. Mussolini and Fascists didn’t like Jews but didn’t wanna kill them either. Also, Italians were too lazy to carry out anything like the Holocaust. Germans, in contrast, were far more purist in their racism and worked hard to murder tons of Jews. So, when Northern European Protestantism is confident and aggressive, it can be very dangerous to Jews. But, there is a flip side to everything, and the other side of Northern European Protestantism can be very conducive to Jewish success. Northern European Protestantism--or NEP from now on--was more orderly, more based on rule of law. A more orderly society is good for business. Since Jews didn’t share the culture of Northern European gentiles, the rule of law made it easier for Jews to deal with non-Jewish communities. In a society where the rule of law is weak, people function and deal according to culture, customs, and connections--and this is true even today in Greece and Southern Italy. In such a place, Jews would be one culture among many and find it difficult to do business with non-Jewish communities. But in society under the rule of law, the law unites all peoples regardless of their race, culture, or ethnicity. There was a common law for all instead of a cultural rule for each distinct group. Another reason NEP could be more hospitable to Jews had to do with blood. Consider the Jewish custom of koshering or bleeding animals they slaughter. Jews are obsessed about their own blood but don’t like the blood of other animals or other peoples. NEP has been bled of cultural distinctness, at least in relative comparison to Southern Catholic cultures. Protestantism’s insistence on sparse expressions, disdain of color and flamboyance, and emphasis on modesty in manners/expressions made it so. Also, Northern Europeans, having evolved in a colder climate, tend to be less emotional than Southern Europeans. A Swede, Briton, German, or Dane is less distinctly ethnic than a Greek, Italian, Portuguese, or Spaniard is. We can see this in food too. Southern Europe is known for strong smells and flavors, for garlic, onions, tomato sauce, etc. Northern European cooking is milder, simpler, and less odorous--some would say boring. English took the cake in culinary boringness with their corned beef, fish and chips, and pudding. And maybe it has to do with Northern European climate than with religion. Irish have long been Catholic but the only thing they eat is potatoes. This colorless blandness made NEP more like a blank slate for the Jews. Suppose Jews have a certain odor, the lox odor. Suppose Italians have the garlic odor, Greek have the olive odor, Spanish have the onion odor, etc. In a world of clashing odors, Jews would offend others while others would offend Jews. But Jews found an odorless people in the world of NEP. It was like they came upon a clean sheet that they could mark with their own odor. Of course, NEP initially detected the strong Jewish odor and felt repelled by the Jew, and this culminated in the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. When NEP had been confident and aggressive, it warded off the Jew as lox-smelling bloody buggers. But after the Holocaust, when it became impermissible to say, detect, or notice anything negative about Jews, NEP had to accept lox odor without complaint. Meanwhile, Jews took over the NEP since, in its morally defensive and guilt-ridden state, it offered a blank slate/blank sheet for Jews to mark with their distinct odor. Jews could approach the NEP like a white virgin lying on a clean white sheet. The Jew could claim and own her for himself by ramming his hairy and throbbing Hebrew cock into the white virgin pussy and popping her cherry in an act of sexual kosherization. Similarly, it’s because America was settled by NEP Wasps that Jews were able to rise so high so fast. Imagine an America founded by ugabuga Africans, superstitious Chinese, tribal Arabs, corrupt Greeks, criminal Italians, cunning Armenians, etc. Jewish culture would have clashed with non-Jewish culture. In contrast, the ideal of NEP culture was cleanliness-is-next-to-godliness, and this applied to law, principles, manners, form, ideals, thought, social order, and etc. Of course, it had also applied to race-ist purity, an element that preserved NEP power from challenges from non-wasps. But once the element of pride in racial purity was castrated--indeed condemned as the worst of all evils--, there was only the purism of the Rule of Law and good manners left. With Wasps having to play the game of power with ‘good manners’ in a spirit of fairness according to Rule of Law--and also in the spirit of redressing past wrongs, as if they alone committed ‘historical sins’--, they were bound to have their ass kicked by Jews.
If Wasps had one smell, it was of soap. Of course, soap has connotations related to the Holocaust--even though Nazi soap has been proven to be a hoax. Germans were somewhat different from Anglos. Though Germans were also into cleanliness and disliked strong odors, their version of NEP was still marked by odor of beer--the smell of tribal community of manliness--and of blood. And of soil. And it was this blood ideology that did most harm to Jews. But once Germans have been kosherized of their blood and made anemic, they too are pure putty in the hands of Jews. This is one reason why American Jews prefer Northern Wasps over Southern Scotch-Irish. Northern Wasps have been bled of their racial and ethnic essence. They are soap, but not Holocaust soap but soap with which wasps wash themselves constantly of any whiff of ‘racism’. Northern wasps are still defined by a certain puritanism, but since it can no longer be racial or religious, it’s practiced in the form of ‘political correctness’, which might be called political puritanism. Perversely, Northern Wasps have become puritanical about the virtue of ‘gay marriage’. In contrast, the Scotch-Irish-Americans of the South, not least because of the constant threat by big strong Negroes, still retain pride in racial ethnicism.) Jews, in contrast, were possessed of considerably higher IQs. If a Wasp with an IQ of 140 was considered very smart, it wasn’t unusual for Jews to have IQs in the 180s. Suppose we use the analogy of sports where teams are dominated by big wasps. Suppose non-wasp groups--Asians, Mexicans, and others--hope to make the team and be accepted by the dominant Wasp teammates. Even if some non-Waps made the team, they wouldn’t be challenging to but instead aspiring to participate in Wasp dominance. But everything changed with the entry of blacks into sports because blacks were considerably stronger, faster, and tougher than the ‘white boys’. Blacks weren’t merely hoping to be accepted by the ‘white boys’ but to whup them, topple them, and then sexually conquer all the white blonde cheerleaders while white boys were reduced to second-string players, bench-warmers, or faggoty maggots in the band. Of course, for a while, blacks did play the Nice Negro while making their climb in the sports world so as not to stoke white male fears. So, Joe Louis, even as he knocked out one white boy after another, acted like just a mellow Negro who never done mean no harm. But when Ali came along, he made sure everyone understand that he’s the Greatest and he feels nothing but contempt for them slow, flabby faggoty-ass white boys. What Negroes be to sports, Jews are to intellectualism and high-tech stuff. Eisen-Zuck of the movie is like a Jewish geek version of Ali. He’s a prick and asshole, but he’s also the Greatest. He kicks everyone’s butt--‘Aryan’ jocks at Harvard, big-time lawyers, bankers, etc. Zuck is so sure of himself that he never breaks into a sweat. If a bank will not provide the capital for his idea, his attitude is “It’s your loss since I’ll be owning the world soon.” He’s a walking talking lean mean chutzpah machine. This is why Jews and Negroes, despite the problems and tensions, understand one another. They are the two groups in America that did most to fuc* and fuc* over the once mighty Wasp America. Jews whupped the wasps with brains, and Negroes whupped the wasps with brawn. Jews and Negroes have also done most to win top white pussy. Big time Jewish lawyers and Hollywood exec bang blonde shikses left and right, treating them like whores. Negro rappers and athletes do the same. And even in poorer communities, many white trash girls go with Negroes while white boys, resentful but too afraid to confront the Negro, hangs a Confederate flag and longs for the good ole days. And in porn, Jews run the industry while Negro studs do the banging of shikse white pussies. Together, Jews and Negroes find orgiastic and orgasmic pleasure in defiling the white woman and humiliating the now wimpy, wussy, and pussified white boy. It’s like the film director James Toback(disgusting Jew) and Jim Brown(wild Negro) had massive orgies with white girls.
And there is a history to this culture of vengeance. In the American South, the white man, fearing the more muscular and bigger-donged Negro, had done everything to keep the Negro down. If a Negro dared to show any sexual interest in a white woman, the white man made sure that the Negro learn his lesson. So, even as the Negro lusted after the white woman, he had to ho-de-ho and act like a Steppin Fetchit Uncle Tom Sambo. The white man suppressed and humiliated Negro manhood to keep the Negro mindful of the rule that the white man was the alpha male and that a Negro was never to touch a white woman. As for the Jews in Europe, the anti-Semites painted Jews as ugly, hideous, and gross. The Nazis especially depicted Jews as disgusting hairy beasts who wanted to defile white women. Of course, there was some validity to white male fears and repugnance with Negroes and Jews. Why would any proud white man want to be reduced to a pussyboy vis-a-vis the naturally tougher/rougher Negro? And who isn’t sickened by the sight of Woody Allen or Ron Jeremy’s vile attitudes and behavior to shikses? The fact that Jewish men prefer shikses over their own women proves that Jews find their own kind uglier; there is a Nazi inside every Jew; this self-loathing makes the Jew lust for white women ever more, which makes him even more angry and hateful toward white beauty that has control over his passions. Jewish lust for white beauty isn’t a form of worship but a fantasy of defilement. Since white beauty possesses the passion of the Jew, Jews seek to possess the body of white beauty and market it as a commodity. The scene where Woody Allen’s character in STARDUST MEMORIES goes to meet his sister is essentially a kind of Jewish antisemitism or auto-semitism. Notice that Allen’s character takes the very attractive Charlotte Rampling to see his sister and her hag friends. Indeed, the movie begins with Allen stuck in a train full of ugly Jews and wanting to switch over to the train with the ‘Aryans’--Sharon Stone is one of them. And PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT by Philip Roth is one long rant about how a hook-nosed Jewish guy’s throbbing whanker has the hots for blonde shikses. Sexually candid Jews have made it amply clear that Nazis weren’t merely paranoid in their depiction of the Jew-as-lustful-defiler-of-Aryan-woman. Jews were dying for white meat and worried they might not get any. But with all the money they made, Jews discovered there were tons of pretty blonde shikses who would gladly suck and fuc* them. This is why Jews aren’t repulsed by Negroes’ taking white women. If many white men feel threatened and intimidated by the Negro conquest of white men, Jews partly identify with the Negro. Just as Jews cheered wildly when Joe Louis knocked out Max Schmeling the Nazi Aryan, they, upon seeing a Negro with a white woman, take satisfaction in the revenge: ‘Aryan’ woman has been defiled and the once great white man has been reduced to a pussyboy. It’s like Negroes are doing the bidding of Jewish vengeance.
