Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascist Thoughts on the Reluctant Killers of PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID and BLADE RUNNER. Part 2.

CONTINUED. Click HERE for Part 1.

At the heart of PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID is an element of voyeurism, a paradoxical obsession where the voyeur seeks both intimacy and distance. A voyeur wants access into the most secretive and private parts of a person’s life. A voyeur finds thrill in the act of violating the privacy of the person being observed. And yet, the voyeur wants to remain secretive himself. He wants to watch closely but doesn’t want to be noticed by the person being watched or the public at large. The voyeur wants to be the invisible man, seeing but unseen. (Such voyeurism is, of course, part of the movie-going experience. No art form is at once so close and so distant as the art of cinema. The advent of 3D technology notwithstanding, there is an unbridgeable fixed physical distance between the viewer and the screen. A person reading a book can imagine himself to be inside the fantasy world. The music enters through one’s senses. One can stand very close to a sculpture or painting. You can enter and walk inside a work of architecture. But in a movie theater, you remain in your seat staring at the screen that is considerably removed from your position. Yet, through an array of visual techniques — editing, close ups, lighting, etc. — the viewer can feel closer to the world shown in cinema than to any other art form. Of course, the darkness of the theater helps, which is why watching movies at home in a lit room is never the same thing. Not only is the screen smaller but you’re aware of all the things and the sense of distance in the room other than the image on the screen. True cinema isn’t just the light on the screen but the darkness that envelopes that light. It is the darkness that dissolves the actual distance between the viewer and the illuminated screen. Similarly, it is the darkness that makes the distant moon and stars seem so near. Notwithstanding the fact that musical performances often accompanied silent cinema, the silent film was like the light at the mouth of the cave seen from the inside or the eastern horizon at the moment of daybreak. It was the coming of sound that made the cinema truly intimate. Since the viewer couldn’t hear the happenings in a silent film, he was aware of the separateness between himself and the movie world. Thus, his senses strained to enter the film. But with the coming of sound, the movie could come to the viewer who could take in the movie more passively. If the viewer closes his eyes in fright while watching a silent film, he is safely removed from the horror on the screen. But a sound horror movie will ‘enter’ the viewer even if his eyes are closed. Hitchcock understood this in the shower scene in PSYCHO. Though no actual image of knife striking is shown, we HEAR the sound of the knife hacking the woman to Bernard Hermann’s terrifying score; it feels as if our own flesh is being stabbed. We cannot escape the horror even if we close our eyes. Thus, sound added an element of wetness to cinema; sound is the water that fills the movie theater like an aquarium. Imagine the effectiveness of JAWS without sound. On the other hand, one could argue that silent cinema was more intimate because the absence of sound made for a kind of a dreaminess. Sound adds an element of realism for everything in reality has sound, whereas silence is, by nature, an abstract concept in reality. Only in dreams can one enter a silent realm — unless one happens to be deaf — , and what is more intimate than dreams?)
There are two kinds of voyeurism: the active and the passive. In the case of PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID, the voyeurism is active. Billy is an outlaw brimming with virility and freedom. Garrett, who feels the stuffy walls of domesticity and respectability closing around him, looks to Billy for the freedom he once had but lost(or gave up for security). Thus, there are two sides to Garrett’s pursuit of Billy. Legally and physically, it is to hunt down an outlaw, but psychologically and emotionally, it is to come closer to the ‘ideal’ he still desires on some level: freedom of youth in the open frontier. In the heart of every old or aging man is the desire to reclaim youth that is forever lost. Also, Billy lives by the Rock n Roll code of ‘hope I die before I get too old’ whereas Garrett decided at some point that he’s gonna settle into a cozy life no matter what the price.
It is fitting that Garrett arrives in Fort Sumner just when Billy is making love to Maria(Rita Coolidge). Though Garrett doesn’t pry into the act, he senses the full implications of the difference between Billy and himself. Billy is the young virile outlaw with whom women fall in love. Garrett, as seen earlier, has to buy himself a roomful of whores. Garrett doesn’t have to pry through the window because he knows, and this knowledge is both meaningful(as something he yearns for) and hurtful(as something he can no longer have). But it would be wrong to assume Garrett kills Billy out of envy. If the Law didn’t require him to do so, he would have let Billy roam wild and free. Garrett has to kill Billy because he’s too close to the object of his voyeurism. Many people are drawn to men of action in ‘voyeuristic’ fantasies, but they don’t want to be drawn too close. The distance — real, mythic, or psychological — between the voyeur and the object of voyeurism is a safety barrier. It allows the voyeur to share in thrills and pleasures of the object without being harmed by the violence or transgression inherent in the violence. We like to watch nature programs on TV because we can observe closely without having our heads bitten off by lions or bears. In THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT CRAWFORD, the kid who idolizes Jesse James through legends and myths comes to see an entirely different man — a far less appealing one — when the distance between them dissolves. Or consider the BRADY BUNCH episode where Peter idolizes Jesse James but then has a dream where Jesse in the flesh mows down his entire family in a train robbery.

One of the reasons why many white liberals are enamored with blacks is due to the aspect of voyeurism. Through music, movies, and TV shows, white liberals can become intimately close with the fun, exciting, soulful, and/or sexy aspects of black culture without coming face to face with the full spectrum of monstrous jigger-jiver-ishness. Of course, those who control the media get to control the rules of voyeurism; since Jews control the media, they decide what we see, what we don’t see, what we dream and obsess about. Jewish-controlled porn today is essentially a voyeuristic fantasy involving white women getting pummeled by Negroes. Negro viewers get to voyeuristically imagine themselves humping every white women. White female viewers get to imagine themselves being humped by big Negroes. And white men get their jollies through the masochism of sexual humiliation. When white boys watch black men humping white girls, they both identify with the Negro and the white woman. The flabby and soft white boy imagines himself to be muscular, gruff voiced, and big-dicked like a jungle ape. He imagines himself satisfying the white ho as she’d never been before with a white guy. But he also identifies with the white woman. He sees himself as a pussified beta male ‘faggot’ whose manhood is fake and bogus compared to the REAL manhood of the Negro stud. And the Jew voyeuristically enjoys the spectacle as the triumph of Jewish power. Jews have long feared the unity of white male and white female as the pillar of white power. White males once felt great pride in sexually owning the most beautiful women on the planet, and white women respected the power of the white man. But interracist porn shows that the Negro stud is the object of worship among white females and white males are too pussy-boy-ish and ‘faggoty’ to put up a fight against this sexual conquest/colonization of their own race by Jews and Negroes. When the vaginas of a race are conquered and owned by other races, that race is pretty much finished. White vaginas used to be owned by white penises. They are now owned by Jewish brains and Negro dicks. And white males dare not put up a fight because they’ve been brainwashed from cradle to hate ‘white power’ as ‘racist’ and to worship MLK as bigger than God. And there’s also the influence of sports. Whenever flabby white boys watch football or basketball and cheer black athletes, they are little more than cheerleading ‘faggotized’ boys. When white males used to root for white athletes in the past, there was an element of identification, i.e. white athletes embodied the collective manhood of all white men. But when white males cheer for blacks(who often beat whites), they are cheering on the conquerors of their own race. It’s like American Indians cheering for cowboys in Westerns. Thus, the pussified white boys lost the West.

There is an element of voyeurism — indeed a much more perverse one — in BLADE RUNNER as well. In conventional voyeurism, a person probes into someone or something of whom/which he knows little. Gradually, through the secretive spying and/or eavesdropping, he comes to know more, even becoming privy to something that the object of voyeurism may not be aware of. (The object of voyeurism only knows his/her private world whereas the voyeur not only has access to the object’s private world but is aware of its having been violated/penetrated, a fact that is a part of the object’s reality though unbeknownst to the object. Thus, the voyeur can be said to know more about the object than the object does. In gaining access to someone’s privacy, the voyeur is able to see from both the inside and the outside. To be sure, there’s an element of this in everyday life. Except when staring into a mirror, we never see ourselves; we see the world around us while the world around us sees us. Our minds are hidden inside us but our bodies are ‘naked’ for the world to see. This is the strange nature of perception/consciousness. It is both private and public but excludes the reality in between, i.e. we feel our private feelings and see the world around us but we don’t see ourselves — unless we’re staring at a mirror. The strange nature of voyeurism was brilliantly conveyed in BEING JOHN MALKOVICH where the people who enter Malkovich’s mind/body come to own him more than he owns himself. Malkovich only knows Malkovich whereas people who ‘enter’ his mind/body know both Malkovich and their own penetration into Malkovich.) In BLADE RUNNER, there’s a kind of in-built voyeurism. Tyrell, for instance, knows all about Rachel because he implanted her ‘private life’. And Deckard knows too, having seen her files. It’s almost a case of ‘more voyeuristic than voyeurism’. Conventionally, voyeurism is the means by which another person’s privacy is accessed/violated, but in the future world of BLADE RUNNER, neo-voyeurism is the process by which the ‘private’ life of a ‘person’ is implanted by the creator, i.e. what is ‘private’ wasn’t private to begin with. There’s an element of paranoia in voyeurism — both the suspicion of being watched and the suspicion of being watched while watching — , but BLADE RUNNER takes it to a whole new level. In the cases of conventional voyeurism in movies like VERTIGO or THE CONVERSATION, there’s the fear that the one who is doing the watching and listening may also be, in turn, be watched and listened to. Scotty(James Stewart) thinks he’s secretly observing ‘Madeline’(Kim Novack), but she is an Act and, if anything, she is ‘watching’ him watch her. (And to the extent that the evil husband planned the whole thing, he’s watching them both. And to the extent that we are watching them with obsessive fascination, we are being watched by Hitchcock, who’s manipulating our emotions. But to the extent that Hitchcock is revealing his deepest obsessions, we are watching him. And so, the vertiginous spiral goes round and round.) In Coppola’s THE CONVERSATION, the bugger becomes bugged, the wiretapper become wiretapped. It’s like two snakes swallowing the other’s tail. Nevertheless, even if one’s privacy is compromised by voyeuristic intrusion, one can at least feel assured of the sanctity of one’s own soul — which may be why religion is a serious matter to the Hackman character in Coppola’s film. (To be sure, one can argue that even Scotty’s soul has been violated and trespassed upon because the evil husband apparently understood what emotional/sensual strings to pull to make Scotty completely head-over-heels for ‘Madeline’. In a way, the evil husband even makes Scotty betray him by having Scotty fall in love with his ‘wife’. Scotty, who’s supposed to save the woman for the husband, in effect, betrays the husband by wanting ‘Madeline’ for himself. But then, ‘Madeline’ was not the real wife of the man who, by the way, was plotting to kill his real wife. There’s something similar in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE to the extent that the voyeuristic transgression isn’t merely spatial/temporal but psychological. The hero comes to be soulfully owned the communists who use high-tech voodoo to turn him into a kind of killer zombie.) In BLADE RUNNER, even one’s soul may not belong to oneself if one is a ‘replicant’. And in the case of Rachel and possibly Deckard, replicants may not even know that they are replicants. Thus, the powers-that-be have the knowledge not only of what one did but of what one is(in the deepest recesses of one’s soul). And yet, Tyrell too is vulnerable. Because his ego(playing god) made replicants in his own ‘image’(or intellect), they may understand him as well as he understands them. Roy Batty, having a mind equal to Tyrell’s, can play mental chess with the master and win. Just as Tyrell knows what makes the replicants tick, the replicants know what makes him tick. Thus, the voyeurism goes both ways.

In a way, goyeuristic Jews are like Tyrell. They want to turn us into slaves but also try to fool us that our slavery isn’t slavery but ‘progress’ and ‘liberation’. As with communism, the modern phenomenon of Political Correctness keeps telling us that we are growing more ‘free’ as we lose more of our freedoms; we are said to be more ‘empowered’ as we lose more of our power; we are said to be growing more ‘equal’ as the unequal momentum of Jewish power increases exponentially. Jewish deception can be seen in the field of psychology. Jewish psychiatry fooled educated goyim that its purpose was to identify and cure their mental problems when its ulterior motive was to gain control over goy minds. Freud was a great thinker but also a power-hungry Jew. Part of the reason for Freud’s insistence on finding the roots of psychological problems in childhood trauma was to infantilize his patients so they could be re-conditioned to and from a kind of babbling blank slate. An adult mind is skeptical and emotionally armored. In contrast, a child’s mind is vulnerable and open to all sorts of conditioning and suggestions. Thus, in order to gain control over an adult, one must put him or her into an infantile state of mind. Once that state has been reached by penetrating through the adult armor of reason, ego, and pride, the psychiatrist can push all sorts of psychological and emotional buttons to ‘reprogram’ the patient. (People can even be manipulated to believe that things happened in their childhood that never really happened.) In the psychiatrically induced infantile state of mind, the patient will believe anything — just like kids can be made to believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. (This is why Spielberg’s movies are so effective as tools to control goyim. The infantile emotions of his movies make us abandon all facets of adult skepticism. Whether it’s E.T. or SCHINDLER’S LIST, we watch as innocent or frightened children. And we believe as children, weep as children, and are converted as children. This is why A.I. is unique among Spielberg’s works in revealing the trickster behind the Oz-mic wizard.) Philosophy is the meeting of adult minds. Psychiatry is often the meeting of the adult mind(of the doctor) and the infantile mind(of the patient who’s been induced into childhood mental state). To be sure, there is some validity to this approach — childhood episodes can have a huge impact on the rest of our lives — , and indeed some psychiatrists approached it with sincerity and goodwill. But, it’s open to abuse because the patient is essentially made helpless(in his or her infantile-induced state)before the doctor. A patient is made helpless when he or she undergoes surgery too, but surgery involves only tissues and bones. In contrast, psychiatry involves surgically prying into a person’s soul, his or her innermost secrets. If a doctor heals your broken bones, you feel gratitude toward him but you don’t feel owned by him. But when a psychiatrist ‘heals’ your soul, you feel owned by him. You may even feel that he knows you better than you know yourself. The Jewish strategy of using infantilization to gain control over goyim can be seen in popular culture as in psychiatry. Some may wonder why a people as intelligent as the Jews would be filling the airwaves with so much stupid, childish, and mindless filth that insults our intelligence. It’s because Jews know that the infantile mind is easier to control than adult minds. But then, Jews also fear the infantile mind because the infantile mind, if directed and controlled by anti-Jewish forces, can cause harm to Jews. Consider Nazism where Germans were infantilized by Hitler and his loopy goons. Germans, a sober and intelligent people, suddenly became a nation of Hitler-worshiping Infants beating up Jews in the streets. And infantilism is a big element of Evangelical Christianity where one is ‘born again’. Thus, even a sober and rational adult undergoes a process whereby he comes out babbling and crying like a baby, yelling ‘Hallelujah’, and pledging to devote his life to Jesus Christ. Again, I don’t want to completely knock the idea of healing by reconnecting with childhood or being ‘born again’, but we must be mindful of the great possibility of abuse by people who control the process. When a man is ‘born again’ as a Christian, he’s willing to embrace just about anything put before him. And when a man or woman on a couch is induced by the shrink to withdraw into his or her childhood, he or she essentially becomes putty in the hands of the shrink(who is often a liberal Jew pushing ‘gay marriage’). Just look what happened to Brian Wilson at the hands of Eugene Landy. Wilson did indeed have childhood issues related to his sometimes abusive father, and a good shrink might have done him some good. But Eugene Landy, a hideous Jew, used psychiatry to manipulate and control Wilson. Thus, for a time, Wilson came to see himself and the world only in terms laid out by Landy. Thus, the Jew gains the power over the goy, and goy comes to feel that his own family/friends/people are his enemies while the Jew who’s gained control over him is seen as the real friend and savior. Jews do this with the study of history, which is why so many young white people see their own ancestors and own people as vile scum while seeing Jews, Negroes, and gays as their real friends(when, in fact, the power of Jews, Negroes, and gays is undermining everything that is noble about the West).