Similarly, when Russian troops conquered Germany and raped German women all over the place, German men were reduced to pussyboy status. Powerless to defend their women, they just stood around and watched like limpdick faggots. Nazi Germans thought they were so great, but they got their comeuppance in the worst possible way. Their women were raped by the ‘Asiatic hordes’, and they were too afraid to defend their women. Well, this is how Jews see the sexual reality today. Jews know all about high rates of black-on-white rape. Jews know about the rising mudshark-ization among white women and the pussification of white men. But they ENJOY it because the Jew NEVER FORGETS and NEVER FORGIVES. The Jew still wants revenge for past antisemitism, and that means all white boys must be castrated and all white women must be mudsharkized or suck Jewish cock. Indeed, the sexual psychology of modern America is pretty twisted due to the rise of Negroes and dominance of Jews.
Jews and Negroes pose a threat to the very CORE of white pride and power. Hispanics(mostly Mexican in America) and Asians(Hindus or Chinese)cannot pose the same kind of threat. Mexicans, many of whom are Asiatic in origin--their ancestors crossed the Bering Strait--, and East Asians are neither especially bright nor powerful. East Asian IQ may be around the white IQ, but it’s nothing compared to Jewish smarts. And though Mexicans have produced some notable boxers in the lower weight divisions, they are not a particularly athletic people. The threat posed by Mexicans and East Asians are essentially numerical--though waves of immigration(from Mexico) or group unity(homogeneity of Japan or China). Without huge numbers, neither group is very exceptional, at least in the West. Chinese minority may be special stuff in Southeast Asia, but the Chinese minority in the West can never amass the kind of power and wealth Jews have done. Jerry Yang used to be hot stuff, but notice how he got his ass whupped by Sergey Brin and the other Google guy.
Jews also feel an affinity with blacks because, even after triumphing over the Wasps, they can still exploit history to play the victim card. So, even as Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali pummeled white guys onto the canvas, they are primarily mythologized as victim-rebels standing proud against an unjust order. Even as Jews gained more wealth and power than Waps, they play the beleaguered minority. Historical contextualization gives moral cover to black violence and Jewish venality. When blacks rob, rape, murder, or athletically destroy whites, it is seen as a form of payback, resistance, righteous rage and revenge. When Omar Thorton the Negro thug murdered eight whites, the Jews at NY Times were only interested in the story from the angle of “did Thorton have a right to kill those ‘racists’?” The Ken Burns documentary on Jack Johnson is called UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS, but today, we have the problem of UNFORSAKEN BLACKNESS. Whatever horrors blacks commit, we are either suppose to ignore it or make excuses for it. But same goes for Jews. Jews can rob all they want via Wall Street, wage any wars via federal government, lie all they want via the media, spread all the filth they want via Hollywood, etc. We are simply not allowed to blame Jews because of the historical context that Jews have crammed down our throats. The context says Jews were always poor victims of antisemitic goyim and any criticism of Jews will inevitably lead to another Holocaust. Ironically, if another Holocaust happens, it won’t be because we all want to kill Jews but because Jews will driven people crazy with their lies, abuses, and filth. And it is within this context that SOCIAL NETWORK operates. In the end, we are supposed to side with Zuck because (1) he’s the naturally superior Muhammad Ali among the geeks and (2) he’s an oppressed or at least marginalized member of the Jewish tribe who’s rebelling against injustice. We are supposed to admire him because he’s naturally superior to us and because he’s a sad lad who really needs our sympathy. This way, Jews garner both admiration as both the superior race and sympathy as a suppressed(if not exactly oppressed)race. Jews play on this superior/suppressed dichotomy masterfully, which explains why many people completely misread the real agenda of SOCIAL NETWORK.
Eisen-Zuck resembles none other than Caesar in THE CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. Remember Caesar was presented as both naturally superior and socially inferior to the human race. He was intellectual, brilliant, eloquent, imbued with natural leadership qualities, ruthless, and shrewd. No man could go head-to-head with Caesar. But Caesar, as an ape, couldn’t rise above servant-slave status.
There are three kinds of injustice: (1) superior suppressing the inferior (2) equal suppressing another equal, and (3) inferior suppressing the superior. The first kind is acceptable to most of us. After all, we humans consider ourselves smarter and ‘higher’ than other animals. We believe we have right to be the masters of all other life-forms. We raise livestock and kill them for food. We raise dogs and cats as ‘pets’--when they should be thought of as ‘canine and feline friends’. Vegans and radical ‘animal rights’ groups protest against such treatment, but most of us accept man’s rightful superiority over animals. The moral issue involving animals is less about ‘equal rights’ than ‘humane treatment’. For most people, it’s okay to eat beef as long as we raise and kill cows ‘humanely’. The second kind of suppression/oppression is when one group suppresses another group that is equal to them in most measures. A good example would be Germans conquering and oppressing Poles, Japanese oppressing Chinese, or Romans conquering Northern Europe. Of course, the suppressors/oppressors may justify their rule on the basis of cultural superiority. Maybe the Romans didn’t believe they were racially superior to the Germanic Barbarians, but they certainly felt Culturally superior. In America, the Civil Rights Movement was premised on the notion that all races are equal, and so it was wrong for whites to suppress equal rights/freedom of blacks. Whites and blacks were said to be the same except for skin color, and so there was no moral basis for white privilege. The suppression of another group that is equal--in most measures--to one’s own is morally offensive to most of us.
But, the most sensitive kind of suppression involves the perception that the inferior is suppressing the superior. Caesar in THE CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES isn’t only pissed that the humans suppressed and mistreated his kind. After all, he could tell that most apes are indeed dumber than humans. What really riled him was that HE, the great intelligent ape--more intelligent than any human--, was mistreated by humans, his inferiors. Taylor(Heston) in THE PLANET OF THE APES felt likewise. He was especially pissed because he thought he was better than any ape--even the talking/walking ones. There is less white liberal sensitivity regarding the history of white suppression of native indigenous peoples of South America since the natives are seen as naturally inferior. (Despite the officialism of liberal PC, some races/peoples are regarded as less equal than others by so-called ‘progressives’.) Same goes for North American treatment of Chinese rail-road workers and the ‘internment’ of Japanese-Americans. Even while acknowledging the injustice, most American perception of Asians is that of gawky timid race of geeks, so it’s not surprising that they got knocked around like dogs. In contrast, Jews and Negroes have striking natural advantages over whites. Jews are considerably smarter and Negroes are considerably tougher. So, white racial oppression of black masterfulness and white gentile suppression of Jewish talent are seen and felt as far more serious crimes. It’s like killing a leopard or an owl is deemed a bigger crime than killing a gopher or pigeon. Though Nazis associated Jews with rats, in truth Jews are the most intelligent among human groups. And though whites associated blacks with gorillas, ape-like power is much admired in males, which is why black males take white women while white men are increasingly pussified.
(Jews and blacks have one thing in common: a conviction that they were suppressed/oppressed by an inferior race. Jews feel that they were ruled by less intelligent white goyim who had the advantage in numbers. Blacks feel that less manly white boys ruled over them with superior weapons. But Jews and blacks believe that whites are superior in at least one attribute: facial features, especially among women. The advantage of modern Abramism is asexual intellectualism, the advantage of Africanism is male physical prowess, and advantage of Aryanism is white female beauty. More than Jews or Africans, white males created a culture revolving around female beauty. Knights worshiped female beauty and fought for the honor of damsels. Though Nazis were very tough and masculine, their main ideology was centered around female beauty. The ideology of Nazism could be boiled down to “ugly hairy hideous Jew trying to lay his filthy hands on pure blonde maiden.” Nazi warriors were supposed to be ultra-masculine in order to defend the Aryan female beauty. If the male warrior is the center of African tribalism, it is the white female that inspires white male warrior culture in the West to defend her honor, preserve her beauty, and lay claim to her pussy as the holy hole reserved only for the white penis. African males fought to possess women as property. White warriors fought to honor and worship their women as goddess-like beings. This is why white imperialists, even as they humped non-white chicks, were offended by the idea of non-white males humping white females. The distaste wasn’t merely tribal but spiritual. White beauty was seen as not merely attractiveness but a transcendent pure kind of beauty. Thus, miscegenation would defile the spiritual essence of white beauty. When white goyim controlled the West, they owned the cult of white female beauty. It was the domain of white males to lay claim to and fight to defend and preserve. Back then, Abramism--intellectual talent--of Jews served white gentile interests. Jews didn’t dictate to white males what or how they should think; Jews just took orders from white gentile male warriors. And in the New World, white males controlled Africanism: the physical prowess of black slaves was used to plant and harvest cotton for the white man, and black males were severely warned not even to think of defiling a white woman. Aryanism ruled over Abramism and Africanism. But in recent times, Abramism triumphed over Aryanism(or Angloism). Jewish brains came to conquer all. Abramism forged an alliance with Africanism against Aryanism-Angloism. So, white beauty, the core faith of Western Civilization, came to be owned and redefined by Abramists. White female beauty was no longer the spiritual-aesthetic domain of white males to possess, own, defend, and worship. It no longer stood for the highest value of European civilization and people. White women were no longer raised in a culture that told them that they must love their own men, have children with white men, and perpetuate the white race. Instead, Aryanism became a consumerist commodity to owned, sold, and defamed by Jewish pimps and defiled by muscular big-dicked Negro males. And white people have been brainwashed to think that any notion of sacred racial unity between white males and white females is the worst form of ‘evil racism’ that must be stamped out. Thus, Jews tell us the greatest evil in American history was white males in the Deep South defending the honor of white women. Jews say such attitudes racially oppressed black and sexually repressed white women. In the new order of ‘social justice’, black males are free to hump white women, and white women are free to choose alpha Negro males to pussified beta-male white boys. Africanism now screws Aryanism. White race is doomed because white men lost the sacred connection to white women. Sex is race. White race existed for 10,000s of years because white women had children with white men. But with white women opening their pussies to men of other races at rapid rate--with full encouragement of Jewish elite pimps--, white race shall be lost forever. And Jews want it that way. Sadly, white males are bigger pussies than white females. If white females now put to out Negroes, white males bend over to have Jews bugger them in the ass. Just look at GOP candidates, and all, except Ron Paul, are shameless whores of Jewish financial pimps.)
Though Jews have gained the world under the Rule of Law regimen created by Wasps--when Jews say, ‘we are all wasps now’, they really mean ‘WE JEWS have taken everything from the wasps’, rather like Romans saying ‘We are all Greeks now’ after having conquered and absorbed Greece--, Jews aren’t necessarily for Rule of Law for its own sake. Jews are for their own power and superiority. Though Jews accuse Wasps of having violated the Rule of Law to serve Wasp privilege and interests--which is fair criticism, by the way--, it is no less true that Jews prefer power and influence over a pure implementation of Rule of Law. Whatever their moral failings, we must give Wasps their due because they created, developed, and advanced the modern concept of Rule of Law not only in spirit but in practice and habit. Who were more fair-minded, rational, and progressive 100 yrs ago? Wasp-Americans and Anglo-British or Chinese, Arabs, African savages, Latin Americans, etc? Wasp-Americans were no saints--nor unblemished heroes--, but they were far ahead of other civilizations. (Even today, there’s no rule of law in all of Africa, Middle East, and much of Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. And with rise of PC, nations like Canada, France, and UK cannot even be called true democracies, and US may join them if Jews rewrite American laws protecting free speech.) Jews, in their vile self-righteousness, arrogance, and feelings of inadequacy--especially when it came to their looks--, took every slight from the Wasp elite with the greatest resentment. In some ways, Jews enjoy despising Wasps more than others because Wasps are sensitive to criticism and amenable to Jewish pressure and demands. Jews today may hate Russians and Arabs more than they hate Wasps, but Jews at the very least respect the fact that Arabs and Russians don’t take no shit from Jews. If a Jew spits on a Russian or Arab, the latter will spit back at the Jew. But when a Jew spits on a Wasp, the ‘decent’ Wasp gets on his knees and begs forgiveness.
Jews and blacks love to take it out on whites, especially Wasps, because the latter are such pushovers. If a black African bitched about misery to his black oppressor, the latter will laugh in his face, stick a bayonet up his ass, cut his balls off, and laugh like a hyena. The African victim may hate his tormentor but at least he knows the black thug is not to mess with. With fear comes a degree of respect. But if a black African immigrant bitched and whined to white Americans, he’s gonna get a hearing, and whites are gonna do everything for him. The African might initially think, ‘white man is nice’, but it’s not long before he complains more and demands more, and when not everything is provided for, he says, ‘white man is racist.’ Indeed, black people in the past had more respect for whites than blacks do today. Blacks hated the white bigot but also respected white man’s power. He knew white power was badass, not to mess with; it was something to emulate, learn from. But once white people became nice and sensitive, blacks discovered they could talk shit to the white man, and the white man just listens like a pussyass faggot. Everyone likes to beat on the faggot. And so, the whole world likes to blame and beat up on whites politically. Why? Because whites are soft and easy enough to take the criticism and keep apologizing. Also, since whites got the money, needling them can lead to big bucks. To a Negro in the inner-city, the biggest threat to his life is another Negro. But if he complains to a Negro thug, the thug will just pull out a gun and shoot his ass. But if the Negro complains about white folks, white people will say, ‘oh gee whiz, we need to spend more on education, we need to hire more Negroes, we need to reach out more, etc, etc.’ When you bitch to white folks, they are sensitive(and stupid)enough to listen and ‘try to do something about it’.
Jews feel the same way. They like to bash Western whites, especially Wasps, because white people are so sensitive, caring, sympathetic, apologetic, and guilt-ridden(especially when it comes to Jews). No matter how ridiculous the claim of antisemitism by the ADL, white people will sympathize and do something about it. So, even though Wasps are the nicest to the Jews, Jews enjoy beating up on Wasps the most because the Wasps never fight back and try to do more for the Jew. It’s like a kid will lean on the easy parent who’s always giving money than on the tough parent. In the movie MILDRED PIERCE, the heroine is sensitive and generous to her daughter and second husband, but do they love her back? Do they appreciate what she’s doing for them? No. They just want more and more. Jews are like this too. Though they demand and want everything from white people, they have no appreciation. The Jew feels he’s owed because of past antisemitism and because he’s naturally superior over goyim. If you let a Jew screw your wife, he’ll just spit in your face and say, ‘so, where’s your daughter?’ Negroes are the same.
If the fall of the white race may be an happy event for Jews and Negroes, it might not be such a great deal for other peoples. If Jews and Negroes confidently feel superior to white folks--intellectually or athletically--, Mexicans and people such as American Indians may not be as enthused. Mexicans must know they’re not gonna succeed like Jews in Wall Street or Negroes in sports. So, what Mexicans aspire to is moderate success in a stable order, and white-dominated societies have been most stable. But if white people lose power, what will become of New America? It will be a nation of super-powerful Jews and super-masterful Negroes.
The most that Mexicans can hope for is to rise up to the level of middle class whites, but what if middle class white America fades away? As for the American Indian, though he was defeated by the white man, there remains the myth of having lost to the mightiest people that ever lived. There is no shame in primitive tribes losing to a civilization with advanced weaponry and massive industrialization. As long as American Indians live in a nation dominated by whites, they can uphold the narrative of ‘we noble warriors lost to a great mighty people’. But if whites turn into faggoty pussyboys castrated and lobotomized by venal Jews and trashy Negroes, well, so much for the grand Indian narrative. It would mean Indians lost not to a great people but to the biggest bunch of saphead losers in the world. I mean, what kind of a great people amass such awesome power and then lose it all within a few generations to a bunch of shysters and homeboys?
It was the Rule of Law which obligated the Wasp elite to play fair and led to whites losing out meritocratically to Jews in fields such as finance, media, and academia and to Negroes in sports, pop music--which has become a kind of athleticism. Under proper Rule of Law, a slower white player couldn’t be favored over a faster black player; a dimmer white guy could not be favored over a smarter Jewish guy. If Jews won via Rule of Law, why aren’t Jews the biggest champions of Rule of Law? Because the Jewish character operates in bad faith. Also, the super-ambitious Jew is never satisfied with ‘enough’. He has to have more and more, until he owns or controls everything. The super-Jew has the god-complex. The Jew also loves the creative game of haggling. Notice that Jewish lawyers are less interested in justice or the truth than in winning. The likes of Alan Dershowitz and his ilk will do ANYTHING to win. And Jews will twist and bend the Constitution any which way to push their own agenda. Indeed, one of the reasons why Nixon was dangerous was because he wanted to out-Jew the Jew but sucked at it. Just look at the likes of Cass Sunstein and Elena Kagan. Laws mean nothing to them. What matters most is their personal sense of what is ‘good’ for everyone; of course, when Jews says, ‘this is good for you’, it’s really a roundabout way of saying, ‘what is good for you is great for us Jews.’ Jews prefer the Rule of Lawyers than Rule of Law. Intellectually vain and creatively obnoxious, Jews don’t wanna be bound to any set of laws, especially if they were laid down by non-Jews. Jews, as the authors of the Bible, took great pride in the Ten Commandments--even if they don’t obey them anymore. They had written those Laws through the myth of the God they created. So, it must hurt Jewish pride that the finest and most brilliant political and legal document in the modern era was written by a bunch of non-Jewish Anglo-Americans. Jews pay obligatory respect to the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and Federalist papers, but Jewish pride, vanity, and narcissism forbids them to worship the laws and principles of another tribe. For Jews, the US Constitution is something they can use and exploit to gain more power so that they can rewrite all the rules and replace them with a neo-Judaic Law--not in the religious but secular sense, though not without a spiritual aura to it. Indeed, Jews tend to be more secularitual than secular. Whether it was Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, or Ayn Rand, Jews have tended to instill their bold new ideas with quasi-spiritual grandeur. Through much of their history, the only Book and laws that Jews dare not challenge was the Torah, as it was the Word of God. Even so, Jewish intellectual vanity led to hair-splitting debates as to its meanings, resulting in the Talmud. Even with the immortal and immutable words of God, Jews just had to squeeze out different meanings. Now, there is much good to be said about this. Why should any people mindlessly worship or blindly obey any law? If the US Constitution is to be a living document, it has to be reassessed and re-interpreted generation after generation. Even so, laws lose their meaning if one plays too fast and loose(especially in bad faith). Also, if laws must be changed, there is a legal process for doing so. But Jews, being impatient, contemptuous, and arrogant, will violate, overlook, or sidestep any procedure in order to get whatever they want.
When Jews weren’t the dominant elite, they feigned faux-reverence for the US Constitution. When some Jewish leftists came under suspicion for espionage/subversion during the Cold War, Jews invoked the Right to Free Speech as an iron-clad law. A.C.L.U. argued that absolute freedom of speech was as American as apple pie. But look today’s America ruled by the Jewish elite. Jews are violating the Right to Free Speech to shut down ‘hate speech’, which is generally speech that speaks truth to Jewish power. Jews, who once defended the right of Americans to be pro-communist, are pushing laws that would ban pro-white race-ism and fascism.
If in the past, the Rule of Law favored the rise of the Jew, today the Rule of Law often serves as a hindrance to the Jewish agenda. For instance, illegal immigration is obviously illegal. But Jews want more non-whites in this country to play divide-and-rule among goyim. So, what do Jews do? They come up with nonsense terms such as ‘undocumented immigrants’. People break into this country illegally, but they’re not ‘illegal’ but ‘undocumented’. Also, we all know what the legal definition of marriage is. We know it’s between a man and a woman, and we know the connection between morality and legality in real marriage: Man and woman can produce kids, so they should make a pledge to stay together to raise a family. But modern Jews, a filthy and foul people, have degraded marriage into some anything-goes lifestyle where gays can get married too. First, they called it ‘homosexual marriage’ or ‘gay marriage’, but even they must have realized how absurd it sounds. So, they came up with ‘same-sex marriage’ and then associated it with civil rights and ‘equality’. But, ‘gay marriage’ is not an equality issue since gay sexuality can never have the equal value of real sexuality. Real sexuality is meaningful and produces life. Gay sexuality is abnormal, irrational--a male sexual organ up the fecal hole of another man--, and disgusting or ridiculous. To equate real sexuality with gay sexuality and to demand equal moral/legal legitimization of both is ludicrous. But Jews are clever and smart whereas most people are sheeple morons, and so the decrepit Jews are winning.