One thing BLADE RUNNER has in common with PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID is the pacing. Neither has a sense of urgency, not least because their hired killers aren’t motivated by vengeance or personal vendetta. In a movie like DEATH WISH, we know Paul Kersey(Charles Bronson)wants to mow down thugs because of what happened to his family. And we know Harry Callahan develops a personal vendetta against Scorpio in DIRTY HARRY. And the men in THE WILD BUNCH are motivated by ‘greed’ for loot or fueled by honor when one of their own is in trouble. In contrast, Garrett doesn’t want to hunt down Billy. Nor does he take special pleasure in killing members of Billy’s gang. And Billy kills because he has to than out of vengeful feelings. Billy is most angry when he finds Paco killed by Chisum’s men, but his anger subsides by the time he’s making love with Maria(Rita Coolidge). I think this is one of the reasons why Pauline Kael said the film has a motor missing. It is a violent film but the killings seem happenstance or accidental than fueled by any motivation or emotion — monetary, greed, or pride.

Similarly in BLADE RUNNER, Deckard has no special vendetta against anyone. Like Garrett, he’s a shady character, with one foot in the world of law, the other in the underworld(but then, as in Peckinpah’s movie, there’s no clear dividing line between law and criminality, good and evil, or past and future). Deckard goes after replicants because, as one of the ‘little people’, he has no choice. Of course, as the story progresses, he could have developed a hatred for replicants, but it doesn’t happen. If anything, he falls in love with one of them. And near the end, his life is spared by one of them. And at the end, he discovers he may be one of them. And so, the violence in BLADE RUNNER lacks the kick in most action movies(where the hero exults in the killing the bad guys). Deckard kills replicants because he has to and without emotional investment. Also, his killings of two female replicants are as much acts of self-defense as executions. Zhora(Joanna Cassidy) attacks him first and nearly kills him before taking flight and being shot down. Later, Pris(Darryl Hannah) beats the crap out of him and could have killed him if she weren’t so keen on doing flip flops before another round of assault. The killings are not clean, masterful, or heroic. They are messy and desperate acts wherein Deckard is saved by strokes of luck. As for Leon(Brion James), it is replicant Rachel who shoots him in the head just before he’s about to shove his fingers into Deckard’s eyes. (Replicants seem to have a thing for eyes. Chu the eye-maker is killed. Tyrell’s eyes are turned into bloody jelly. And Batty, while dying, talks of the wondrous things he saw in outer-space. And of course the very first image of the movie is a giant close up of a blue planet-like eye.) I can understand why Harrison Ford didn’t take to the role. He was used to playing the cool Han Solo and the swashbuckling Indiana Jones. Deckard of BLADE RUNNER, despite his credentials as an ace replicant-killer, seems rather hapless, confused, and reluctant in his role. He’s more like the Beatty character in MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER. He’s something of a bumbler. In the movie, he basically kills two ‘women’ and is saved by a ‘woman’ from a ‘man’. And he’s all clumsy and confused when Batty pursues him — rather like Beatty stumbling through the snow in the gunfight in Altman’s film.
In a way, one could say that Deckard, though the main character of BLADE RUNNER, is something of a sideshow of the real conflict unfolding between Tyrell and Batty, which is like the battle of the gods. Tyrell is a self-made god-man and Batty is a god-slave created by Tyrell. Tyrell will do anything to maintain his supremacy over his empire, and Batty will do anything to steal fire from the god-man who created him. In this battle, Deckard is strictly small potatoes despite his vaunted reputation as a ‘blade runner’. Perhaps he’s used to hunting down older models of replicants because Batty, Leon, Zhora, and Pris turn out to be more than he bargained for. Indeed, Batty even manages to infiltrate Tyrell’s lair and take him out. Thus, if Deckard was mainly hired to protect Tyrell corporation — that pretty much controls L.A., if not the world — from Batty and his crew, he failed miserably. In Deckard’s hunt for Batty and Pris in the Bradbury hotel, he barely manages to eke out a win over Pris and finds himself spared — and even saved — by Batty. (One wonders if Batty, on some intuitive level, sensed that Deckard was one of his own kind. At any rate, Batty probably sees Deckard as small potatoes — like Kurtz in APOCALYPSE NOW saw Willard as just a “an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill”. Batty has reasons to hate Deckard for killing Zhora and Pris — though maybe not so much the lunky Leon — , but maybe he senses they have something in common in that both were created and/or ordered to follow orders. Just as replicants are used as killers and assassins in outward colonies, Deckard is used by powers-that-be as a hired killer. So, in that sense, they are all ‘slaves’. Thus, Batty feels no special rage or vendetta toward Deckard. And especially after discovering there is no way to extend the life-span of replicants, maybe Batty doesn’t see Pris’s death as so tragic. She would have died soon anyway. Batty may have spared Deckard because he didn’t want to die alone. It’s like in TASTE OF CHERRY by Abbas Kiarostami where some suicidal guy wants someone — even a stranger — to stand over him and acknowledge his death. Especially in death, people don’t want to be alone, which is one reason why people have children. When they’re old and dying, they want their children to stand over them and to remember them after they die. Since Batty spared Deckard’s life, Deckard might feel gratitude toward Batty. He would know that Batty was not just some mindless killer but a tragic figure capable of heroism, grace, and redemption. Batty could live on as a ghost in Deckard’s memory. To the extent that Deckard is saved from the brink of death and given a new lease on life, one could even say he spiritually becomes the child of Batty. It’s as if the part of Batty that was noble and good is passed onto Deckard. Thus, even though Batty dies and Deckard lives, it is Batty who spiritually wins. Likewise in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID, the dead Billy spiritually wins over the living Garrett. And same goes for Jack Celliers in MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE, who, in choosing a noble kind of death, ‘spiritually’ triumphs over Yonoi.)

Because of the reluctant quality of the violence in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID and BLADE RUNNER, we notice things we may overlook in intense action movies. In BOURNE TRILOGY movies, the propulsive foreground action renders the background into a blur. In PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID and BLADE RUNNER, the background merges with the foreground. Since the action is relatively slower to develop and tend to be diffuse/ambiguous in meaning/impact, we become aware of details and feelings that generally go unnoticed in action movies. The look of things, the mood and texture, the art design, and atmosphere mean as much or even more than the story and the action/suspense. The best thing about PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID is the authentic ‘aged’ sense of place, a recreation of the Old West with all the stains, blotches, and smells that actually deepen its beauty. Like MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER, it eschews the studio lot West and the conventions of how the people and places of the West should be presented. Things have either the haphazard look of frontier Anglo-American settlements and/or the worn look of Mexico’s ‘medieval’ past. (In the Western, we are generally used to the white man building a brand new civilization over the wilderness once inhabited by the savage Indians, but the dynamic changes with Anglo-Americans and Mexican/Americans in the Southwest territory. Unlike the nomadic Red savages, Mexicans of mixed European/indigenous blood had built towns and villages all along the Southwest. Though backward, stagnant, and mired in something closer to the Medieval times — or even ancient times given the nature of the civilization supplanted by the Spaniards — , Mexican townsfolk and villagers were not savages and indeed were often at war with various Indian tribes that were seen as a menace. So, if in most areas of the Wild West the Anglo-American built something new out of practically nothing, things were more complicated and played out differently in the SW territories. Anglo-Americans could not simply round up the Mexicans and put them in reservations. Mexicans may not have been as advanced or dynamic as Anglo-Americans, but they were not savages and could even qualify as civilized — at least by Medieval standards. Also, if American Indians of the prairies lived in tepees, wigwams, and other such impermanent forms of dwelling, many Mexican towns in the Southwest had long-standing buildings and homes made of bricks and mortar. So, in the Mexicanized parts of the SW at least, the Anglo-American developed a dual mind-set: He was both the frontiersmen/pioneer building a new civilization AND a settler/migrant accommodating himself to the ‘medieval/ancient’ culture of another civilization, that of the Mexican. While powerful Anglo-American interests pushed aside Mexican claims and privileges for white interests, the fact is many Anglo-Americans interacted and even merged with the Mexican community in the SW in ways they never did with the American Indian community. This may explain the richness of Peckinpah films such as MAJOR DUNDEE, THE WILD BUNCH, PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID, and BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA where Mexicans and/or Mexico figure prominently. Though RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE, and JUNIOR BONNER are terrific in their own right, they are culturally/historically limited to Anglo-Americans and the world they are creating or have created out of the wilderness. As Cable Hogue says of his well, “Found it where it wasn’t”. There is no sense of history PRIOR the arrival of the white man. In contrast, the forays into Mexico or Mexican-American community in the other group of Peckinpah Westerns allow for perspectives that are as backward-looking as forward-looking. When an Anglo-American comes upon the wilderness, he only had to look forward as he must make something of ‘nothing’. But when the Anglo-American comes face to face with Mexican ‘civilization’, he had to deal with a people and culture with their own deep sense of tradition, values, and history. For Peckinpah, going from modern California to Mexico was like entering a time machine to the Old West. But for Dundee, entering Mexico could have been like going from the Old West to Medieval times, especially with the presence of French cavalry that still fights with lances. Though some commentators have remarked that BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA begins as if set in the 19th century, one could also argue it could almost be set in Medieval Times. What we think of as the 19th century in the Anglo West was different from the 19th century in Mexico. Even in the so-called “Old West”, Anglo-Americans were restlessly on the move, filled with dynamism, intoxicated with notions of liberty and progress, and motivated by a great will to power and passion for reform. Thus, the so-called “Old West” was never really old; it was all about conquering and/or creating something new and different faster and faster; it only seemed old after the fact because the rapid changes happened so fast; Anglo-Americans became aware of the ‘oldness’ of the Old West because it was replaced by the new. But if Anglo-Americans had been slow to change and if the Old West had remained into the 20th century, it would never have seemed ‘old’ and would have been regarded as the present/permanent West. So, the 19th century in the American West was one of great change and progress. Not so in Mexico. Despite the great political upheavals and wars in Mexico in the same period, most Mexicans were mired in the same old Medieval mind-set of feudalism and fiefdom. Thus, the character of El Jefe in BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA could be a European lord in the 13th century. So, Mexico was never like the American ‘Old West’ — where everything grew old fast and was replaced by the new — but more like the Byzantium of the Americas. It had the weight of a civilization going back to Spaniards who’d arrived long before Anglos arrived on the Mayflower and, before that, to the Aztec civilization.) Voices sound scoured by tobacco and worn by whiskey in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID. There’s a haphazardness to the woodwork, erosion in the stone walls. Part of this owes to location shooting down in Mexico where features of the Old West remained little changed due to poverty and lack of development. But there was also a good deal of art design based on Peckinpah’s keen eye for compositional realism. And last but not the least, there was the autumnal cinematography of John Coquillon that captured tones and hues rarely seen in movies. If Lucien Ballard’s work on THE WILD BUNCH emphasized clarity, sunlight, and white sands, Coquillon’s work on PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID evoked the elegiac quality of dusk, a sense of marked lives resigned to fate. There’s also an element of elegy in THE WILD BUNCH, but the sheer tumultuousness keeps the emotions stirred up throughout. People mostly sit around in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID, not least Pat Garrett himself. When he first goes to meet Billy, they sit in a saloon to discuss matters. Oftentimes, Garrett doesn’t merely sit but reclines in the chair. At one time, Poe says, “You look like you only a few days left in ya.” We see him sitting at the barbershop. Sitting with the governor. Sitting as he provokes Holly to make the first move. And perhaps a first in a Western, the final shooting is by a seated man, Garrett as he kills Billy. It’s the most crucial killing in the movie, yet Garrett cannot even make himself stand up to do it. He’s resigned to his fate. He’s become like a couch-potato killer. He carries out the most important killing in his life, yet he uses his gun like a remote control. (What soon follows is one of the weakest things in the film, a ham-fisted use of symbolism all too obvious and self-pitying: Garrett shoots his reflection in the mirror, and then we see his fragmented reflection in the shattered glass. It’s almost as if Garrett is conscious of the movie’s theme and acting accordingly. It detracts from the authentic feel of the film. The mirror/reflection motif is handled much better in other scenes. By far the best is the scene where Sheriff Baker meets his death along the riverbank as his wife watches nearby. We see them and their blurred reflection in the gently passing water. The river, as a symbol of time, serves as a mirror of fading souls in a passing world. The scene begins in violence and ends in calmness, contrasting two kinds of changes in life: change by storms of violence and change by river of time. Both kinds of change have been integral to the Western for, unlike most action movies that are set in the here-and-now, the Western has always been aware of its mythic nature set in a bygone era. Thus, the Westerns has been perhaps both the most dynamic and the most passive among action genres. There’s great suspense in the action, but it takes place in a world of myth — and all myths have a timeless quality, from which the characters cannot escape. It’s like Shane kills the bad guys but rides off into eternity. If Westerns have generally emphasized dynamic action over the resigned sense of elegy, there have been plenty of exceptions like THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, and PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID. The core contradiction of the Western is its actions/emotions are both intensely new and doggedly old: New in the sense that it’s about simple people in new territories carving a world out of nothing and Old in the sense that the process has already been finished and has been rendered into myth. Thus, the Western thrives on both the newness of adventure and the bygone-ness of that adventure. To be sure, the Western isn’t the only genre to deal with adventure and discovery, but it feels newer due to its cultural simplicity. Pioneer women in Western movies wear simple clothes, and men don little more than hats, shirts, pants, and guns. Columbus was a great discoverer/adventurer, but culturally he was very much a man of the Old World working at the behest of European monarchs. He dressed and acted like a man of a specific culture. But the cowboy, in his simple virtues and actions, seems like a new breed of man, and this may have accounted for the universal appeal of the Western. There were plenty of action stories about swashbucklers, samurai swordsmen, ancient warriors, Polish knights, and French noblemen, but they were culturally ‘locked’. The Three Musketeers are unmistakably French — and kinda gay-ish with all that fluffy attire, flamboyant mustaches, feathery hats, and whoopsy-do boots. But, there’s a certain simplicity about the cowboy, or more precisely, a simplicity with a modicum of style and magnetism. The cowboy hat and jacket — or duster — , for instance, aren’t fancy but have a certain aesthetic appeal; Mexicans with their wide burrito-like sombreros with little balls hanging from the rim, in contrast, looked rather comical. Also, there was the pistol and rifle, the gun-belt and boots. And the mighty horse. It featured all the elementary needs of manhood and individuality loaded with just enough style to make the cowboy an icon of freedom, power, and mobility. It was a classic muscular kind of minimalism. In Old Europe, the nobility dressed & acted fancy and owned all the guns while ordinary folks wore humble servile-looking clothing and had no guns, no power, no horses. The Western hero was like the fusion of aristocratic privileges and people power. Like the European nobleman, he owned a horse and guns. He stood upright and had a basic sense of style — that never got too ‘faggoty’. But he was also a common man whose rights were shared by all other men. Thus, the appeal of the cowboy is paradoxical in nature; he is the commoner-as-aristocrat-with-the-gun-and-power-but-minus-the-gayish-flamboyance-that-can-be-really-annoying-fruity-and-snotnosed. The river-as-mirror motif in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID is replayed in the raft scene, especially in the 2005 Paul Seydor version that comes with extra footage to establish the scene: the camera tilts down from trees to their reflections in the river on which the raft is drifting. In some ways, the scene is thematically related to the Sheriff Baker’s death by the riverside. When Garrett came to see Baker, the latter said he’s building a boat and planning to move to a new territory, but his death ended that hope. Baker, facing death, can only gaze at the river and dream about the future that might have been. Garrett is indirectly responsible for Baker’s death since it was at Garrett’s request that Baker joined the raid on Black Harris. So, in a way, the family on the raft could be seen as a kind of apparition of Baker’s hopes. The family is moving to a new territory as Baker wished to have done. And the misunderstanding between the patriarch on the raft and Garrett — and their nearly killing one another — could be seen as the hidden tension between Garrett and his ‘friends’, including Baker. For whatever reason — friendship, law, loyalty, returning favors, and etc. — they feel obligated to go along with Garrett, but there’s also a degree of resentment because they sense Garrett’s getting them involved in things of no interest to them. Garrett is using old friends to kill old friends. Another memorable mirror/reflection scene is when Billy, having made his escape from Lincoln, stops his horse over a shallow pool in early morning and slips on a poncho. The image could be faulted for overt pictorialism — it does seem too pretty for an outlaw who’d just murdered two people in his prison escape — , but it suggests the duality of Billy. And the stillness of the water that perfectly reflects Billy atop the horse implies an imperviousness to the ravages and compromises of time. If ordinary mortals grow old in the river of time, Billy the romantic remains forever young in life and death. Garrett: “It feels like times have changed.” Billy: “Times maybe but not me.”

In a way, many of the characters in the film are parallel-reflection-distortions of Garrett’s anxieties. Like Garrett, Baker is a sheriff married to a demanding Mexican wife. Like Chisum and the governor, Garrett wants respect and position. Garrett keeps his distance from Poe but can’t help seeing in Poe a side of himself that he’s loathe to admit. Garrett won’t allow Poe to say anything bad about the Kid, but Garrett, like Poe, is hunting Billy out of self-interest. In a way, it’s worse with Garrett because his is an act of betrayal whereas it’s just a job with Poe who doesn’t personally know Billy. Garrett sees in Billy his younger self, the very thing he must kill in order to live. And even when young, Garrett was probably never as ‘true’ as Billy. Garrett feels toward Billy the way Tricky Dick feels toward Kennedy in Oliver Stone’s NIXON: “When they look at you, they see what they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they are.” Thus, Garrett agonizes over the parallels between himself and Billy and between himself and Poe. He admires Billy but can’t be Billy. He despises Poe but may actually be more like Poe. The parallel between Garrett’s bullying of three young men and Poe’s terrorizing of three old men indicate a certain commonality. Garrett toys with Holly, Beaver, and Alias; he has Beaver knocked in the head with the butt of a shotgun, Alias humiliated by reading the labels of canned goods, and Holly shot after getting him drunk and angry. In the next scene — included in the Turner 1988 Version but missing in the 2005 Seydor version — , Poe is housed in the same shack or cabin with three old men and overhears them talking about the whereabouts of Billy. He brutally beats up two men to get the information. Thus, there’s an element of bullying behavior in both Garrett and Poe. They get their rush of power by toying with lesser men. Poe’s idea of toughness is roughing up old men, but when he later gets the chance to shoot Billy, he freezes up and his nerves give out. Like so many white nationalist types, he talks and acts big to mask his lack of balls. He acts like a tiger when dealing with mice but turns pussy when confronted with a real tiger. Incidentally, all three audio-commentators on the DVD — David Weddle, Garner Simmons, and Paul Seydor — agree that the scene with Poe and the old men serves no purpose and should have been deleted, but I can’t disagree more. It not only reveals the true nature of Poe but serves as an effective parallel to what Garrett did with the three younger men. Garrett is one of the most troubled — and psychological — figures in Westerns because he doesn’t know where he stands. Troubled characters have been a common feature in Westerns, but they ultimately figured out what they were, where they stood in relation to their partners, rivals, or enemies, and what course of action to take. Garrett never figures this out. He sees himself reflected in the people all around him — people he works for, people he works with, people he has to kill. In contrast, there isn’t much of a psychological dimension to Billy who is mostly smiles and manly confidence. Even when condemned to death by hanging, he is unfazed and unworried. In a way, Kris Kristofferson played Billy the way that Paul Newman played Cool Hand Luke. Both have charm and wonderful infectious smiles. But Luke is a much richer character because for all his laconic style and devil-may-care bravado, he is hungry for attention and admiration from an audience, even one made up of a chain-gang full of losers and louts. He acts like he doesn’t care but he does. He seems laid-back but is racing all the time. He takes risks because he wants to be star of the show, and this vain pride pushes him to take bigger chances. In a way, Luke’s character is more a variation of the Newman’s Billy in Arthur Penn’s LEFT-HANDED GUN. Unlike Kristofferson’s Billy as a self-satisfied gun-slinger who just goes about doing his thing without a care in the world, Newman’s Billy becomes acutely aware of his own aura.

Like Luke, he tries to live up to the legend that keeps growing larger by the hour, and it’s this very confusion of reality and myth that brings him down. At one point, Cool Hand Luke shouts, ‘Stop feeding off me!!!’, but there’s an element of disingenuousness because he’s been feeding off the adulation of his prison-mates, pulling off one stunt after another to demonstrate his superiority over them.) Given PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID’s manner of action/violence, its failure at the box-office was almost assured. People prefer the primacy of action, characters, and story over mood, design, and atmosphere(and often for the right reason; a good illustration of how mood-and-style alone doesn’t make a movie is Wong Kar Wai’s gorgeous but dull IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE). STAR WARS is brimming with art design, but the design is still secondary to the fast-moving action and lively characters. Especially lately, a new school of cinematography and editing have emerged to ‘perfect’ action into a ‘scientifically’ unbeatable formula. It was put to serious(even artistic)use in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but more often than not, the result has been something closer to GLADIATOR. The action is shot and assembled in a frenetic way as if frames are missing, the camera movements are often jerky and nervy but also rhythmic and musical than anarchic; and the editing removes all the fat and has the kick of an energy protein bar. It’s like Red Bull filmmaking that was concocted in movie labs all around the world as a means to distill all ‘extraneous’ material and leave only the most power-packing elements. It’s like cinema as meth. Though some may credit Peckinpah, Spielberg(especially of JAWS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK), William Friedkin, James Cameron, and makers of 80s action flicks like RAMBO as the progenitors of the new aesthetic, the credit(or discredit)really goes to New Hong Kong cinema. While New American directors of the late 60s/70s and blockbuster directors of the 80s could work lean and mean and fast and furious, a fullness of expression defined their styles. The action in THE FRENCH CONNECTION is fast but tough and gritty. The action in JAWS may be streamlined but also heeds to the rules of classic film-making. The slice-and-dice rhythmic style of Hong Kong cinema was, in contrast, possibly the boldest visual break since the advent of revolutionary montage by Eisenstein. Hong Kong directors identified and interwove angles, matches, and patterns never imagined by previous filmmakers, creating action scenes that were, at once, cartoonishly mindless and dazzlingly brilliant. Virtually all Hong Kong movies of the 80s were thematically shallow, but they had style to burn. Compared to what HK film-makers were doing, Hollywood action movies seemed clunky, clumsy, and heavy. Hollywood gave us big muscled guys moving slowly and shooting off big cumbersome guns. And they fought like Invincible heroes or big Teutonic warriors: among the biggest action hits of the 80s were SUDDEN IMPACT, FIRST BLOOD, THE TERMINATOR, CONAN THE BARBARIAN movies, and etc. Cameron was niftier than most but preferred machines to man; heavy-duty power trumped agility and fluidity. Hong Kong cinema, in contrast, perfected the art of speed and the groove of fast-moving martial arts warriors or fancy-footed gun men shooting it up like they were in musicals. But this owed less to the small-bodied features of Southern Chinese — after all, many 1970s kung fu movies were plodding and dull — than an acrobatic/geeky/deft understanding of the ‘science’ of action. This was, at once, a new modernism and a new primitivism. It was both state-of-the-art and the lowest-common-denominator. It was stylistic brilliance and mastery at a high level offering a wholly new kind of cinematic thrill.



It’s like narcotics are both the product of sophisticated chemistry and the dope that appeals to the primitive sensations. It’s designed and purified by smart ‘scientists’ in order to turn mindless masses into addicts hooked to instant gratification. Similarly, Rap music is both state-of-the-art in terms of its intuitive and inspired understanding of the will-to-power and erogenous zones of the human psyche and sensuality — it sure gets even the most well-educated people gyrating their booties and acting like whores — and utterly savage-and-crude in terms of providing instant gratification to the masses who want music to be non-stop-festival-and-celebration of orgasm and power-lust. Paradoxically, the advancement in the ‘science’ of pleasure(narcotization)makes us more primitive and animal. Before alcohol was distilled into purified liquor, most people drank a crude mixture where alcohol was part of the brew but not the dominant feature. But once the science of distillation was perfected, masses of people could drink really hard stuff and get knocked out loaded. Before there was refined sugar, people got sweet stuff from fruits and honeys. But once the science of refining sugar was perfected, a lot of people developed an insane form of sweet tooth and ended up with rotten teeth and diabetes. Before black music got ‘purified’ into rap, elements of sexuality and power-lust was mixed with human elements like sentimentality, affection, warmth, and even wisdom. Today, black rap is only about yapping about using fists or fuc*ing. And in Japan, the ‘science’ of cuteness has created the inane Kawaii culture. In the past, cuteness was a part of Japanese culture. For example, the character Nene of BUBBLEGUM CRISIS — of Original Video Animation set in 2032 — is cute but part of the bigger picture. But over time, all of anime has become nene-fied into sickeningly sweet cuteness. Thus, the ‘science’ of creating maximum instant gratification in entertainment has actually turned people into insipid infants(Japan), trashy savages(Negroes), and moronic gameboys(cinema culture). Get a load of this ‘faggoty-ass’ kawaii-boy below. It’s like Japanese have become pop-culturally so insular that they confuse reality — even something as violent as professional fighting — as a funny cartoon.