Now, we know why Jews are pushing the gay agenda. It’s the same reason they wanna undermine Christmas and promote Hannukah. Though Jews conceal their agenda in the name of ‘diversity’, ‘equality’, and all that crap, it is simply a means to demoralize and weaken the goyim--to dissipate their strength rooted in moral valor and confidence--and to spread the notion that the minority is the new majority. If gayness is the equal of real sexuality, and if Hannukah is the equal of Christmas--in a nation where Christians far outnumber Jews--, then it means it’s natural for a tiny Jewish minority to own or control just about everything.
Then, dimwit goyim who think ‘gay marriage’ has same value as real marriage won’t be disturbed by the fact a hostile elite is driving them to extinction. Also, by metrosexualizing and faggotizing most white males through the gay agenda, white males will further lose respect of white females. And white females, raised to adore the gay agenda, will be offended by real manly white men. The Jew makes white women feel turned off by ‘homophobic’ men, but at the same time, the white women will be less attracted to the dorky shmorky white males who’ve been castrated by PC. PC sends message to white males: “you won’t get pussy if you act like a homophobic macho boor”; and so, white males act all wussy and nice, but then they’re rejected for their pussyboyness by white women, who run off to Negroes to be with ‘real men’. White males cannot win in a world controlled by deviously hideous Jews.
The contemporary Jewish attitude to the Rule of Law is evident in SOCIAL NETWORK. If the Winklevosses are somewhat beholden to the concept of honor and fair play--as written in the Harvard student handbook--, rules mean nothing to Zuckerberg. Zuck will overstep anything and everything in the service of his own radical genius. Even though Jewish success is protected by Rule of Law, Jews wanna go beyond Newtonian concept of laws. Jews wanna warp into their relativistic view of the Law as something determined, defined, and distorted by their own visions, ambitions, or perversions. Jews want the protection of Rule of Law(for their own intellectual property and legal rights), but they don’t want to pledge their loyalty to any law. Their only real law is a self-aggrandizing self-regard for their own brilliance, rightness, and righteousness. In this sense, Jews are not only the most intellectual people but the most emotionally intellectual people. For Jews, the Rule of Law is less an ideal than a case of ‘I deal’. When it aids Jewish power, Rule of Law--and the Constitution--is good. When Rule of Law stands in the way of Jewish power and agenda, it’s deemed irrelevant and changed at their whim.
In the past, the Wasp elite used to stand in the way of the Jewish agenda and power-lust. But not only are Jews the new Power Elite but even Wasps have been brainwashed by Jewish ideology. Even in affluent Wasp neighborhoods, you’re likely to find ass-kissers of Obama. You’re bound to find affluent white whores looking to marry Negroes. (The movie RACHEL GETTING MARRIED panders to just such racial-sexual mentality among affluent whites. In the movie, some white girl is getting married to a disgusting Negro, but that is not the main issue of the movie. In fact, it’s not an issue at all. The video cover and the trailer don’t even dwell on that subject. Instead, the main issue is some spat between sisters over something trivial. The movie is flattering white liberals that they are soooo beyond race that they don’t even notice that one of them is marrying a black guy. But this non-issue-ness is, of course, the very issue. The real point of the movie is ‘we white liberals are so enlightened, so progressive, and so over-it that we are totally blind to the fact that one of us is marrying a Negro.’ Yes, they are so ‘over it’ that the movie’s main conflict is some neurotic argument between white sisters than the fact that a white woman is marrying a gorilla-like Negro. If conservatives, with BLIND SIDE, are taking pride in their sympathetic notice of blackness, liberals are saying they’ve left that Guess-Who’s-Coming-to-Dinner biz behind long ago. They are so far ahead of conservatives that they don’t even notice blacks as blacks but as fellow human beings. Of course, this is all a lie. The SWPL jerks would never move to Detroit, and the reason why their women wants to marry Negroes has everything to do with race. Rich white girls addicted to pop culture wanna be pummeled by the huge dick of a muscular Negro. Also, they wanna feel morally superior by being married to a Negro--“I am so not racist”--and giving birth to a mulatto Obama baby. A white woman holding a mulatto baby has become the holiest Madonna figure for liberals thanks to the manipulations of the Jewish media. It might as well be called the MUDonna, the Mudshark Sexual Saintess. Obama’s mother was a Mudonna, and sanctified by Jew-magazines like Newsweek aka Jewsweek and Time aka Timud. So, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED is one of those ‘subtle’ liberal movies that takes pride in having gone-beyond-race. You can just see the cutesy Ally McBeal-clones of the world watching the movie and thinking, ‘oh, I’m soooo wonderful because the fact that a white woman marrying a black guy doesn’t even register as an issue.’ Of course, Jews have been normalizing gay garbage too, to the point where many Americans think 25% of Americans are gay!! Once mudsharkization and gay-ization are regarded as pervasive and normal, what is there to be upset about? Jonathan Demme, you may recall, made the blatantly political PHILADELPHIA, a stupid pro-gay movie, but not every ‘progressive’ praised it. He was criticized for his patronizingly sympathetic view of gays which reduced everything to cops and robbers. So, Demme must feel awful proud to have made a ‘subtle’ movie where the message remains in the shadows. The fact that interracist marriage is NOT the center of the movie IS the center of the movie. It’s BLATANTLY ‘subtle’. Though most of the noisy conflict is between white characters, the central silent sermon of the movie is ‘we white liberals are soooo over race that we don’t even notice interracist marriage’. But of course, what’s amusing is they notice the fact that they don’t notice it. It is all just a liberal conceit. This is why Jews are so venal and why white liberals who suck up to Jews are so pathetic. Jews are liars, and wasps are self-deceivers.)
The scene between the Winklevosses and Larry Summers reveals how Jews feel about Wasps, the Rule of Law, and gentlemanly codes of conduct. Winkles, frustrated by Zuck the Jew, make an appointment with Larry Summers, then the president of Harvard. Summers isn’t interested in the slightest. Though he doesn’t quite spell it out, he’s essentially saying ‘Harvard is now the domain of Jews where you win or lose by wits, and I, a top Jew of this joint, don’t care about your Wasp codes of conduct.’ So, the Harvard Handbook is just a dead document, a formality. It is to Larry Summers what the Constitution is to the Jewish elite. Just a symbol. While the Wasp boys look back to the tradition of honor, Jews look forward to the future of power. Jews feel the time is ripe for sweet revenge to get back at Wasps who’d once favored their own kind over better-qualified Jews in the past.
Now, I’m not sure if the meeting between the Winkles and Summers really went this way or Sorkin mostly made it up. But either way, it is very indicative of Jewish attitude toward Wasp, all the more so since Summers’s secretary is a Negress who shares in his mocking of the Winkles as ‘privileged white boys’. To be sure, the Winkles are not presented totally in a negative light. Armie Hammer(though partly Jewish in real life)is actually more handsome than the real Winkles. They are certainly not stock villains, and in most ways, more likable than the rodent-faced Eisen-Zuck. But all in all, Jews in the audience will find pleasure in watching Jews like Summers and Zuck stick it to the Nazi SS Clone-twins. When Harvard had been run by Wasps, maybe the Winkles would have received a more favorable hearing from the president, but they’re really out of their waters now. Jews own all. Though Wasps with legacy-favoritism may still have their private clubs and symbols of superiority, the real power rests with Jews. Though Eisen-Zuck initially wants to be admitted to one of those fancy college clubs, he figures the business-club he’s creating beats any college club. And it will belong to him, and he’ll get to decide who’s in and who’s out of his club. In this sense, Eisen-Zuck does have a greatness about him, and his success says something about the power of resentment as fuel for success and power. Whether it’s Eisen-Zuck, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Napoleon, Tony Montana, or whoever, it is often the outsider--or at least the guy who FEELS like the outsider--who goes the extra mile to come out on top. It’s the Alberich Complex.
The fate of the Twinkles in Summers’s office is a common experience among whites, especially white males. When they’ve been wronged and seek redress from powers-that-be, the latter--often Jews, Negroes, or liberals--look at them and see ‘spoiled privileged white boys’. Even when the white guys are not from privileged backgrounds and have indeed been wronged, the liberal/Jewish/Negro elites see the ‘injustice’ as a form of comeuppance. It’s payback time for evils done by whites.
In contrast, when Jews do wrong, the dynamic changes since Jews now own and manipulate the Rule of Law to their advantage. When Wall Street Jews brought down the national economy, they got bailouts from Washington, also controlled by Jews. And the media, also owned by Jews, looked the other way, supported the bailout, and dumped all the blame on Bush, who was just a puppet of Jewish Wall Street powers-that-be. Though Jim Traficant served 6 yrs in jail for some Mickey Mouse ethics charge--he was really railroaded for having saved John Demjanjuk--, Wall Street Jews didn’t spend a single day in prison or lose their personal fortunes. If anything, the bailouts enabled and emboldened them to rake in gazillions more. So, this is Rule of Law under the Jew. Summers, who wouldn’t lift a finger to help the Twinkles, has done everything in his power to help fellow Jews in Wall Street, no matter crooked and fast they played with the system. This is the Jew for you. It is no wonder that the term DIRTY JEW become common parlance.
Anyway, notice the dual-pandering by Sorkin in the Summers/Twinklevoss scene. It plays to both those who side with the Twinkles and those who side with Zuck/Summers/Jews. Some might call this ‘ambiguity’, ‘subtlety’, and ‘complexity’, but I call it crafty Jewish two-facedness, though done with more finesse than on the Jerry Springer Show. For people sympathetic to the Twinkles, it’s a scene where the twins stand up to the pompous Harvard president(who most people don’t know is Jewish). The president is a jerk while the twins stand for honor, tradition, codes of conduct, and Harvard spirit of gentlemanly camaraderie. Evidently, the real-life twins feel this way about the scene because they’re dumb enough to think Sorkin is on their side--just like the GOP is under the delusion that Jews are their best friends!! (But then, American Renaissance, led by that fool Jared Taylor, also sucks up to the Jews in the most shameless manner.) But, fans of Eisen-Zuck and Jewish power will see the scene very differently. They’ll see the Twinkles as privileged Wasps born with a silver spoon in their mouths, who are always used to getting things their way. Though the Winkles presented the idea to Zuck and even though Zuck did pull a fast one on them, the fact is Zuck did the grunt-work while the Twinkles were busy working on their rowing and ‘big man on the campus’ shtick--at least according to the movie. Also, for Jews especially, it must be hilarious as a kind of rude awakening for the Wasps. The Twinkles were jaded enough to think that their kind was still in power at Harvard when Harvard, like much else in America, is really owned by Jews. Joseph K now owns the Castle while Wasps are on Trial. It doesn’t matter how rich or privileged or how waspy you are. Jews own all, and you better think of working for Jews. Bill Gates said, ‘be nice to nerds since you might work for them one day’. Well, one could easily replace ‘nerds’ with ‘Jews’.