Most action movies are like videogames. Even the so-called epic LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy features Hong-Kong style action — mixed with generous servings of video game ‘aesthetics’ — that stirs up such non-stop flurries of violence that it never feels epic. It’s like audience members need the non-stop fizzle of sodapop and the mind-blowing high of meth at every turn. (But there’s also the problem of ‘creative’ ego. Film-making has become so ‘athletic’ that every director tries to top previous directors in the field of gizmo antics. It’s like bebop Jazz artists in the 50s tried to outdo one another with greater speed, fury, and passion. It’s like hard rockers in the 70s tried to crank up the volume louder than the next guy. Such showmanship goes back to Orson Welles, but its current manifestation has been corrupted and corporatized. When Orson Welles made films with greater style and flair, he was doing what few directors could imagine and what few studios were willing to allow. Hollywood had established the ‘correct’ styles for most genres and expected most directors to adhere to formula. Though some Hollywood ‘auteurs’ had sufficient clout and will to develop their own ‘signatures’ — one can tell a Huston movie from a Hitchcock movie from a Ford movie, etc. — , there was a line most of them could not cross; and most of them, even the masters, got comfortable with the Hollywood style of filmmaking. Orson Welles was one of the few odd man out. He wasn’t exactly an independent filmmaker — his big ideas called for major funding — , but he couldn’t work in the studio system either. During the latter part of his career, he mostly made independently financed films trying their best to look like A productions than B-movies or small European ‘art films’. Welles was like a homeless guy fixing up an abandoned mansion with whatever tools and material he could find to make believe he was rich; some saw it as pathetic while others as ennobling. Anyway, Welles’s showmanship wasn’t just about gizmo antics but inspired by a whole range of art forms. Welles didn’t only know movies; he was steeped in literature, theatre, paintings, architecture, music, etc. Welles’ cinematic art was therefore an extension of the whole history of the arts than mere acrobatics. He was trying to convey a deeper meaning. Consider the opening of OTHELLO, surely one of the most haunting and beautiful passages in cinema, a scene rife with epic grandeur and tragic poetry — unfortunately the rest of the film suffers from lack of funding and oft-interrupted shooting schedules. This is the sort of thing Hollywood was wary of. Ironically, Old Hollywood, which had the funds to finance bolder expressions, generally insisted on established aesthetic conventions, whereas European cinema, which was open to stylistic experimentation, lacked the funds to support visionary film-making, which is why European film art, for the most part, had to settle for neo-realism and the ‘amateurish’ New Wave. Japan’s golden age of cinema in the 50s and 60s may have been possible because great filmmakers had the opportunity to work on major productions such as SEVEN SAMURAI, UGETSU, HUMAN CONDITION, HARAKIRI, PROFOUND DESIRE OF THE GODS, and etc., some of which were big hits. Europe did have its share of big productions — THE LEOPARD, PLAYTIME, LA DOLCE VITA, 8 ½, etc — but was more notable for the smaller films of Bergman, Godard, Truffaut, Resnais, etc. Anyway, if Welles’s showmanship was artistic in purpose, the idea of showmanship was eventually usurped by Hollywood for corporate purposes. While Old Hollywood had its great showmen in directors such as Cecil B. DeMille, Victor Fleming, William Wyler, and King Vidor, they were not necessarily show-offs. Welles was a show-off but with genuine vision and talent to burn, which justified his showing off. The great showmen of Old Hollywood strove for respect, and so they were careful to balance the fireworks with elements of plot, characters, and message. But the showmen of New Hollywood were all about showing off what they could do that others couldn’t do. The element of showing off not only became the main fixture of filmmaking but a corporate command, e.g. this new version of SPIDERMAN or IRONMAN had to have more ‘mindblowing’ and ‘a**hole tickling’ thrills than the previous blockbuster. And since mass movie culture was dominated by young audiences and since art film culture was dominated by geeks/nerds/gimps, the filmmaking largely turned into a game of special effects or cleverness too clever for its own good. In the 1980s, Stanley Kauffmann made a troubled observation about a prominent cultural figure who compared a perfume commercial with Kurosawa’s RASHOMON. Kauffmann’s point was that, yes, the TV ad was brilliantly put together but can style alone justify its comparison to a cinematic art work? Is that all there is to art? Kauffmann’s point proved to be prescient for what now passes for filmmaking is mostly about showing off that “my movie ups the ante on style-for-style’s-sake and special effects.” If Orson Welles showed off for the sake of art, new Hollywood encourages and even demands showing off to fill the screen with more gimcrack gizmo antics, the kind with which the horrible AVATAR and LOR movies are packed. But, it’s not just in Hollywood filmmaking. Take Terry Gilliam, considered by many to be an artist on par with Welles. His 12 MONKEYS, though ‘inspired’ by Chris Marker’s LA JETEE, actually owes more to Welles’s MR. ARKADIN in style. But here’s the difference. Welles was steeped in the arts whereas Gilliam’s main points of references are other movies, comic books, TV, and etc. That Gilliam was ‘inspired’ by Orwell’s 1984 WITHOUT HAVING THE READ THE BOOK for the dreadful BRAZIL sums up the essence of his sensibility. Gilliam, the former sketch artist for Monty Python, has come to be appreciated as a real visionary and artist; but then, Cameron has been called a ‘visionary’ too. Artistic ego being what it is, many directors fall for such flattery and believe in their own myths. If Gilliam really wants to follow in the footsteps of Welles, he should read some books. Instead, he thinks he’s a giant simply because he goes for similar low angle shots and unorthodox editing, just like Orson Welles! 12 MONKEYS is absolutely terrible but helpful in making us appreciate Welles even more. Anyone who thinks Welles’ genius was only about fancy camera angles and gothic compositions only need to compare his films with those of Gilliam’s to see there’s more to film art than restless stylization. Gilliam should go nowhere near Orwell and Welles, but then he can’t even make a decent movie out of Hunter S. Thompson either. Gilliam is, of course, not a big box-office draw and has drawn funding from sympathetic producers who see him as a kind of genius. But what he has in common with Cameron, Jackson, and all the rest is the notion that he’s special because his style and effects just happen to be excessive. It’s super-size-me filmmaking. While style and technology have always been essential components to film art, the question, ‘what is all for?’ seems to have gotten lost. Sometimes, more is not more. Retro-adding all those CGI gimmicks to the 1977 STAR WARS didn’t make it better. An action scene isn’t necessarily better because it has more tricky editing, more violence, more slow-motion punches, and etc. Style sometimes perfectly suits the material, as in THE WILD BUNCH, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, JAWS, THE TERMINATOR, and the first two BOURNE movies, but what we too often get is more-than-more for the sake of wowing the audience that this here movie ratches up the stakes to a whole new level. The hype around AVATAR was the ultimate corruption of showmanship. Though utterly worthless on every level — even in its special effects if you ask me — , it became an international cultural event because Cameron’s use of 3D was supposedly like nothing before.) And because the new method is handled more as ‘science’ than personal style, it’s as if every director feels compelled to comply with its rules. When they choose not to — like Eastwood in THE FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA — , they don’t have much of a chance the at box office. I’m not knocking the new style per se as it worked in the first two BOURNE movies, and I’m not the one to deny the wonders of several scenes in MATRIX RELOADED and MATRIX REVOLUTIONS. But because it has become the state-of-the-art standard — indeed an obligation — based on the ‘science’ of what-people-want(as if cinematic language should work like TV commercials — maximum impact per minutest input), there is far less breathing space for filmmakers to develop their own style. Take William Friedkin’s THE HUNTED. Though well-made, it looks like it could have been made any filmmaker of the BOURNE trilogy school. Friedkin used to make movies that set him apart from directors, but now he’s reduced to operating in the state-of-the-art standard mode with the same kind of missing-frames-telephoto-zoom-jerky-but-rhythmic-slice-and-dice-editing stylistics. And of course, that’s precisely what Ridley Scott gave us in GLADIATOR and BLACK HAWK DOWN. In and of itself, such style works in some movies. The problem is it has become The ‘scientifically’ proven method of doing action scenes, and so what may at one time have been an eccentricity has become a rule.

Of course, it is nothing new for Hollywood or any movie industry — think of Bollywood — to ‘perfect’ studio standards for maximum box office success. And lots of kids seem to go for meth-narcotic film-making. As the saying goes, ‘give em what they want.’ If millions of people all over the world wanna see TRANSFORMERS and IRON MAN, who can stop them?
And there were similar rules of do’s and don’ts in Old Hollywood. Indeed, the rules had become so ingrained that the movie world was alarmed with new styles developed by Kurosawa(YOJIMBO), Leone(The Dollars Trilogy), Penn(BONNIE AND CLYDE), Sam Peckinpah(THE WILD BUNCH and STRAW DOGS), Don Siegel(DIRTY HARRY), Stanley Kubrick(A CLOCKWORK ORANGE), and Steven Spielberg(JAWS). The innovations and idiosyncracies allowed for greater expressive range, greater depth and meaning. But over time, Hollywood appreciated the new styles not so much as artistic expressions but as marketable products from which to pick, choose, and assemble to formulate the ‘perfect product’. Thus, in some ways, the style of today’s action movies are, in their own way, as rigid, standardized, and conformist as movies of Old Hollywood, albeit with different rules. Similarly, if 60s and 70s Rock music opened up new avenues of musical expression, what happened over the long haul was the music industry’s ‘chemistric’ distilling of key elements to concoct the ‘perfect formula’ that can be marketed and sold like Coca-Cola and Big Mac forever. Compare the true richness and diversity of musical expressions at Monterey Pop and Woodstock to the narrow range that exists today. Worse, critics, who used to serve as the vanguard and as watchdog of the music industry, are now so eager to be relevant and ‘anti-elitist’ that they praise every crap that comes along. How else could no-talents like Kanye West and Lady Gaga be taken seriously by musical culture? Anyway, the blame rests only with Hollywood. It takes two to tango. If people weren’t so damn stupid, the likes of James Cameron and latter day Ridley Scott wouldn’t be taken so seriously.

The reluctant killer has been a staple of fiction but not a common one. The moral conflict faced by reluctant killers serve as a kind of emotional — and even narrative — monkey wrench thrown into the machine of violence. Take the Portuguese captain Vasco Rodriguez(Jean-Rhys Davies) in SHOGUN. He and Blackthorne(Richard Chamberlain)are enemies by nationality and rivals by trade, but they become friends and share the camaraderie among men of the sea. And at one moment, he is saved by Blackthorne, and so it is with great difficulty that he must obey an order to assassinate Blackthorne. The main character of PRINCE OF THE CITY becomes the reluctant hunter of his partners. In his case, the betrayal is idealistic than opportunistic — he wants to confess his ‘sins’ and be a good cop, but he must expose the nefarious dealings of his partners as well, the men who trust him with their lives. Because of the thorny moral nature of reluctant killers/hunters, movies about them tend not to be the most popular. But there are exceptions, like the mega-hit SUDDEN IMPACT, where Harry Callahan tracks down a woman he comes to sympathize with. In a way, however, SUDDEN IMPACT violates the rules of the reluctant killer since Callahan not only sympathizes with the killer but joins the killer to take out worse killers. An Eastwood movie closer to the heart of the reluctant killer is A PERFECT WORLD, where the Eastwood character must hunt down a serial killer with a strange sob story of his own. It was one of Eastwood’s biggest flops. Audiences generally like movies where the killer-hero is totally justified in his anger and action. They want to feel justified and satisfied with the climactic violence that settles all accounts than be faced with a troubled moral dilemma. And indeed, this may have been one of the reasons why TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. didn’t do so well at the box office. Bukovich(the John Pankow character) is torn between being a ‘good cop’ who loses the fish and being a ‘bad cop’ who catches the fish.
In contrast, the BOURNE movies pack lots of fun because we totally believe in the righteousness of the Bourne character and the wickedness of the system. We are made to believe the government is so corrupt — at least the white males in the system as two white females seem to be decent and on the side of Bourne — that Bourne is justified in whatever he does to get to the source of all evil. As box office formula, it was a great success, but thematically far less than it could have been. The first movie is the most interesting because of the ambiguity of Bourne’s place in the world: trained and conditioned to be a cold-blooded killer but breaking out in sweat from the programming, facing a soulful as well as a physical conflict. The amnesiac Bourne realizes his ability to kill easily — too easily in fact — and sets off to find the source of and the reason for his power. Second installment had some of this quality too, but as Bourne became more self-aware, he also became more self-justified and turns into a conventional rock-em-sock-em action hero; the final installment of the trilogy was essentially RAMBO for the SWPL crowd: soulless exercise in thrills executed so deftly that a lot of people were fooled they were watching an intelligent thriller.

In some ways, Deckard isn’t really a reluctant killer — though he becomes one in relation to Rachel, who saved his life from Leon — but more of an apathetic killer. While Garrett really dreads having to kill Billy, Deckard doesn’t care one way or another about having to kill replicants. It’s just that he would rather do something else, something less messy and dangerous. It’s a job he takes because he has no choice. His reluctance is more with taking orders from higher-up than ridding the world of replicants. He’s not sad to see Zhora, Leon, or Pris killed. But as he draws nearer to Rachel, he sees another angle to the nature of his job. Indeed, one wonders what he might have done if someone other than Rachel had saved him from Leon. Would he have hunted down and killed Rachel too? Maybe, maybe not. Though his conscious decision to spare her is based on owing her a life(she saved him from Leon), he already had feelings for her in an earlier encounter in his apartment — and perhaps even from the first moment his gaze fell upon her immaculate beauty at the Tyrell Towers. Rising to his apartment, he felt the presence of someone else in the elevator and drew his gun, just barely restraining himself from pulling the trigger and shooting an apparently unfazed Rachel. Entering his apartment(followed by her), he feels shaken by the fact that there’s a potentially dangerous replicant on his premise, a ‘woman’ whose brains out he almost blew away moments ago. His emotions go two ways with her around. He’s been trained to hunt, track, and kill replicants as a Chinaman has been trained to kill and butcher dogs. But the other side of him knows that the beautiful Rachel is different and special from other replicants he’d come across. Blade Runners are supposed to see replicants as a hazard, a danger to society that must be exterminated. Yet, Rachel undermines his assumptions and ‘prejudices’; she may not only be ‘more human than human’ but more humane than human. So, in their encounter, he dreads sharing the same space with a ‘dangerous’ and ‘illegal’ replicant but also dreads the possibility that he’s beginning to develop feelings for creatures he’s supposed to eradicate with extreme prejudice. He’s also unnerved by Rachel’s calmness — especially when he pulled out his gun — that has the qualities of both refined poise and robotic apathy. In the apartment, she hands him a photograph of herself as a child with her mother, but he nonchalantly — with a hint of combative hostility — tells her that it’s all fake and that her memory is just an implant. He fails to see the profound implications of this revelation on Rachel’s emotions. He figures that since Rachel is a ‘cold-blooded’ replicant, she’ll just take it like a piece of data. What he notices are tears swelling in her eyes as she maintains her characteristic self-control. Her view of reality is profoundly shaken, turned upside down and inside out; she realizes that her deepest and most private secrets are just codes programmed into her; she can’t even hide her emotions within her private soul because she never had a soul to begin with; it’s be like hiding something in a safe that can be opened from the other side. Both physically and psychologically, she has no place to go to be alone from the world. Though technically/officially a replicant, she has however been blessed/cursed with real human emotions. And she’s also beautiful — if she were fat and ugly, maybe Deckard wouldn’t have cared so much since, after all, hogs are as intelligent as dogs, but people who care about dogs don’t care about hogs that are slaughtered in the millions to make sausage; thus, aesthetics still determines much of our actions; we are all ‘Nazis’ in this sense.

Deckard is a hard professional with a soft spot hidden inside. His handling of the situation with Rachel fills him with a degree of remorse. One side of him sees her as a soulless replicant created by the ravenous Tyrell corporation; another side of him sees her as a delicate creature, a damsel in distress who needs saving(though ironically, she saves him before he tries to save her); she brings out both the heartless hunter and the knight-in-shining-armor in him. (This complicates the moral position of the Tyrell corporation. On the one hand, we are led to condemn its creation of humans-as-commodities; on the other hand, it has given the world creatures as exquisite as Rachel and as awesome as Batty. They may have been created to be ‘slaves’ but were also made to be ‘more human than human’. However Batty and Rachel may feel about Tyrell corporation, they could never have existed without it. Their owe their lives to Tyrell’s genius and vision. It’s like how some cultures believed that the gods created people to be the servants of the gods but also appreciate the fact of their existence owing to the divine creative power of higher beings. If we feel a fondness for Rachel and Deckard, who also may be a replicant, and perhaps even for Zhora, Pris, and Batty — though one would be hard-pressed to feel much of anything for the big and ugly Leon — , then we must credit Tyrell corporation for having created them in the first place. Good or bad, Tyrell, not the biological processes of real people, created the fascinating replicants.)

The scenes with Rachel are among the finest in cinema, but the greatness was probably overlooked(upon theatrical release) due to expectations for a fast and violent sci-fi action movie on the part of audiences and critics. Instead of something hard-hitting and intense, there were scenes of beauty and tenderness that understandably baffled and then bored the audience that either felt cheated or lost. Expectations overrode appreciation. It’s like someone who expects loud rock music but gets a series of ballads isn’t gonna be in the mood to appreciate the songs on their own merit.

Rachel’s introduction is impressive on so many levels. The corporate moll outfit, doll-like make-up, neatly coiffed hair, perfect posture, grace with which she moves in-and-out of shadows on high heels the clip-clops of which reverberate through the hall, and the appearance of the owl(and Rachel’s raven-like contrast), the art design of the Tyrell conference room, and etc... there’s no end to the wonderment in that single scene. But, I suspect many audience members were feeling like the old lady in the Wendy’s “where’s the beef?” commercial. They weren’t psyched for mood and beauty. They were wondering, “Where’s the action?”

(Incidentally, the “Where’s the Beef?” Wendy’s TV commercial gives us a clue as to why Jews defeated the Wasps. Notice that among the three ladies, two are Wasp-like whereas the other, played by Clara Peller, is so Jewish — and indeed Peller was a real Jewess. While the Wasp ladies are polite and maintain their composure, the pushy Jewish Peller belts out WHERE’S THE BEEF!!!???’ Jews won not only with brains but with their particular force of will known as chutzpah. When one side pushes while the other side only tries to hold back the pusher, the pusher will eventually win... unless the other side decides to PUSH BACK. But Wasps, even as they tried to hold back the Jew, never tried to push back the Jew. Of course, today young Wasp girls weaned on radical feminism aren’t into acting nice and polite like their grandmothers, but Wasp feminism doesn’t have the natural force of will of Jewish feminism. When wasp girls try to ‘act bad’, they fall into groupthink and collective-approval, acting ‘bad’ only in the way they’ve been programmed by their Jewish masters. Wasp feminists think they are ‘free’ and ‘liberated’ because they yammer about ‘vagina’; this is especially amusing since they try so hard to be respectable, go to best schools, and rub shoulders with elites in upper society. Thus, they are not genuine bad girls but good ‘bad girls’ taught to act ‘bad’ in a certain way. The “Where’s the Beef” commercial also signifies the way in which the Jewish-controlled cultural order sexual-culturally defeated the pride of the white man on the basis of the ‘beef’ — muscle and penis size. Jews have promoted black studs and thugs in order to belittle the relatively softer muscle and smaller penis size of white males. Thus, white girls often look at white boys and say, “where’s the beef?”and then go off with Negroes. Thus, the corollary to the “Where’s the Beef?” commercial is the Swedish Race-Mixing Propaganda approved by International Jewry.)
The audience wanted hotdogs-and-popcorn they got with STAR WARS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. They were looking for recognizable characters and excitable emotions, not darkness and ambiguity. Rachel’s first visit to Deckard’s apartment may similarly have perplexed audience members since the scene’s emotions aren’t spelled out. In darkness, Rachel listens as Deckard tells her the truth while Vangelis’s “Memories of Green”, a warped melody, at once, eerily haunting and tearfully romantic, creeps into the soundtrack.

He mentions childhood memories involving Rachel and her brother playing “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” and about a mother spider laying a batch of eggs, whereupon Rachel takes up the narrative about how baby spiders hatched from the eggs and devouring their own mother. There are many elements here, contradictory yet complementary imageries and emotions. The story of the mother spider and its hatchlings is touching and monstrous, delicate and brutal; it is a memory both linked to innocence and shattering of that innocence. Rachel keeps a calm composure yet tremors reverberate within her soul which isn’t really hers. Her once proud poise is now just an empty shell as the world she knew vanishes beneath her feet. A classic beauty, she however identifies with one of those monstrous spiders. The story of baby spiders devouring the mother spider foreshadows what Batty does to Tyrell, but it also evokes Rachel’s psychology upon hearing the truth from Deckard; the hatchlings of truth are devouring her alive; also, just as the baby spiders heartlessly feed on their mother, Deckard seems uncaring as he casually destroys her world. And the story of brother and sister playing a sex game has meaning in relation to the attachment that replicants feel for one another. Like Germanic gods, all replicants are, in a way, related to one another as the children of Tyrell. Thus, Batty’s love for Pris is like a brother’s love for sister, and Deckard, if a replicant, and Rachel are also like brother and sister. What Scott achieved in that scene was maybe too sublimely startling for audiences and even critics to appreciate. Though BLADE RUNNER isn’t Horror, the scene mentioned above — among several others — achieves what most horror films fail to achieve. We tend to think of horror as fright, terror, and ugliness, but given gothic horror’s roots in English Romanticism, horror in its highest form finds the link between beauty and ugliness, fascination and fright, dream and decay, spirit and the flesh. Few horror movies have ever achieved this: Murnau’s NOSFERATU and Dreyer’s VAMPYR come to mind. LA JETEE, as a kind of sci-fi horror, is another candidate. And though Clouzot’s DIABOLIQUE is ultimately more suspense than horror, it too interweaves ghoulishness with poetry. THE OTHERS with Nicole Kidman and THE INNOCENTS with Deborah Kerr are also noteworthy in this regard, as are MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, KWAIDAN, UGETSU, and THE SHINING — and, in a way, even EYES WIDE SHUT though it’s technically not a horror movie. But most horror movies are about screaming girls, hacked off limbs, ugly monsters, gross out effects, garish hideousness, and shocking the socks off. Granted, anything is good if it works. John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN certainly delivers the goods. Even so, there are two kinds of horror movies just as there are two kinds of comedies. One is effect-driven and the other is vision-driven. The effect-driven horror movies and comedies give the audiences more jolts or laughs, and the best of their kind — NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and AIRPLANE — are plenty fun. (Romero’s first film even offers food for thought.) But the vision-driven horror movies and comedies at their best are more impressive and memorable even if not chock-full of laughs or screams. Consider Jaques Tati’s PLAYTIME which, while not exactly a laugh riot, presents modern Paris as a grand satirical concept. And consider VAMPYR, which while not pee-in-your-pants scary, draws us into a trance where the demonic and dreamy fuse under a hypnotic spell. BLADE RUNNER is a vision-driven movie, which generally has a way of confounding audiences. PLAYTIME was a box-office disaster, and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY made money only because it was so astoundingly new and ‘far out’ at the time for Counterculture youths. But once STAR WARS and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS hit the sceens, sci-fi movies like 2001 and BLADE RUNNER had less chance of success.
Most Hollywood movies are about things happening, active characters hogging the foreground, and story moving from point A to point Z along a recognizable pattern. Emotions or thoughts tend to be dramatic, spotlighted, or specific. Thus, a character feels or thinks about SOMETHING that we immediately put our finger on. He or she feels an emotion that can be nailed down: happiness, sadness, anger, love, fear, or hatred.
In contrast, there are Zen-Garden-like moments in BLADE RUNNER. They’re like afternoons at an art gallery where time stands still as one gazes at paintings and sculptures. Time-standing-still isn’t the same as the negation of time; rather, it’s like timelessness within a moment. ‘Timeless’ is to time what ‘priceless’ is to price: infinite condensed into the finite. (It can apply to humans as well. Jesus, for example, is supposed to be the infinite God condensed into the finite form of a Man.) Though it’s often been said that music, theatre, and cinema are about time — as they unfold, change, and develop through time — , they are essentially about the direction of time; they have a beginning, middle, and end, and flow from A to Z. In contrast, appreciation of painting or sculpture is about the suspension of time, which, again, isn’t the same as negation of time. Directional time follows the logic of gravity and flows to its determined end whereas suspended time defies the logic of gravity and has no beginning and end — or the beginning and the end are one and the same. (Perhaps, Terrence Malick strove toward suspended time in TREE OF LIFE to capture the eternal essence of the cosmos through the soul-reveries of mortal lives, but it just struck me as AVATAR for smarty-pants.) Cinema and music give us rivers of time. Paintings and sculpture offer the reflecting pools of time. Audiences may have been flustered because BLADE RUNNER, like LA JETEE, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and STALKER, is about time as a meditative pool; audiences generally prefer a water park to a garden pond. (And among Westerns, PAT GARRET & BILLY THE KID has a similar quality.)
Deckard’s revelation of Rachel’s true identity is like a meditative moment before a garden pool. A placid pool reflects the world above in a perfect picture, that is until a pebble or gust sets off ripples, bestirring clarity into chaos. The seemingly pure and absolute turns out, upon the slightest touch, to be fragile and illusory. Rachel had a perfect image of herself as a beautiful lady working for the Tyrell corporation. The stone tossed into her pool by Deckard destroys that self-image forever. But programmed for poise and self-control, she’s unable to express her emotions — and has no one to do it with. Later, even as her inner calm is restored, the once perfect self-image continues to quiver with anxiety and doubt. As the ripples fade, she beholds a new self-image — with the help of Deckard — but is also acutely aware of its vulnerability as an illusion whose power depends on the foibles of chance and allurement.
Though created as a perfect ‘more human than human’ being, it is paradoxically the purity of her perfection that underlies the fragility of her ego; it’s like the princess notices the pea in the bed. The more perfect something is, the more profoundly it’s likely to unravel upon the slightest disturbance, a theme Kubrick touched upon many times: For something to be ‘perfect’, all the elements/components have to be perfectly integrated and interdependent, and so if one thing goes wrong, the whole thing falls apart, as happens to the elaborate heist in THE KILLING and Cold War games in DR. STRANGELOVE.
The tragic beauty of Rachel’s scene may have been unappreciated because the emotions weren’t bared or were bared only in a subtle way. Rachel doesn’t sob or throw a fit. There’s no John Williams-like score to sweeten the moment. There is no showy gestures on the part of Deckard. Instead, in a shadowy room, a man and a ‘woman’ exchange a few words; the elastic notes of Vangelis’s melody slither along the dewy foliage of sorrow; then follows a moment of silence, a photograph dropped on the floor, and the ‘woman’ walking out of the room.
There’s an element of timelessness, the mood we find in a garden or a museum. Fittingly enough, Tarkovsky titled his book on cinema ‘SCULPTING IN TIME’. Instead of telling the story through time, Tarkovsky sought to hold and mold time itself — with varying degrees of success as THE MIRROR, much of SOLARIS(especially in the second half), NOSTALGHIA, and THE SACRIFICE are, at best, noble failures. For audience and critics expecting a sci-fi thriller, the reflective-garden-pool aspect of BLADE RUNNER must have been puzzling — and I plead guilty myself because I too concentrated mainly on the action in my first viewing on video(but then, what with murky images and pan-scan deletion of the frame, it was impossible to appreciate it as Scott intended. Same problem with ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, which I first saw in pan-scan version on TV and couldn’t tell what was so great about it — but then, part of the problem was its ‘slowness’, which I hadn’t yet grown to fully appreciate as a form of artistic expression.) With the advent of the digital DVD and larger/wider TV screens, audiences now have the chance to appreciate films like BLADE RUNNER much better, but then, maybe not in this age of AVATAR and ever more outlandish video games.