Contrary to the notion of nerds and geeks as wimps, some of them are the vilest, most vicious, and ruthless sons of bitches on Earth. Just look at the Russian Revolution which was led by a bunch of Jewish geeks. They were ruthless and didn’t hesitate to imprison and murder millions of goyim. And Larry Summers is supposed to be a very smart guy--an economics nerd--, but he’s also one of the biggest prick-assholes in the world. And Hollywood is run by super-asshole-Jew-geeks. Geeks may be physically beta-male-ish, but many geeks, especially if Jewish, tend to be alpha-male-ish personality and intellectual wise. Woody Allen, Larry David, and Howard Stern may be Jewish geeks, but they are aggressive asshole Jews. Or take Mort Zuckerman. Physically, your granny could probably beat his ass, but personality-wise, a vile, venal, and vicious Jew hissing with venom.
While Jews use media and entertainment--especially action movies and TV fare--to fill the minds of dummies with a simple ‘good vs bad’ view of the world, they use a different tact with the more educated/elevated audiences. SOCIAL NETWORK is supposed to be one of those ‘intelligent’, ‘sophisticated’, and ‘truthful’ movies; precisely for this very reason, it’s likely to have fooled a lot of people. On the surface, it is indeed more complicated, shaded, and loaded with nuance than most movies. But scratch the surface, and it is just another Jewish Justification movie or Jewstification Movie. We need to understand the reality that Jews will always prefer Jewstice over Justice, and the only justice that counts in the movie is that Zuck the Jew, for all his ‘faults’(or masterful machinations of amorality), did the right thing and became a great man. What does it profiteth a Jew to gain the world if he loses a few friends--especially pushover Jews and goyim--along the way? Plenty! (It’s like the promotional ad says: ‘You don’t get to make 500 million friends without making a few enemies along the way.’ 500 million addicts hooked on ‘friending’ and 20 billion dollars.) Both Zuck and Sorkin are celebrating about the Jew Power or Jower. Only an fool would think the real Zuckerberg would, in any way, feel threatened by this movie. No, he’s been given cover as a poor lonely but feisty Jew, a modern day David, who took on the world as Goliath and won. It’s the Jewboy and His High-Technicolor Dreamboat. Zuck and Sork are high-fiving one another while suckers like the Winkles and other goyim think, “this is a damningly critical movie about Zuckerberg.”
Sorkin knew that the more sophisticated crowd wouldn’t fall for simple-minded morality tales we usually get from Hollywood, so he concocted an ‘art film’, but this movie is just a fancier and more polished version of the dumb TV docu-drama than a genuinely artistic and truthful exploration of personalities and current issues. It is not PRINCE OF THE CITY by Sidney Lumet who, for all his liberal bias, made a rich, multi-faceted, and morally complex drama faithful to actual people and events. Lumet got his start on TV too, but he had, at least for a time, real ambitions as a film artist and as such, directed DOG DAY AFTERNOON and the aforementioned film. SOCIAL NETWORK is a piece of manipulation and has more to do with one of Lumet’s absolute worst, NETWORK, a movie that purports to shake us out of our mass-media addicted doldrums but instead hoodwinks us with yet another layer of bullshit. Keep in mind that Sorkin’s first claim to fame was A FEW GOOD MEN, a manipulative piece of tripe with goody goody liberal message, a movie where just about all evils emanate from white gentile males. (It’s the same thing in TIGER BAY, an independent movie by Jewish Joel Schumacher, where, again, evil is entirely white-conservative-male while goodness is entirely owned by liberals, Jews, blacks, and dumb white guys who come to see the light thanks to a rebellious liberal white hero--played obnoxiously by Colin Farrell, one of the most repulsive actors around.
Sorkin is just an angrier and more hostile version of Neil Simon. He’s David Mamet for middle-brow fools who wouldn’t know what to do with real drama or real art film if they saw one.)
Half the time, the Winkles seem to either rowing or thinking about rowing. Sorkin uses rowing as a metaphor for Wasp-iness or wasp power. Rowing is a repetitious process where the rowers’ motion is forward and backward, forward and backward. Both the motions and paths are well-established in the sport, and Twinkles seem mentally suited for this. They give their 100% but not in a very creative manner. And they’re doing what other rowing teams are doing. They are competing in a game with handed-down rules; they are not Nietzcheans who make their own rules by creating their own worlds. Zuck or NietZuck, in contrast, doesn’t limit himself to a channel regulated by rules but claims the entire ocean.
Rowers also face backwards while moving forwards; it’s as though the Winkles are mentally looking to the past, to tradition, than looking forward to the future. By invoking the past of privilege and wealth, Winkles seem to think they are or should be assured of victory. Zuck, on the other hand, has no fealty to the tradition of white privilege or power. And even there is a long tradition of Jewishness, what has been the core lesson for Jews through the ages? Outwit and fool the dimwit goyim, which is what Zuckerberg does with such ease against the Winkles. Jewish tradition is to undermine and even destroy the traditions(and idols)of other peoples.
Zuck isn’t a rower of boats but a fisher of men(or ‘friends’), in fact of all mankind. Zuck would be the modern-day Jesus in whose Friendship of Heaven we are all united. The geek, not the meek, shall inherit the Earth. Facebook may accomplish what Christianity and communism ultimately failed to do: a united global community of all men.
The secret to Facebook’s hyper-success is analogous, in some ways, to the secret of great religions and some of the biggest movies. What is the hook of Christianity and GONE WITH THE WIND? Both offer membership in a vast community--of faithful fellows or fellow faithful--, but they both speak/appeal to the private person. A Christian may be a member of community all over the world, but he also belongs to his local church, and beyond that, he’s a lone person communing with God one-on-one. A fan of GONE WITH THE WIND feels as a member of mass cultural phenomenon, but she can also identify intimately identify with Scarlett and lose herself in an bygone time and place that passed forever. Both Christianity and GONE WITH THE WIND work on a large and small scale. They’re both inclusive and exclusive. In the end, one of the reasons for the failure of communism could have been the lack of one-on-one personal meaning in its emotional sphere. One could belong to the Proletariat, humanity, the Party, the nation, but there was no sense of self as self. It was ‘spiritually’ bloated and empty. So, when communism fell, it really fell. (Also, whereas Marx tried to conquer the world though in terms of matter, Freud and his cousin Bernays focused on conquering the mind. Mind over matter.) But Christianity wasn’t just a mega-structure of society and the mind. Even after Christian Rome fell before the Germanic Barbarians, many clung to the faith because it offered personal meaning. It kept them connected with God on an individual basis. And GONE WITH THE WIND--though never my favorite movie--has remained wildly popular over the years(more than other historical epic) because there’s something more(or less)than the spectacle of war, destruction, and big events. There is the impetuous figure of Scarlett who maintains her pride through all the changes. Like communism, the shallow materialistic ideology of 80s capitalism was also bound to fade. It promised lots of money, success, and material things--and membership in the yuppie community--, but what did it offer to the individual soul? And though mega-McChurches may have added more members to the roll, does something so mindless and impersonal have a future?
Anyway, Facebook’s hook is both the inclusiveness and exclusiveness. Anyone can sign up and theoretically connect with anyone around the world. An highschool drop could ‘friend’ a Harvard graduate or a big-name celebrity! But one can also run his or her account as a private club, deciding whom to let in or not. Everyone on Facebook feels a degree of Power in opening or closing the door to prospective ‘friends’. Facebook has both the appeal of populism and the conceit of elitism. Most of us may not go to Harvard, let alone be admitted into one of its fancy clubs, but we can all have Facebook accounts and play the game of ‘should I let you in or not?’ Also, by being admitted as ‘friends’ by famous people, we can feel as members of something special. It’s pretty pathetic if you think about it.
The rise of Jewish power in the 20th century, especially in the United States--by far most powerful nation in the world and now fully controlled by Jews--, gives a whole new twist to Kafka’s vision of the world. The works of Kafka can be appreciated and interpreted on many levels; on the socio-political level, THE TRIAL and THE CASTLE are symptomatic of Jewish Anxiety. Pervasive throughout is the sense of the Jew being ambiguously both included and excluded. Kafka grew up at a time when the world around him was rapidly changing. Jews had been emancipated and given equal legal rights in many parts of Europe, not least in the Germanic world. Yet, even as officially equal citizens, there was a sense of Jews being different. In some ways, discrimination--subtle or blatant--against Jews was real enough, yet in other ways, it was a paranoia on the part of the Jew, a sense that he could never really belong even he apparently did. There is some of this Kafkaesque-ness in SOCIAL NETWORK. Even at Harvard, which is now essentially Jew-dominated, we are to believe that Jews are belittled, mocked, and marginalized. Sorkin’s vision of Harvard is one where Aryan Clones rule the most exclusive clubs and keep Jews out. The sensitive and neurotic personality of the Jew can never be satisfied with anything. This restlessness is the source of both the strength of the Jew--for the Jew is less likely to rest on his laurels since his resentful paranoid mind always feels surrounded by hostile forces--and the insufferable craziness of the Jew. The constantly active Jewish mind always seeks new problems, which means looking for new enemies, real or imagined. Though Jews have long accused
anti-Semites of paranoid fantasies, no people on Earth are as paranoid as the Jews. Given the Holocaust, one might say Jewish paranoia is more than justified, but given Jewish-led communism and what the Jews are doing to the white race, goyim are also right to be ‘paranoid’ of the Jew. Ironically, it is Jewish paranoia that sometimes makes the paranoia become realized. If Jews weren’t so paranoid, they wouldn’t be so fearful, prickly, suspicious, obnoxious, and hostile. It’s because Jews see enemies everywhere that they treat non-Jews in such a foul manner, which then makes gentiles who never hated Jews suddenly hate Jews. Based on SOCIAL NETWORK, why shouldn’t we hate the Jew? Not only did Zuckerberg screw over the Winklevosses, but Sorkin rubbed salt in the wound--though the Winkles were too dumb to notice--by spinning lies to make Zuckerberg come across better than the Winkles. Personally, I can’t say I really hate Zuckerberg since he was just being a savvy ruthless businessman. That’s what pricks in the business world do. But Sorkin promotes himself as an journalist-dramatist who exposes and tells the truth. Given the lies of SOCIAL NETWORK, Sorkin is a fraud(but one clever enough to fool a lot of people).