BLADE RUNNER has been highly praised for its art design — even by its detractors — and rightfully so, but fine/cool art design doesn’t alone explain its lasting impact and cult following. And indeed, most sci-fi movies ‘inspired’ by BLADE RUNNER failed because they imitated its look and style without understanding its depths and emotions. What makes a replicant, especially Rachel or Batty, so special? They aren’t mere mannequins that look human. They FEEL human. Most BLADE RUNNER imitations are lifeless mannequins of the movie. They’ve appropriated the look but missed the feel of the movie. The feel — mood, tempo, aura, atmosphere, etc. — of BLADE RUNNER was the result of the sublime blending of composition, lighting, music, sound, acting, angles, editing, and etc. “The whole is more than the sum of its parts.” A film can have lots of impressive well-crafted things but fall flat or fall apart if the elements don’t mold together. It’s like certain musicians may play beautifully as individuals but fail to play together in a group. It’s like ingredients, no matter how good, don’t make a fine dish; it depends on what and how they’re blended and prepared. It’s like great individual athletes can play on the same team without much in the way of chemistry. For music to work, there need be the formation of chords followed by the interplay of chords. Thus, the seemingly contradictory and counter-punctual is made compliant and complementary. It’s like a game of billiards where balls, apparently obstacles to other balls, are used in a manner that makes them crucial to the overall pattern. Thus, the harm becomes the very stuff from which harmony arises.
BLADE RUNNER is one of those miracles in cinema whereas various talents, visions, and ideas worked in both perfect disharmonious harmony. It wasn’t about one auteur calling all the shots but bouncing his ideas against the ideas of others, testing his talent against others. A collaborative/conflicting artistic process such as this is always fraught with problems, but once in a long while, all the planets line up just right. IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE is a similar miracle, which explains why Capra, though the director of other fine films, never made anything comparably as great. Similarly, Scott would never again achieve anything on the level BLADE RUNNER. Some might argue its failure at the box-office compelled Scott to serve as a journeyman director, but then, what is one to make of LEGEND and KINGDOM OF HEAVEN that were made as labors of love but still stink to high heaven? More likely, Scott never found himself in another situation where his talent could so miraculously serve the vision of others and vice versa. (In this sense, one could say shared creativity is more like ‘gay sex’ than real sex. In real sex, the man always does the woman, but in ‘gay sex’, one guy does the other guy but the other guy also does the guy who did him. Though the director is the dominant personality in filmmaking, a great director not only creatively buttfuc*s other guys in the ass but allows other guys to fuc* him in the ass once in awhile. Thus, the creative jism is spread all around.) Perhaps, Scott shouldn’t be blamed for his failure to make another truly great film since the perfect confluence of talents/visions is largely a matter of luck. But in the case of some directors, their egos came to stand in the way of creative chemistry. Kurosawa’s greatest film by far is SEVEN SAMURAI, on which he worked closely with others, taking advice as well as giving orders. But as his star rose ever higher, Kurosawa regarded himself as a kind of emperor whose every command had to be obeyed to the letter, which explains his two long years directing RED BEARD and erratic behavior on the set of TORA! TORA! TORA!, which led to his dismissal. And David Lean’s RYAN’S DAUGHTER can only be explained in terms of ego gone mad. What should have an intimate romance was inflated to epic grandeur, what with events in a small Irish town handled as the equivalent of WWI in Arabia and revolution in Russia. And Coppola’s ego got the best of him in the second half of APOCALYPSE NOW, and only a dictatorial mind could have made ONE FROM THE HEART. Granted, anything can work now and then, but generally, great movies, at least ones made on a grand scale, tend to be works of creative chemistry of many personalities than of creative mad science of a single personality. Full directorial control tend to work better with something intimate and small-scale as the works of Bergman, Bresson, or Ozu, but rules change with the scale. If you’re gonna run a big restaurant, you can’t be doing all the cooking. If you’re gonna lead a symphony, you can’t play all the instruments.

The garden pool ambience continues after Rachel leaves the apartment. Deckard picks up the photo that fell from her hand like an autumn leaf. He gazes at it and feels a ripple within his own soul even though the photo is of someone else. It may be the first time he identifies, if only subliminally, with Rachel. Though they are different people and though she is a replicant, he senses both the precious meaning that the photo held for Rachel and the silent irrevocable loss of that meaning upon the wintry chill of truth. And for an instant, we detect movement in the photo, as if the mother and daughter are springing to life or as if a part of us want them to.
Mother and daughter in the photo are partly in shadows in what looks like a bright afternoon, a perfect evocation of secrets hidden under Rachel’s otherwise seemingly bright life and career. The slight movement of the still photo recalls the single moment of live-action in LA JETEE where the protagonist’s intense gaze seemingly awakens, if only for a timeless instant, the sleeping woman of his dreams to ‘life’.
It’s as if there are two ways we experience our lives. One way is to belong to a community, be a part of the world, to have friends and families — in other words, to be in tune with ‘reality’. But no one gets everything he or she desires; no one is fully what he or she desires to be.
Thus, another part of our lives depend on imagination, on projecting, casting, and fixating our dreams on other things and people, real or imagined. One reason why artists create art is to deal with reality that doesn’t conform to their own hopes and dreams. By creating art, they’ve created an imaginary dimension between themselves and stubborn reality that won’t give up its secrets or bend to the desire/will of the artist. In college, a film professor said most film directors aren’t good-looking, and maybe this makes sense since good-looking guys are more likely to live life than imagine life. (Good-looking directors tend to be ones who first made their mark as actors, like Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Paul Newman, and Mel Gibson.) If artists create works of art as a kind of ‘imagined reality’, many in the audience gravitate to them as a kind of ‘shared community’, a kind of symbolic church of the mind, and even objects of worship(which can be a form of self-worship if one identifies with the imagined world too closely). Granted, not all ‘imagined worlds’ are the same. People who obsess about 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and BLADE RUNNER may be loopy, but they’re a different breed from the fanboys of STAR TREK or X-MEN. And I pray for Avatards.
“Imagined worlds” don’t have to be fantastic. There are things — books, images, music, movies, etc. — that fascinate and beckon us, and we, in turn, find ourselves ‘fleshing’ them out into a kind of ersatz life/reality. And given that even the reality we experience is lost in time — ‘like tears in the rain’ — , we keep them alive through mementos, travels(back to familiar places), and reveries. Why does a ticket stub to a certain concert, museum, or movie have special meaning for people? But such things can have meaning even to people who were not directly linked to the experience. Thus, if an item is associated with a certain celebrity, it becomes like an ersatz nostalgic memento to the fan who owns it. Though the celebrity in reality exists apart from the fan, the fan ‘lives’ in a world of part-fantasy where the celebrity seems like a part of his or her life — as dramatized in Scorsese’s THE KING OF COMEDY and Lynch’s MULHOLLAND DR. This is even weirder if the object in question didn’t really belong the celebrity but was only associated with him or her through a fictional role he or she played. Take John Travolta’s white suit from SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. In the movie, he played a character named Tony, but in a way, the fictional character became Travolta and vice versa in the minds of fans. Gene Siskel, one of the biggest fans of the movie, picked it up at an auction. Thus, everyone makes of some person, object, image, or idea into something of his or her heart’s desire. The man in LA JETEE takes an image of a woman from his childhood and molds it through imagination, desire, and will into the lover of his life. Even the very process of cinema works like this. It’s made up of still images that, running 24 frames per second, produces the illusion of movement and time, of life and reality. In a way, cinema is still photography ‘willed’ into movement by ingenuity, imagination, and insistent desire(and participation by the audience). Thus, the moment when Deckard stares at Rachel’s ‘childhood photo’ and imagines life/movement within the frame is the very essence of the mind-dream that gave birth to cinema. It’s as if he’s dreaming cinema in a dream that is cinema. There’s a similar scene in Tarkovsky’s SOLARIS where the ‘woman’(created by the mind-ocean of the strange planet) mesmerically stares into a Bruegel painting and imagines the sounds and movements of figures and objects in it.

(The ‘woman’ happens to be the duplicate of the astronaut’s dead wife. The planet Solaris can read the minds/memories/souls of men and reproduce in the flesh the very things and people that occupy men’s dreams. The astronaut has been traumatized by the death of his wife and is unsure what to do with the duplicate or duplicant. He tricks the first one and expels her into space in a pod, but another soon appears. Rationally, he knows the ‘woman’ is not his wife but can’t help feeling ‘she’ is indeed ‘real’ on some level. Though not a real person, she is the manifestation of his real love for and guilt surrounding his late wife. Thus, she is both fake and real: a fake double of a woman who’s dead but a genuine materialization of his tragic love for his deceased wife. Like replicants, she is both complete and incomplete. She is full-grown and knows the astronaut. But she’s the copy not of the actual deceased wife but of the memories of the wife in the man’s mind. So, her ‘mind’ and ‘memories’ are based on what the man felt for his wife and what he imagined his wife to have felt for him. She is modeled on the man’s dream of his dead wife than on the actual wife. And as time passes, she comes to realize this and grows ever more ‘neurotic’; since the man also associates his wife with the suicide that took her life, she also begins to show signs of self-destructiveness. She realizes she is not the wife as a whole/independent person but the wife as the object of love, distress, disillusion, sorrow, and guilt that inhabit the man’s soul-psyche.

Because of her incompleteness, her senses try to absorb as much reality from things around her as a thirsty desert gecko licks moisture from its eyes. So, she intensely stares at Bruegel’s painting and tries to soak up as much truth about life on Earth as possible. Yet, at the same time, she projects her own dreams onto the painting, remaking it in accordance to her own fantasies. She is a creation of a dream but creates her own ‘reality’ through the dream of an artist. (Stanislaw Lem hated Tarkovsky’s treatment of his novel, and it isn’t difficult to understand why. Tarkovsky didn’t so much adapt the novel as use/practice it for his own purposes, i.e. he took the central idea of the book — a mysterious ocean planet reading the minds of astronauts — and applied it to himself, i.e. to have his own mind read. Rather than Tarkovsky using his talent to serve the vision of Lem, he used Lem’s concept to serve him as a priest-shrink. Thus, much of the second half of the film is like sci-fi psychoanalysis of the modern Russian mind torn between tradition and modernity, between future and past, between nature and machine, between duty to family and duty to society. Furthermore, the intellectual aspect of Tarkovsky’s treatment of Lem’s ideas butted heads with the other side of Tarkovsky, deep-rooted concern with Christian and national themes, which in the case of Russia, has always been one and the same since Orthodox Church was grounded in Russian soil. Though much of SOLARIS the film doesn’t work, Tarkovsky both violated the terms of the agreement and fulfilled them most sincerely. The result is far from Lem’s original vision as a film adaptation, but it enlivened the novel’s idea into an applied idea. Given his artistic temperament and ego as big as Russia itself, Tarkovsky the artist personalized everything. So, his version of SOLARIS would have to be about his own obsessions, would have to a mirror to his own soul.)

In a way, the ‘wife’ in SOLARIS represents the relationship between the artist and his characters. A novelist or playwright produces characters who are like fictional replicants; they are meant to be ‘more human than human’; they are supposed to think independently and act by free will. Yet, they are slaves of the artist who controls their thoughts and actions. Yet, as the artist becomes more involved in his characters, the line between the artist and characters begin to dissolve. The artist makes believe that the characters have their own minds and wills; instead of ordering them about like pawns on a chessboard, he finds himself following their ‘whims’. Though products of the artist’s imagination, the nature of imagination imbues them with a life of their own. It’s like man created gods but gods came to control man. It’s like the story of Pygmalion. And this is why artists sometimes wonder what their characters may be doing after the end of the story. This is why artists speak of their characters as if they’re actual people. If artists were in total control, they would easily know everything about their characters. In a way, there’s a similar ambiguity in the relation between man and God. Man created God, but the Bible says God created man. God created by man gained a life of His own, but it’s also true that man created by God — in the Bible — gained his own free will, his own individuality. Thus, not only did man lose control of God that he created but God lost control of the man He created. And yet, man cannot do without God, and God cannot do without man. It’s like the man and the insects in the ‘documentary’ HELLSTROM CHRONICLES. Professor Hellstrom, it turns out, is a fake scientist, just like God is a fake being. Yet, Hellstrom towers over the insect world like a god. He, as the representative of mankind, has god-like powers over insects. With a water hose, he can wash away entire ant colonies and destroy any number of insects in the garden. Thus, the survival of many insects hangs on our whim. It’s as if we are their gods, their makers or destroyers. Yet, mankind would not be possible without insects. Without insects’ role in the ecology of soil and plants, much of life would perish on Earth, and that means we, the god-men over the insects, would perish too. Thus, it’s as if not only did God create the Garden of Eden but God Himself was created by the man’s tilling of the soil to create a garden out of the wilderness. It’s odd. Man created the garden out of wilderness, and yet he created a myth that says God placed him in the Garden, which he then destroyed.) Paradoxically, outsiders may be drawn more to the paraphernalia of a certain culture, at least in their hope of being accepted by the new order they aspire to be a part of. For insiders of that society/culture, their positions and places are firmly established. They don’t need to be reminded of cultural connections since they arose from the very soil of that culture. And their parents, relatives, and friends are part of that culture. They don’t have the know their own culture through books, arts, and culture since they are of that culture by heart, flesh, and blood. A Russian doesn’t have to study Russian history or culture to feel Russian. A Greek doesn’t have to think about Greek culture or history to feel Greek. A Chinese doesn’t have to study Chinese art to feel Chinese. Indeed, even an uneducated Russian, Greek, or Chinese naturally feels a member of his tribe and community. But for outsiders seeking a way in, there are no familiar bonds of family, ancestry, lived-and-breathed-culture, customs, and habits. Since the outsider is not organically connected to that community, he or she feels drawn to the images, myths, symbols, and icons of that culture. He or she looks for an entrance through the world of imagination based on the cultural motifs of that society he or she enters or hopes to enter. We sense this among the replicants in BLADE RUNNER. Having escaped the Off-world Colonies for which they were designed, they are like illegal aliens on Earth. They are foreigners(and yet ironically, created by people by Earth). They are like orphan-outcasts exiled to other worlds yet to be hunted down and killed if they were to find their way back to Earth, not least because they were designed to be killers themselves. They may be ‘more human than human’ but they are not human and thus have no human roots or connections. They have no relatives on Earth, no connections, no bonds, no extensive biographies to draw upon. So, it’s not surprising that Deckard finds out that Leon collects photos. The photos may be of people he’s unrelated to, but they may lend him a sense of belonging, even if only through his imagination. In Rachel’s case, she believed in the photo of her ‘mother’ but casts it away upon discovering the truth. Like a puff of smoke, everything she’d believed and cherished vanishes into the air. Her whole life has been an illusion. In Leon’s case, he knows he’s a replicant with no history, no biography beyond his few yrs on the Off-world Colonies. For him, the photos he took or stole(maybe by killing their owners) are a conduit to the world he longs to disappear into. Thus, an object of illusion means different things to different people. For Rachel, her photo is fake that proves she’s fake. To Leon, the photos make him feel more real in the world of humans. In the opening scene of the movie, he bursts into raging violence when asked about his mother. Of course, he has no mother, but it’s as if, having been programmed with human emotions, he feels a need for parents and siblings and friends. Since he has no personal or organic bond to anyone on Earth, he must imagine one through the magic of paraphernalia. But then, one could argue that replicants do have one true relative on Earth, and that is Tyrell. Indeed, Batty even calls him ‘father’ when they meet — at least in the FINAL CUT as I recall he said ‘fuc*er’ in the Theatrical Version.