Anyway, if we follow the Kafkaesque model, Zuckerberg is the outsider Jew who can never really get in even if he’s officially in, the implications of which are psychological as well as social. (Even billionaire Jews with elite power over Wall Street, media, government, etc, seem addicted to feeling ‘on the outside’. In a way, this is partly due to the cultural mentality of the Jews. Across the millennia, Jews always defined themselves as separate from other peoples, cultures, and races. On the one hand, Jews have wanted to be accepted into and profit from the goy world. On the other hand, Jews never wanted to totally assimilate and want to maintain their separateness. So, it’s not just that the Jews weren’t fully included but that they feared being fully included--in the sense of full assimilation. Jews wanna fully enter the elite club but on their own terms. Jews have entered and taken over the Castle and has excluded ‘anti-Semites’ from its walls, but the Jewish habit of victimology argues that Jews still aren’t fully accepted by goy society. Jews may own the castle, but when they look out from its towers, they see a lot of goyim surrounding them. Even when Jews have been fully included into the ivory tower of power--to the point of owning it--, they continue to feel estranged from a society that is not majority Jewish. So, to keep the goyim from ramming the castle walls, the Jew tries to diversify the goy population along racial and class lines to keep the goyim fighting goyim. Jews hate fascism because it’s the ideology of harmonious unity along racial and class lines for the majority population. There may be a kind of therapeutic value to the Jewish sense of being excluded even when they are not excluded. Jewish Identity is so closely wedded to victimology that it makes the Jew feel good and justified to believe there are Jew-haters all around. In a way, the persecution-paranoia makes the Jew feel morally superior and justified in his characteristic vileness. In the film HOMICIDE, the Jewish cop realizes that his paranoid conspiracy about anti-Semites was just a fantasy. But he seems almost upset by this. His wild fantasy about anti-Semites may have been depressing, but it gave him meaning and direction in life/society as a Jew. If fears of neo-Nazism are just a fantasy, what does it mean to be a Jew when Jewishness has long been defined in terms of persecution at hands of crazed anti-Semites?) In the novel THE CASTLE, the protagonist hopes to enter the Castle, but the maze-like power structure manages to keep him out at every turn. Though the character is presented as clueless surveyor just trying to do this job, he is really a Jewish archetype who is subconsciously looking for an entry into the elite club. Even when he thinks he’s getting closer, he’s only just opening the outermost gate. No real explanation is given as to why he can’t enter the Castle, and it’s as if everything and everyone, from the lowliest to the highest person in the realm, is conspiring against him. THE TRIAL has much the same pattern. Joseph K the accused never finds out why or for what he’s accused of. This vagueness lends a universality to Kafka’s works, and everyone, especially in the modern world, has had his or her Kafkaesque moments. (Despite the modernism of Kafka, it is also an extension of themes expressed in the Book of Job and the like.) But there is no mistaking a Jewish element in the works of Kafka--which can also be said for CATCHER IN THE RYE, a kind of like Kafka-for-teens. (To be sure, Kafka’s characters want in but are kept out whereas Holden Caulfield simply doesn’t want in, neither into adulthood nor the world of his peers. He imagines himself to be the savior of kids, but he’s exiled from childhood and real children would probably see him as a weirdo.) What Franz Kafka and J. D. Salinger had in common was an obsessive shyness or feeling of unease of being in the world. Kafka was awkward and socially inept. Salinger chose to live in seclusion for the most of his life. We’ll always remember Joseph K. and Holden Caulfield as outsiders or exiles--the eccentrics out of sync with society.
But what can we say about guys like Bob Dylan--the most celebrated and revered figure in rock music--and Mark Zuckerberg--the hottest guy in the internet? One might say they’re like Joseph K. and Caulfield with a pair of balls. Dylan relished playing the outsider, not only for his Jewishness but his small town origins, far from the center of Jewish culture and activity. He arrived in NY as an outsider like so many bohemians and wanna-be artists. But he didn’t run around in circles like Joseph K. but ran circles around the establishment and eventually came out on top. He became like a living god, larger-than-life, with book after book studying his works with rabbinical Talmudic seriousness. Though Kafka wasn’t without humor, he was too morbid to see the power-potential of being an outsider. Though Kafka’s works are informative of the Jewish psyche, it was the Marx Brothers--perhaps even more than Karl Marx--who taught us the nature of Jewish power. If Kafka was like a rabbit asking why the hunter was after it, Marx Brothers were like Bugs Bunny who understood the dynamics of power and kept the enemy or rival stupefied in its own stupidity. Kafka, on some level, was in awe of the power of goyim, always thinking there was more to goy power than there really was; paradoxically, the fear also fueled an attraction. We fear what is powerful, but power is also alluring.
Marx Brothers, in contrast, figured that goyim, no matter how rich and powerful, are really emperors without clothes, at least when their wits were matched against superior Jewish wit. Similarly, many black athletes in the distant past may have been in awe of white athletes who dominated sports, but once blacks began to assess the real ability of whites compared to their own, blacks came to see white guys as ‘white boys who be slow and can’t jump.’ Bob Dylan is indicative of the Jew between Kafka and Zuckerberg. If Kafka had genuine awe and respect for the Germanic goy order, and if Dylan had real admiration for the American culture and music, Zuckerberg seems to respect nothing but his own power. In some sense, my guess is the real Zuckerberg may even be kind of post-Jewish. Eisen-Zuck seems more an alter ego of Sorkin the older Jew. Sorkin, who must be in his 50s, grew up at a time when young Jews were still surrounded by vestiges of Jewish culture and identity all around them. In contrast, the Zuckerberg may identify more with geekdom than Jewishness, though to be sure, geekdom and Jewishness have sometimes been synonymous in elite circles. In Woody Allen’s movie ANYTHING ELSE, we see the contrast between the older Jew played by Allen--who’s obsessed with Jewish issues and identity--and the younger Jew who feels completely at ease in the new community where goyishness and Jewishness seem to be seamlessly fused and interlocked. Allen’s generation still grew up in a time and place where there were Jewish neighborhoods, Italian-American neighborhoods, and etc, and where being in the wrong place could get you called ‘Jewboy’ and beaten up. Though ethnic and racial enclaves still exist, most white communities have blended together to form a rather generic sense of whiteness, and many young Jews are less into Jewishness than their forebears.
However, Eisen-Zuck of SOCIAL NETWORK is portrayed more like an old-generation Jew than a new-generation Jew. Why? My guess is the movie is just Sorkin’s puppet play, a projection of his own neurosis onto Zuckerberg. Its hidden agenda may be to send a message to young Jews that the ‘Nazis are still out to get them’, and so they should never forget their profound Jewishness.
The characters of THE TRIAL and THE CASTLE are barred entry to the sanctum of power, but this is no longer the problem of Jews. Harvard, the most prestigious academic institution in the world, is controlled by Jews. When its president is a Jew, can Jews be said to be left out? But, I suppose one could argue that just because Jews run Harvard doesn’t mean Jew control every facet of Harvard--just like the fact that Jews own Hollywood and many pro sports franchises doesn’t mean they control every facet of the power and success. Hollywood needs handsome and charismatic goy stars--the ‘Aryans’ and what might be called the ‘Afryans’ like Will Smith. Professional sports need black athletes. Music industry needs non-Jewish talent. Jews can pull the strings but they can’t control everything. Porn needs Negro studs and blonde shikses. So, even as Jews own and control lots of things, they cannot control everything. And this can be the source of resentment. And there is also the Jew-vs-Jew resentment. Unlike dimwit goyim who are willing to bow down to and take orders from the Great Jew, many Jews wanna take on the Great Jew and become the Greater Jew. So, Eisen-Zuck is not only an anti-goy rebel but an anti-Great-Jew rebel. He wants to be the Greatest Jew.
Interesting is the reverse-Kafkalogy that has resulted from all this. It used to be the Jew felt exiled or locked outside of the Great Goy Order. Today, it is the masses of goyim who are left outside of the Castle. Of course, most goyim were never part of the Power Elite, but they at least identified with the goy elites within the Castle. Even a poor German could psychologically share in the power if the rulers happened to be fellow Germans. Today, the Castle is owned by Jews, and it’s a bigger and more labyrinthine Castle than the one goyim once owned--just like the Jewish-built casinos in Las Vegas in the 1990s were bigger than anything built with mob-controlled money in the 60s and 70s. Consider the Fed, the Med(or media), State Department, Justice Department, etc. They are all controlled by Jews, and we have no idea what the hell is going on. This is especially true because the media, which is supposed to be the Fourth Estate, is owned by Jews who are in cahoots with the Power Jews in the government. And Jews in the academia are also in cahoots with Med Jews and Fed Jews. Joseph K now controls the Court and the Castle, and we goyim have become the Kafkaesque outcasts. George W. Bush and Obama too are Kafkaesque figures; despite the fact that they became the ‘most powerful man in the world’, they were completely beholden to the most powerful force in the world--the Cabal. It’s a Kafkabal-dominated world. The Castle is now the Cabastle. The cabalitarian world we live in is especially dangerous because it maintains the conceit of freedom. Freedom isn’t the same thing as power. Freedom is the merely the means to gain power, but what if freedom favors a certain people above all else. Consider sports. All Americans have the freedom to succeed in sports, but professional sports are heavily dominated by blacks because blacks are just so much better athletically than other races. So, freedom isn’t enough for power. All Americans--except lower class white males--have more or less equal legal freedom to succeed in law, media, finance, academia, and etc, but freedom alone doesn’t pay dividends. Jews, with their superior intellect, will make the most money as masters of finance, innovators in technology and medicine, manipulators of the law, and originators of new intellectual ideas. Good or bad, Jews have the talent, which leads to money, influence, and power. So, while we may be free as a Jew, we don’t have the money or power of the Jew. It wouldn’t be so bad if Jews didn’t hate us, but they do. Jews fear us, hate us, and hold us in contempt. We now live in a nation where most of us are still free but powerless. (With more appointments like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor who believe in banning ‘hate speech’, we won’t even have free speech anymore. If the future Supreme Court upholds government’s criminalization of politically incorrect speech, don’t expect conservatives to mount a challenge. With their slavishness to Jews and sensitivity about being labeled as ‘racists’, ‘homophobes’, and ‘anti-Semites’, conservatives will meekly support ‘hate speech’ laws. Also, with rising black hatred and violence against whites, the latter will also see certain advantages in curtailing ‘hate speech’--especially hostile black speech--, just like whites in South Africa want to ban the ‘Kill the Boer’ song. Thus, Jews will play blacks against whites, whites against blacks, when, in fact, their real reason for clamping down on ‘hate speech’ is to prohibit any honest discussion and criticism of Jewish power.)
Goyim have little power in the media, academia, law, government, and much else. Jews have most of the power. Jewish power in the media is especially formidable because our awareness of the reality comes from the media. If a tree falls in a forest but media don’t report it, we would never know. It is through the media that we find out the truth about immigration, crime, sexuality, and other trends, but the media just give us what’s ‘good for us’, which is, of course, determined by the Cabal. Network News is really Jewish Network Jews and Cable News is really Cabal News. Things were different in the past when a single group didn’t have such an octopus-like stranglehold over the entire nation. One could say Wasps once had such power, but at least Wasp elites represented a large number of Americans who were also wasp. The Jewish elite, in contrast, don’t represent anyone but themselves who comprise only 2% of the entire nation. Also, Wasps were open to criticism and self-criticism, a trait lacking among most Jews. Jews will criticize others but cannot stand any criticism of Jewish power, just like Marx, Freud, Ayn Rand, Pauline Kael, and other Great Jews simply could not stand anyone dissenting from their views. Also, Jews have the Holocaust Card, which means they not only have elite power/privilege but victim nobility/sainthood. American culture was interesting in the 60s because the rising Jewish power challenged Wasp power. Back then, Jews in the media really did have the will and agenda to take on the Power Elite since it was Wasp-dominated. But once Jews became the new elite, the Jewish-controlled media aren’t so eager to rock the boat. Why should Jews attack other Jews? Imagine if in 2008, Wall Street was run by Wasps. The Jew-dominated Media would have called for the heads of bankster crooks. But since Wall Street, Washington, and the Watchers are all Jewish, they’re all helping each other out. And Jews are unlikely to change because they’ll never feel secure about their power. When Wasps and white gentiles ran things, they enjoyed both power and numbers--since 90% of the America was white--, and so they could expand on the proper checks and balances among the various institutions, branches, and departments controlled by their kind. They never thought they would or could lose power. But they did lose power to the Jews. Jews, no matter how rich and powerful, will remain around 2% of the population, and so they’ll always feel insecure and anxious about the gentiles waking up and coming after them with pitchforks. So, Jews will never be as magnanimous as the Wasps once had been. Also, Jews know that they, a small minority, toppled the Wasps. It such dramatic decline can happen to the Wasps who are still so numerous, why couldn’t it happen to the Jews? Gaining possession of America is the greatest feat in Jewish history. It’s almost like a dream, and Jews are still pinching themselves to see if it’s real. So, there’s no way Jews will do ANYTHING to threaten their powerful grip on this country.
Dramatically, SOCIAL NETWORK operates rather like Facebook itself, where someone posts a link or article, which is then followed by a whole series of comments, one opinion followed by a whole slew of others. Most views are expressed as opinions than thoughts because the format is conversational and ‘social’. One could argue it has even revolutionized the way people think, with each ‘friend’ having little time to form his or her own thoughts before spouting them off. It has a breezy and exciting feeling to it but also a vapid shallowness. Though lively as storytelling, the movie is really like a series of visualized opinions without dramatic substance. Eisen-Zuck remains elusively cunning and ruthless, and everyone has his own caustic or ‘snarky’ opinion-bubble-reality. Instead of drama, it’s a kind of drammentry, or drama-commentary. It’s feels less like a movie based on a screenplay than one based on a long thread about Zuckerberg on Sorkin’s own Facebook page.
SOCIAL NETWORK is, at the very least, interesting in what it expresses, wittingly or not, about the state of elite culture. Suppose we compare it to previous movies where Harvard University figures prominently, namely LOVE STORY and PAPER CHASE. Though both films were conceived and made at a time of great socio-cultural upheaval--late 60s and early 70s--, there is a sense of HARVARD as a bastion of profound tradition. Oliver Barrett of LOVE STORY is something of a silent rebel and breaks from his father, but his father is shown as a decent sort--despite his class snobbery and limitations. And Jenny admits part of Oliver’s appeal is his neo-aristocratic pedigree, just as part of her appeal to Oliver is her earthiness and sensuality in contrast to his repressive high altitude Wasp upbringing. Though LOVE STORY reflects the social changes of the late 60s, we never sense the impact directly. We feel it around the edges. LOVE STORY is appealing for both its universalism--poor ethnic girl attends elite college and wins the love of preppie jock--and elitism--however the world may change, Harvard shall remain a special place for special people. I don’t know what the real Harvard was like in the late 60s or early 70s, but I loved watching LOVE STORY as a child. And PAPER CHASE also gave us Harvard as a special place. Being set in the early 70s, many law students have long hair and dress rather casually. Even so, its main character Hart admires Professor Kingsfield and would do anything to win his respect. Hart is awed by Harvard’s mythic tradition and cannot believe his good fortune to be there. He falls in love with Kingsfield’s daughter, for whom Harvard isn’t special since she grew up within the Castle walls; but then, why does she still hang around the Harvard town community? In the end, Hart seems to have gotten over his near-spiritual obsession with Harvard. Even so, his very disillusionment is a kind of privilege since he had to be within the Castle to see the Castle for what it really is. To be disillusioned, one has to have had the privilege to be in a position to be disillusioned. After, there is a difference between being rejected by the elite world and rejecting it from within after becoming familiar with it. There’s a difference between being a loser and choosing to ‘lose’ after one wins.
SOCIAL NETWORK deviates from the Harvard-mythologizing of LOVE STORY and PAPER CHASE. Harvard is no special castle but merely a college for kids with high IQ or right credentials. It’s great to be part of the Harvard community, but Harvard seems just like a smarter and richer version of any college in America than a bastion of higher cultural worthiness. We don’t sense Harvard as a tradition, heritage, or society. It’s just an institution for earning credentials, joining clubs to party, and meeting other smart people. It’s like Georgetown University no longer has anything to do with Catholic tradition or like Y.M.C.A has nothing to do with Christianity. Harvard, now a Jew-run institution that looks to the future and has little use for its once-Wasp-dominated past(except to put it down as ‘antisemitic’), is like an elite Ellis Island for brainy kids. If old Harvard emphasized its settledness and promoted of tradition favoring settled Americans, new Harvard seems to favor and define itself through ‘diversity’ and immigrant-types than with Americans with a long history of settlement in America. Sure, elite Wasps still have access to Harvard, but Jews, Asians, Negroes, and Hispanics are favored over ordinary white Americans. So, the Harvard we see in SOCIAL NETWORK strikes us as more culturally happening than culturally rooted. In NOBLE HOUSE, we hear a Chinese saying, ‘If you have to remove a weed, be sure to remove its roots.’ It seems the Jewish agenda in elite institutions is to pull out the entire weeds of Wasp power. This isn’t to say Wasps have no place in the Jewish-run order. They still do but as underlings and servants of Jews, not in the name of Wasp power.
SOCIAL NETWORK doesn’t suggest that the new Harvard is egalitarian or happy place for everyone. There seems to be a pecking order of exclusive clubs. Even in a university of winners, there are relative winners and losers. I suppose a further irony is that many academic winners who attend elite colleges were social losers in highschool. Geeks aren’t cool in highschool but they go to the best colleges, where they suddenly find themselves the chosen elect. It must feel strange to go from social loserdom to winnerdom almost overnight. Yet, even at elite colleges, there are ‘popular kids’--those admitted for athletics, non-academic credits, and legacy than on high test scores. Geeks, who had been utterly powerless in highschool, may suddenly feel more emboldened in college to take on the Greeks in the college setting. Eisen-Zuck’s inner tension is a kind of loser/winner complex. He knows he’s attending Harvard because he’s one of the smartest young people in America. Yet, even in the bastion of supergeekdom, he’s not cool and he can’t keep a girl; and there are elite clubs that favor ‘jocks’ over ‘geeks’. I don’t know how much this is true with the real Zuckerberg, but it is the shtick of SOCIAL NETWORK.
The Jewishism of SOCIAL NETWORK is palpable from the start. Notice how it begins at nighttime, and we soon see Eisen-Zuck, a dejected figure, walking to his dorm alone. With haunting Klezmerish melody on the soundtrack, he looks less like a privileged student at Harvard than an endangered Jew wandering the streets of the Warsaw Ghetto. And notice there is no mention of Eisen-Zuck’s family whereas there is no doubt that the Winkles come from a rich and powerful family. So, it’s as the Jew kid is an orphan, the sole survivor of the Holocaust, who must use his wits against Wasps who have family ties and networks.
The film’s Judeo-centrism redefines the meaning of ‘asshole’ according to Lenin’s dictum of ‘who, whom’. Simply put, it’s okay or even necessary for a Jew to be an asshole. In the beginning of the film, a girl says to Eisen-Zuck, “You go through life thinking girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.” The film ends with a female lawyer telling Eisen-Zuck that he’s not really an asshole but acting like one because he thinks he has to be. But why does a Jew think he has to be an asshole? Because he’s naturally an asshole? Of course not according to Sorkin and other asshole Jews. Sorkin’s message is that Jews are stuck on asshole-ism because they were surrounded by gentile assholes all throughout history. So, Jews have this knee-jerk reaction to be feisty and asshole-ish as a survival mechanism. Also, Jewish smarts had been exploited to the advantage of goy asshole elites in the past, so Jews must be assholes to maintain control over their own genius.