It could be some immigrants try to be ‘more American than American’ precisely because they’re outsiders. Having no personal or organic bond to America, they can’t take their identity as ‘Americans’ for granted. They must BECOME Americans. Since they are not ‘American by blood-and-soil’, they must find cultural, imaginary, and symbolic ways to be American. Thus, some newcomers wrap themselves with the symbols of American patriotism more fervently than native-born Americans. In OSTERMAN WEEKEND, the Rutger Hauer character plays a foreigner who has become an American citizen; he tries to be more American than Americans. And this may to be true of people like Dinesh D’Souza too. He seems eager to prove himself to be ‘more American than American’, ‘more patriotic than patriotic’, and ‘more Christian than Christian’ by taking to heart all the ideals and symbols associated with America.
No immigrant group has had a more complex relationship with Americanism than the Jews have. To be sure, immigrant Jews came in all shapes and sizes. Some resisted Americanism and stuck to European radicalism. But many Jews sought to be American. But since they had no roots in what was essentially Anglo-Protestant America, they became obsessed with the symbols, images, sounds, words, and music of America. Thus, while Wasp Americans took their Americanism for granted as something organic and second-nature, Jews worked extra hard to become American by imitating and absorbing the ideas, principles, symbols, and icons of Americanism. Through such means, Jews came to ‘radicalize’ Americanism into a theory and proposition from what had been a matter of ‘blood and soil’ for Anglo-Americans. Though America had been founded on universal principles, much of American history was indeed shaped by the ‘blood and soil’ values, interests, and habits of Wasps. Thus, white Americans came to see Americanism as a way of BEING. In contrast, Jews came to see Americanism as a way of seeing and way of THINKING. Thus, Ayn Rand sought to be ‘more American than American’ by intellectualizing American free enterprise and individualism into absolute theories. And liberal Jews ‘radically intellectualized’ Americanism by drawing on the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And Jews in Hollywood created a dream industry which, while celebrating Americanism, also gradually changed the rules of what it meant to be truly American. Initially, Wasp Americans took their American-ness for granted while outsider-immigrant Jews without ‘blood and soil’ roots/connections to America sought to prove their Americanism through the absorption of American icons, images, symbols, and songs; many of the most famous Christmas songs and patriotic songs were composed by Jews. Jews in Hollywood produced many Westerns and patriotic movies. But as Jews gained control over the ideas, images, sounds, and symbols — like the Statue of Liberty and its change in meaning from ‘freedom’ to immigration’ — , they not only became a part of America but came to redefine America according to their own ideals, principles, interpretations, biases, self-interests, vendettas, neurosis, and vanity. In time, the meaning of Americanism got reversed. Today, all Americans worship Jews as the best, truest, most wonderful, and most noble of all Americans. Indeed, white Americans even care more about Israel than their own fellow whites. Today, new immigrants don’t have to prove they are American or as-good-as-real-Americans. Thanks to the radical redefinition of America as a ‘nation of immigrants’, even illegal aliens — now called ‘undocumented immigrants’ by the liberal Jewish media — feel more American while white Americans with long roots in America are made to feel less American. Since the immigration narrative of Anglo-Americans has long faded, they are seen as less American than immigrants who arrived later. Outsider-ism is the new Americanism. Jews, immigrants from non-white nations, illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America, and gays don’t have to prove their Americanism. They are ‘more American than American’ by the virtue of their outsider-ness. Indeed, it is considered poison for even conservative politicians to bring up the issue of Zionist AIPAC power over US foreign policy(as it would be ‘antisemitic’ and, of course, nothing is more anti-American than ‘antisemitism’), the issue of illegal immigration(as it would be ‘xenophobic’ and, of course, nothing is more anti-American than ‘xenophobia’), the issue of ‘affirmative action’(as, of course, nothing is more anti-American than ‘racism’), and the issue of ‘gay marriage’(as, of course, nothing is more anti-American than ‘homophobia’ in a nation with a tinkerbellish mulatto president with a gay halo according to Jewsweek magazine). Thus, the very people who used to take their Americanism for granted — Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Americanized whites — must go out of their way to prove their worth as good Americans at the feet of the cabal of Jewish elites who now control and decide what is and isn’t American. So, we have Billy Boy Clinton and the graduating class of white morons celebrating American-ness by welcoming the prospect of whites becoming a minority in the very country their ancestors conquered, settled, and developed. So, we have turd-boy Newt Gingrich repeating the Jewish Supremacist mantra of ‘diversity is our strength’. Thus, outsider Jews, by gaining control of ideas, images, and symbols of America, became the new insiders whereas the traditional insiders have been made to feel like outsiders in the country their own people founded and developed and as if they must grovel before Jews — and the likes of Obama, Eric Holder, Sotomayor, and Barney Frank — to prove their worth as are good decent Americans. And in Europe, Europeans go out of their way to prove they are good decent Europeans by embracing and celebrating ‘diversity’ — more massive immigration from Muslim and African nations. In the US, Pat Buchanan is now a stranger in his own nation and even within the Catholic Church that is now more devoted to supporting illegal immigration and the Africanization of Europe — within a generation or two, it might even come out in favor of ‘gay marriage’. Because of the Jewish notion that the most essential thing about America is that it ‘remakes’ itself, America has been remade culturally, morally, and socially in only a few generations the opposite of what it had been prior to the rise of the Jewish elites. Since White Americans are told to reject and denounce their ‘blood and soil’ roots in America and Europe as ‘racist’, ‘atavistic’, and ‘bigoted’, their sense of identity derives mostly from pop music, Hollywood movies, public education, Jewish-controlled interracist porn, and black-dominated sports. (The great irony of American politics is that even though conservatives are seen as ‘tribalist’ and liberals as ‘universalist’ — in championing a ‘proposition nation’ against the notion of a ‘blood and soil’ country — , in matters of actual practice, it’s the Democratic Party that plays tribal politics while the Republican party appeals to ‘color-blind’ ideals. While white gentile liberals are genuinely liberal in their suicidal-ism, what really motivates non-white ‘liberals’ is tribalism: Liberal Jews are actually Zionist Jewish supremacists, mulattos are for mulatto supremacy, blacks are for black power, gays are for gay power, yellows are for yellow unity, and Hispanics are for Hispanic interests. Indeed, with the official policy of multi-culturalism, the Cult of Diversity really amounts to the rise of various non-white and anti-white tribalisms. In contrast, white conservatives do their best to prove that they are driven by non-tribal and non-racial universal ideals such as equal opportunity, excellence, liberty, property rights, and free enterprise. So, the so-called universalist left openly practices various forms of tribalism whereas the so-called atavistic right promotes a purely abstract set of ideals. It’s a moral paradox: If you wanna practice tribalism, oppose it in theory, at least that of the dominant group.) In feudal Japan, samurai were made to step on the foreign symbol of the Crucifix to prove their loyalty to Japan. In modern America, white Americans are made to step on the image of their own ancestors to prove their worth before the Jew World Order. (And Europe too is culturally becoming an extension of Jewish-controlled America. Of course, Jews started, in the late 19th century and early 20th century Europe, the process that they would finally achieve in America of the 21st century. Having no blood-and-soil roots in Europe, Jews sought to become European or Jewropean by taking control of European culture. Since Jews couldn’t connect to European soil by blood, they sought to connect through arts, music, and literature. Thus, Jews became master musicians, famous writers, and curators. Unlike the Chinese in Southeast Asia who made the money and culturally kept to themselves, Jews sought to gain control of the native culture of goyim. Why did Jewish and Chinese minorities act differently? Maybe, Chinese minorities outside China felt pride and power in their association with the great empire of China. In contrast, European Jews were a diaspora people with no country to call their own — the kingdom of Israel having long been lost to gentile domination — and so they were eager to find firmer footing in goy worlds they came to settle in. By mastering the music, literature, and arts of the goy, Jews sought to find a cultural entrance into the heart-and-soul of goydom. But there was another reason for the difference between Chinese and Jews. Chinese felt markedly superior to the non-Chinese majorities in Southeast Asia and the Philippines, and so they felt no special reason to assimilate. Also, Chinese have been, by nature, ‘lame’. They can be ambitious for power and hungry for wealth, but the Chinese personality tends to be ‘polite’ and head-bowing. Even though Chinese were often abrasive and rude, their core personality tended to center around humility due to genetics and Confucianism. In contrast, Jews couldn’t merely feel contempt for goyim. In the 19th century, it was obvious to Jews that the European goyim had achieved great things in all fields, and this process was only being accelerated with the rise of late modernity. Thus, Jews felt awe for the European goyim that Chinese didn’t feel for Southeast Asians. Also, Jewish personality has been, due to genetics and culture, chutzpah-istic, aggressive, devious, and cunning. There is no word for ‘honor’ in Jewish culture, especially when it comes to dealing with filthy goyim. Also, Chinese didn’t find Southeastern Asians all that attractive — though most of them looked and sounded better than Southern Chinese — whereas hook-nosed & hairy Semitic-featured Jews were crazy about white, ‘Aryan’, Latin, and Nordic beauty. Feeling awe for the world of goyim, many modernizing Jews wanted to assimilate into what seemed like superior goy society, and they used arts-and-culture as the bridge. With the rise of cities that uprooted so many people from their traditional toil-in-the-soil, culture became ever more important in defining one’s national identity. Also, the rise of modern nations necessitated the formulation of national culture, and thus culture came to matter as much or even more than blood in the determination of national identity. Jews saw an opportunity to become part of the nation through culture. Some converted to Christianity, a credo- rather than an ethno-religion. But as time passed, Jews discovered that the mighty goyim weren’t so mighty. The Jew found himself to be smarter than the goy; indeed much smarter in many cases. Heinrich Heine, for instance, laughed at thick-skulled Germans. Similarly, there was a time when black athletes looked up to great white athletes and wanted to be part of the white sports culture, but it wasn’t long before Negroes discovered white boys ain’t so strong, ain’t so fast, and ain’t so special. It wasn’t long before Negroes began to feel contempt for white boys; blacks thought they should dominate sports and take all the hot white girls while white boys should be benchwarmers kissing the Negro’s muscular arse. Similarly, Jewish scientists, writers, and intellectuals began to feel that goyim weren’t so great. Thus, Jewish use of culture went from assimilation to reconfiguration. Instead of using culture as a bridge to goy society, Jews came to use it as a tool to redefine and control goy society. Since Jews made tons of money through finance and business, Jewish control of goy culture could be funded by Jewish control of banks and industry. Thus, Jews were eager to gain control of German culture in the Weimar period and shape it into something as un-German or anti-German as possible. As foul as the Nazis were, their insistence on ‘Aryan’ culture was, in large measure, a radical response to the radical Jewish attempt to pornify and befoul German culture.
In the end, culture-as-instrument-of-radical-change proved to be unstable. No matter how one looks at it, culture is irrational and unstable. It has no clear set of rules. Ironically, Jewish promotion of modernist culture opened the way for the Nazis. As the film MAX — starring John Cusack as a Jewish art dealer who befriends a young Adolf Hitler as the struggling artist after WWI — demonstrated, Nazi culture was, in a way, a kitschy modernist rebellion against modernism.

Though officially anti-modernist, Nazism, in its excess, radicalism, nihilism, and bad-taste-posing-as-good-taste, could be said to have been a campy neo-classical version of modernism — even if Hitler and his witless cronies were blind to the joke. The character of Max played by Cusack sees through Hitler’s ‘vision’ and comes to identify and value its closeted modernism. Nazism wasn’t an ideology of health against sickness but just another modernist sickness masked in health.