So, when the Winkles are assholes, they are assholes of privilege, snobbery, and crypto-Nazism. But when a Jew is being an asshole, he’s really an asshole of vengeful justice. So, if Aryans are assholes because they love to be assholes, Jews are assholes because they’ve been forced to be assholes. Only pure assholes think like this, and of course, Sorkin is a vile disgusting Jewish asshole of the highest order. He’s as hypocritical and narcissistic as Jonathan Rosenbaum, another supreme Jewish holier-than-thou asshole who goes out of his way to be an asshole in the name of challenging the assholes of the world.
The problem of Wasp power was its combination of complacency, naive(and guilt-ridden)idealism, and exclusivity. A lot of power made Wasps believe that their dominance over America could be taken for granted almost indefinitely. As such, they became too trusting of the Jew because Wasps never believed Jews could topple them. But this was combined with a
do-gooder impulse that made Wasps blind to how much others resented or even hated them. Wasps forgot the rule of power that one should ‘do good’ only to the extent that it’s good for one’s own people. In the game of power, never do good for doing good’s sake.
Jews could easily play on Wasp complacency and apologetic moralism to gain advantage. But another aspect of Wasp power, especially among Wasp conservatives, was an attitude--bordering on the ideology--of exclusion. Though American Wasp racial ideology never reached the level of National Socialism, there was a substantial number of American Wasps who looked down on non-Northern-Europeans and non-whites as lesser races or peoples. The most radical aspects of this attitude flared up with the KKK movement. Though most Wasps were never that extreme, there was a thread in the Wasp narrative that distinguished between the ‘best kind of people’--Northern Europeans--and the rest of humanity. Even many liberal Wasps, implicitly if not explicitly, subscribed to this attitude. So, if one aspect of Wasp power was too easy-going and complacent--thereby vulnerable to attack by hostile elements--, another aspect of Wasp power was too exclusionary. If a people are going to be exclusionary, they must do so with resolve and commitment. Wasps, however, tried to have it both ways. They wanted to be idealistic and reformist yet also privileged and special. The soft part of Wasp power allowed Jews to strike. And the hard part of Wasp power served as an easy moral target for Jews who called it hypocrisy.
Furthermore, Jews claimed to be inclusive and egalitarian--unlike those stuffy snobby Wasps. But, as it turned out, Jews amassed fortunes and power greater that Wasps could ever dream of. And Jews are ruthless and cunning in maintaining their power in all the elite institutions, and they seethe with rage and spew venom at anyone who dares to speak truth to Jewish power. Just look at Alan Dershowitz. In his book CHUTZPAH, he praises his own life story and the history of Jews as one long struggle for fairness and equality. He says he was discriminated against by Wasp-dominated law firms when he graduated from Harvard though he graduated at the head of his class. He says he was angry with Wasp hypocrisy and exclusivity and expended his energy to help minorities and underdogs of all stripes--blacks, Italian Catholics, etc--against Wasp privilege. So far so good. But based on what we know of Dershowitz, do you think he would ever tolerate criticism against Jewish elite power or Jewish iron-grip on America? Of course not. What Jews pulled off in America isn’t much different from what they pulled off in Soviet Russia in terms of their own much greater hypocrisy. Russian Jews bitched and whined about the abuses of power under the Tsarist order--which were indeed extensive and needed to be condemned--, but once communist Jews took power, Russians were not allowed to criticize the new order dominated by murderous Jew communists. Indeed, ‘antisemitism’ was outlawed in the Soviet Union. The new law wasn’t merely to stamp out garbage like The Protocols of Elders of Zion but to silence even valid criticism of Jewish-Bolshevik abuse of power in the new Russia. This is how Jews play the game of power. Never trust a Jew.
The main reason for the Winklevoss twins’ humiliation at the hands of Zuckerberg could be the aforementioned combination of complacency and exclusivity, which is all the more amusing when Wasps don’t even have the real power in America anymore. Did the Winkles really trust Zuckerberg the Jew to serve them? Didn’t they think it could be possible that the Jew would run with the idea and make it his own? Ironically, Zuckerberg did to the Winkles what Wasps once did to American Indians. American Indians once thought they had more land than they knew what to do with and sold off entire chunks to white man in exchange for trinkets like bean necklaces. Worse, the American Indian thought the white man was trustworthy. But the white man saw the Indians as stupid savages to dupe and take more land from. Eventually, Wasps came to own everything while Indians ended up in reservations. Of course, the fate of Indians would have been the same even if Indians had resisted. White man simply had more people, more guns, more everything.
Even so, the parallel is striking because Jews are now taking everything from white people. Indeed, even white communities are being destroyed by Section 8 Housing that will bring more whites into closer proximity with blacks. With white girls growing up to hip-hop culture, more black males in formerly white communities means more interracism and more pussification of white males.
If the white Spanish raped the natives of Latin America and created the mestizo race, Jews are urging non-white males to mate with white females to turn the entire white race into a mulatto and mestizo race with confused racial identity, thereby less likely to have racial pride and unity to take on Jewish power. And scum race-traitors like James Cameron, Bill Clinton, and Newt the Jewt Gingrich have jumped on the Jewish Power Express to get their little piece of the pie in the Jew-run order.
Narendra, the Asian-Indian friend of the Winkles, makes an interesting contrast. Perhaps due to the history of India, he’s more keen about the real workings of power. Even before the Winkles, Narendra gets an inkling of what Zuckerberg may be up to. He warns his friends that they should act fast and hit hard since time is Zuck’s side.
India was ruled by the Brits for two centuries and before that by other conquerors and invaders. So, Asian-Indians know what it’s like to be oppressed, dominated, humiliated, cheated, and etc. Also, Asian-Indians are a crazy, cunning, shrewd, cutthroat bunch of sharks and weasels--though not as effective as Jews. Asian-Indians don’t trust one another, so why should they trust a damn Jew? Even so, perhaps due to India’s long history of servitude under British Imperialism, there could be a subconscious respect and awe among Asian-Indians for the Anglo-ruled order. Asian-Indians are also used to a world dominated by Anglos and Anglo-Americans. Because Asian-Indians cannot trust one another--India is a very diverse country divided by religion, ethnicity, local customs, class/caste, etc--, the British rule and English language served as kind of a glue for all ‘Indians’--actually a national concept created by the British. So, whether Asian-Indians personally like Anglos or not, they are familiar with Anglo power and its workings. But when Asian-Indians deal with Jews, they see a people as cunning, devious, shrewd, deceitful, and unprincipled as they themselves are. This isn’t to say Brits weren’t without cunning and deviousness when they ruled India. Indeed they were. But there is another side of Anglo culture that is about honor, good sportsmanship, and reputation and all that stuff. Anglos may play dirty but they also have a certain vanity about pride. So, Anglos have always had to temper their deviousness with some adherence to principles. But no such mentality exists among Jews because Jews don’t have a long history of dominance but, instead, of weaseling into the powers-that-be, sometimes in a collaborative manner, sometimes in a subversive manner, sometimes both.
What Anglo-Americans need to learn from Asian-Indians is that no power is ever permanent, and white Americans must stop thinking history willed them to stay on top forever. Whites could precipitously drop to the bottom if current demographic trends continue. Just look at South Africa. Look at the demographic horrors in Southern Italy and Greece as a result of massive influx of Africans. With both the unity of the white male and the white female and the unity of the white elites and the white masses broken, white people are in deep doo doo. White elites have sold their souls to Jews. White elites prefer profit for themselves over the survival of their race as a whole. White masses, no longer led by a proud white elite but fed with interracist propaganda by the Jew-run media, are now aping black thugs and acting like stupid ho’s. White guys are turning into wiggers who emulate alpha male Negroes while white girls put out to alpha male Negroes. In the end, America may become as racially and culturally messy like India or Brazil. And with Germans worshiping Obama and hating their own race, Germany too will probably be overrun by Muslims and Africans in the next century. This is what the Jews have wrought on the West.
Asian Indian elites, though spouting PC crap about wonders of diversity, privately believe that India is a messed up precisely because of its excessive racial and cultural diversity. As such, India could never get its act together like Germany, China, Britain, or Japan. Though there are vile Asian-Indian elites brainwashed with Western leftist ideas, there’s also a fair amount of nationalist intellectuals who admire the greater racial homogeneity of the White West. When these Asian-Indians observe how white peoples in the West are pissing away their civilizational greatness by handing the all the keys of power to dirty Jews, they shake their heads in disbelief(and even grief).
Of course, Sorkin the Jew despises the neo-Indo-Aryan alliance. To Sorkin, Narendra is just a wanna-be toady to white power and privilege. Sorkin takes pride as a Jew whose people toppled and came to own the Wasps whereas the likes of Narendra only seems eager to be allowed into the club as ‘honorary whites’.
All said and done, SOCIAL NETWORK is a well-written, well-acted, and well-directed movie. But it is also a steaming pile of Jewish Supremacist B.S. It is not a critique of Jewish power but a naked apologia. It says even the biggest Jewish asshole in the world is, deep in his heart, just a socially inept lonely victim who needs our compassion. He’s not a real asshole but a lonely soul forced to be an asshole by a hostile world. Isn’t that how the movie ends? Though Zuckerberg won and will make billions more, we are supposed to feel sorry for him because, oh boo hoo, he lost the girl and feels kinda lonely at the top.
This fits into the Jewish habit of contextualizing(thereby apologizing for)even the most vile, abusive, and disgusting Jewish behavior within the victimological narrative. So, Roman Polanski is to be forgiven and remain a free man because... his mother died in the Holocaust. So, maybe his anal-rape of a 12 yr old shikse girl was just a subconscious acting out of a traumatized psychology. Likewise, the media forgave Bill Clinton’s pardoning of Marc Rich, the filthy Jewish conman(which, as far as I’m concerned, was many times worse than Watergate).
Even American conservatives try to ‘understand’ and sympathize with Jews who support Obama, Sotomayor, Kagan, and others whose agenda is to destroy white power and white interests. Whatever Jews do, we never hear criticism but apologia(even from brainwashed non-Jews). When 80% of Jews voted for Obama, white conservatives shrugged and made excuses for Jews. When Jews in Wall Street looted the wealth of white Americans and their children(and grandchildren), all we hear from conservatives is how we must love Jews and Israel and protect them from Obama(who was made president with Jewish money and media). The whole thing stinks. Most modern Jews are like a virus that rots the minds of non-Jews as well.