Anyway, because of the instability of culture — and how the modern Right gained control over it through the concept of Kultur as opposed to Civilization — , Jews learned that ideas than culture should be the real basis of Jewish power and remaking of goy societies. The most radical version of this was attempted in the Soviet Union where radical Jews sought to erase nearly all of Russian culture and impose upon everyone the ‘universal’ and ‘propositional’ notion of a revolutionary workers’ paradise. Thus, the notion that US is exceptional as a ‘proposition nation’ is mere trickery on the part of Jews. Soviet Union was the first Proposition Nation created by Bolshevik Jews. Churches were smashed, clergy were killed, Russian elites were wiped out, and various nationalities within the Soviet Empire were forced to adhere to the same Marxist-Leninist radical universalist ideology. But, that also failed for the Jews in the long run because, in a society without freedom, muscle and numbers eventually win out over intelligence and talent. Thus, Stalin and his non-Jewish cronies eventually swept Jews off to the side. It was in the US that Jews finally perfected the formula for taking over goy society. They embraced freedom and meritocracy since both favor the more intelligent Jews — and stronger Negroes in sports and streets as allies to beat up and castrate white males. Jews also supported the cult of equality to protect their own rights as minorities, to increase diversity through a color-blind egalitarian immigration policy, and to guilt-bait whites for their failure to live up to egalitarian ideals in the past. But Jews also took control of American culture in all its idolatrous forms. Initially, Jews in Hollywood made many patriotic movies that appealed to traditional white goyim, but gradually, Jews began to remake American culture. The Jewish way can be seen in Josef von Sternberg’s THE LAST COMMAND: In the movie, a leftist Russian Jew made his way to Hollywood and becomes a film producer; he re-encounters a Russian general who had humiliated him back in the Old World, a man who has fallen on hard times and is now a down-and-out actor working as an extra in Hollywood; the roles have become reversed; the Jew now has power over the goy. Jew, controlling the national image, controls the sense of history among the masses — and indeed most Americans’ historical sense comes from movies like SCHINDLER’S LIST and MISSISSIPPI BURNING. The Jew in THE LAST COMMAND wants to get even with the fallen general, but when the latter dies in a paroxysm of Russian patriotism on the movie set, the Jew acknowledges him as a genuine hero. Now, this bit of sentiment could have been sincere or devious. Maybe, Sternberg, though a Jew with negative feelings about goy conservatives, had a sentimental attachments to the glory of the fading Old Order and the final scene of the movie was meant as an elegiac tribute to that era. Or, maybe Sternberg privately felt nothing but contempt for goy conservatives but feigned a degree of magnanimity in order to fool goyim that Jews, though committed to ‘progress’, are not ruthlessly vengeful radical monsters. Indeed, the Hollywood producer is not made out to be explicitly Jewish and is even played by a goy actor. If anything, the man who taunts the old general into a fit of nationalist hysteria looks very Jewish and vile. It was as if Sternberg was trying to have the cake and eat it too. The movie takes pleasure in the general’s downfall and comeuppance while, at the same time, romanticizes it as high tragedy. And though Sternberg employs the ‘antisemitic’ trope of the vile Jew — yapping at the general on the movie set — , he makes the audience think that the movie producer isn’t Jewish when he most certainly would have been in real life.

Anyway, if Jews lost the Culture War in Germany and failed with the Idea War in the Soviet Union, they finally succeeded with the Culture-and-Idea-War in America.) Since white Americans — and even white Europeans — are not allowed to preserve their organic blood-and-soil ties to the past, they’ve psychologically been replicant-ized. They are like strangers in their own land, alienated from by the machinations of an alien elite — Jewish power. In order to find a footing in the New Jew Order, they must rely on the symbols, imagery, iconography, and sounds controlled by the owners of mass media. Since white Americans have been psycho-culturally cut off from their blood-and-soil origins, they seek new meaningful identities through pop imagery. Thus, BLIND SIDE teaches white people that they should look upon a 300 lb Negro giant as their kin. Thus, millions of white girls feel closer to Oprah than to their own mothers — who are also deracinated fools. And so, white girls would rather mate and have kids with Negroes than with white men since professional sports and interracist porn feature blacks as Real Men(and whites as either soft benchwarmers or beta-male cuckolded dweebs.) Jews understand the power of popular culture and how it shapes entire realities, especially since ‘reality’ is an unstable phenomenon — colored, altered, distorted, and warped by bodily fluids and chemicals, ideas and values, biases and preferences, emotions and memory. Consider how the same street can look different to a person who’s never been a victim of crime and to a person who’s been a victim. In SHANE, the kid has real parents but feels more drawn to the glamorous Shane. In a key scene where Shane fights the father and finally beats him by cheating — pistol-whipping — , the kid’s uttering of “Shane, I hate you” has double-meaning; he hates Shane for having knocked out his pa, but he also hates Shane for having failed to live up to the image as a kind of super-hero, i.e. the kid is upset that Shane didn’t beat his father in a fair fight. Shane, being a noble character, comes to understand the kid’s inner-conflict and tells him to return home and take care of his father and mother. The Jew, in contrast, knows all about the desire in the heart of every kid to favor mythic glamour over ‘drab’ reality, and have used this psychological understanding to tear white kids away from their own parents, culture, and heritage and to reattach their loyalties and affections to Negroes, celebrities, Oprah and Obama, gay fruiters, and poor saintly Holocaust Jews. Jews know that people are part of a dual community: organic and imagined. No community is entirely organic or entirely imagined. Even the most organic communities based on kinship and fixed boundaries have their shared myths, legends, and values — or even ideas and cults borrowed from other cultures; for example, Afghan tribal communities are very organic and blood-and-soil but also spiritually Muslim, part of a universal faith. But no community can be entirely imagined either, and even imagined-ness can, in time, turn into a defacto form of organicism; for example, Christianity spread throughout Europe as a universal faith but, in time, came to tribally define white Europeans from other races and civilizations, not least because Islam came to define the Semitic challenge to white Christian power. And there is a twisted particularism to the imagined universality of Americanism. Americans have been brainwashed by Jews to spout such nonsense as “what makes America exceptional is its universalist commitment to being a ‘proposition nation’.” So, the fact that we are universal makes us exceptional. Even conservatives spout this nonsense. Tricky Jews have dressed deracinating globalist Jewish-controlled ‘universalism’ with aspects of particularism and nationalism. Thus, many Americans embrace the anti-white notion of ‘proposition nation’ with patriotic pride. Jews have labeled poison as medicine, and dumb white goyim swallow it with gusto, thinking it will make them healthier, stronger, and prouder. The ways in which Jews toy with goyim — who should now be called toyim — in incredible. Jews admonish white Americans for their ‘racism’ but demand that white Americans support Jewish ethnic oppression of Palestinians. Jews control porn to degrade white women, exploit finance and gambling to rip off whites, control media to deracinate whites, distort the law to undermine white interests, and etc, yet Jews have also persuaded most white Americans that it’s an ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, ‘toxic’, ‘rabid’, and ‘virulent’ ‘canard’ to say Jews have great power and are using it to undermine the interests of the white majority, which, due to Jewish machinations, is not only fated to be a minority but one that welcomes its own demise as a people, culture, and heritage. This spectacle is surely the sorriest in history, all the more tragic for happening to the greatest civilization the world has ever seen. That white people have allowed Jews to do this to them is a testament to the impermanence of all things. No matter how rich, great, or powerful a people may be, they can lose it all — and so fast — when they fall under the sorcery of an hostile alien elite. And ironically, Christianity, the force that was the bane for Jews for so long, created the defenseless turn-the-other-cheek and sin-and-guilt-obsessed white soul that can so easily be toyed with by Jews. In the past, whites balanced guilt with pride, sin with survival, and power with peace, but today, they’re willing to do anything for Jews. Jews also understand that head controls the body, i.e. if Jews convert the white elites, white masses will follow. As for the white masses who refuse to conform to the new order, Jews know they shall remain helpless since the masses can never lead themselves. If Jews tell whites to get on their knees and kiss Jewish ass and suck black cock, whites will do it. If Jews tell whites to go and kill 100,000s of ‘Muzzies’, whites will go and do it. Jews call the shots, and whites clean the pots. Having been deracinated and severed from their organic blood-and-soil roots, it’s no wonder that so many white ‘conservatives’ now gravitate to radical nonsense such as libertarianism — an ideology that posits that ‘individual liberty’ is the end of all things — and even ‘gay marriage’. Having nothing left to feel sacred, proud, and meaningful about, some ‘moderate conservatives’ satiate their need for moral righteousness and justification by arguing for ‘gay rights’. Even Dick Cheney is into the act, as are Laura Bush and Megan McCain. Conservatives are so devoid of meaningful attachments that they, like replicants in BLADE RUNNER, seek symbols and icons to cling to for meaning. Who controls the sacred icons and symbols in today’s America? The Jews. Just consider the Newsweek cover with Obama as the mulatto messiah with a gay halo over his head. Since white conservatives have been told by Jews that they must cut ties with their ‘evil wicked racist’ past, white conservatives are desperate to embrace new sacred truths and meanings... and it’s either MLK — the vile beast who pretended to be saint — and ‘gay marriage’. It’s getting so sick that I’m almost glad Muslims are taking over Europe. I’d hate to see Europe Islamized, but even that is better than a Europe that’s been radical-Jew-ized into ‘gay marriage’, casino capitalism, global interracist rap music, and other rot. I’d be almost glad to see Muslims go after radical gays and hideous Jews in Europe. Muslims kicking Jewish ass in the streets would make my day.
Yes, Jews have been at the center of this rot, but the blame must also go to the complacency that overtook white Americans and the apathy that overtook Europeans. Jews, being both feisty outsiders and intelligent operators, never took anything for granted and fought tooth-and-nail to get their way while whites just sat back and took for granted their dominance based on the centuries-long triumph of the West. In the story of the hare and the tortoise, the tortoise won by its diligence while the hare, thinking it was safely ahead, took it easy. In the case of Jews and Anglos, it was as if the less intelligent tortoise, thinking it was way ahead, slowed down and took a rest while the feistier, faster, and more intelligent hare came from behind and overtook it. Because of the natural Jewish advantage in intelligence, the Anglo tortoise should have strained extra hard to finish the race. But just when Anglo-American power was at its zenith after WWII, Wasp Americans took it easy and allowed Jews to run past them, and now the Jewish hare is stewing the Anglo-American tortoise in a pot that grows warmer and warmer. The new melting pot is stirred by Jews and its main ingredient is White America. As the water heats up, White America dies a slow death. And Jews cackle with hideous glee like Bugs Bunny.

Though futuristic L.A. of BLADE RUNNER is one of steel, glass, concrete, and plastic — a city by the sea, it however looks and feels landlocked, hemmed in by the darkness, smoke, and smog — , water is an important motif throughout the movie. For starters, it’s almost always present in the form of (acid)rain. The combination of darkness and wetness puts an emotional damper on the entire film, perhaps another reason for turning off the audience — Pauline Kael derided it with the heading(of her review) “Baby, the Rain Must Fall”. And yet the constant rain/drizzle lends the movie a contemplative mood. In a way, despite the heavy fog of noir visuals, the water motif provides a counter-ambience to conventional noir. Noir films tend to be hard-boiled, cynical, and gloomy. The water motif, in contrast, adds an almost poetic beauty — at times verging on the quasi-spiritual. It’s almost as if Scott copped some of the imagery from Tarkovsky’s STALKER — especially the unforgettable scene where the flooded floor of an abandoned building break out in frenzy as a torrent of raindrops fall through the broken roof, only to shimmer back to placidity as the rain passes and the drops become fewer and farther between. Thus, the water motif in BLADE RUNNER isn’t only dank and downcast but almost refreshing — and this is especially brought home in the scene when Batty dies in the rain and a very wet Deckard feels born-again. It almost feels like the rain that Travis Bickle wished for in TAXI DRIVER to wash the scum away though only in the form of drizzle. But there are other watery images too, and let’s recall that some of Ridley Scott’s famous TV commercials relied on the water motif. Consider the Chanel No. 5 swimming pool commercial. .

In a way, there is an aquarium feel to BLADE RUNNER and, in this regard, has something in common with THE GRADUATE, maybe the most famous aquarium-ish movie. From the very beginning of THE GRADUATE, the movie looks and feels as if submerged in someone’s emotional pool — of anxiety, loss, and longing. It’s like Benjamin Braddock(Dustin Hoffman) feels like a fish in the wrong fish tank. And so he hides in his own room, his own aquarium, which by the way, has a real aquarium.

Later, we see Braddock in scuba gear at the bottom of a pool; later, we see him floating on a pool — it’s like Mrs. Robinson is his temporary life-boat, that is until she drags him down to her own pool of despair. The hotel room he shares with Mrs. Robinson, the church he raids to ‘save’ Elaine, and the bus on which he and Elaine elope all have an aquarium feel to them. Perhaps no element is as mysterious, versatile(in use and meaning), and poetic as water. There is the pure water in a glass. There is ocean water brushed by the wind and inflamed by the Sun. There’s water as river, water as garden pond, water as swamp, water as metaphor of the mind — Solaris is an ocean planet and its ocean depths conceal the ‘mind’ of Solaris. In a way, a pond or lake is like a metaphor for the human mind. Its surface is like human consciousness, reflective and reactive to the external forces — wind, rain, pebbles, animals, people, etc. — all around. And its depths are like the subconscious, alive with all sorts of hidden creatures and filled with sunken/lost treasures and junk of experience, memory, longing, bitterness, and etc. dissolving in time. A psycho-analyst is like a scuba-diver of the mind.
(Sometimes a submarine isn’t just a submarine as Jewish shrinks used psycho-analysis not only to gain access to a shikse’s soul but to her hole. He might start out by probing her mind so as to win her trust in order to finally pork her vagina.) Water is also life. Our ancestors crawled out of the water, and land creatures are essentially walking aquariums. (Though FANTASTIC VOYAGE is a dumb movie, it worked on the concept of the human body as a vast oceanarium.) Water also has spiritual and sensual meaning. Water is often the symbol of purity and cleansing, as when Jesus washed the feet of His Disciples. And consider what the Holy Water did to the demon-possessed child in THE EXORCIST. But water is also associated with temptation, sex — exchange of bodily fluids(saliva, sperm, blood, pussy juice, and even urine) — , and disease. Watery jungle tropics breed tons of mosquitos that eat you alive. Amazon jungles are full of piranhas in rivers and lakes. Water and dampness hasten decay, which is why wooden homes rot quickly in jungle regions. Indeed, the most powerful religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — all grew out of desert tribes in the arid Near East where things seemed more permanent, fixed, and ever-lasting. Water was precious to the Jews and Arabs. There was almost never enough water to go around to cause the extreme problems of disease and sickness so prevalent in the jungles of sub-Saharan Africa, South America, and South & Southeast Asia. And since there was far less abundance of life in the Near East — in contrast to the abundance of fauna and flora in India and the lower Americas — , Jewish spirituality became more abstract and dry, simpler in its theoretics. Generally through history, people tended to associate gods with living things — people or animals — or with powerful natural phenomena. Egyptians had the Nile, the breeding ground of much life, and so they created Hippo gods, hawk gods, and crocodile gods. And Hindus in India had elephant gods and monkey gods that were associated with the Ganges. But, Jews were often stuck in dry places with little life but uninteresting/unimpressive goats and sheep — and they didn’t feel like worshiping a goat or lamb. So, Jews had less of a chance to attach their spirituality to things like animals. Also, the overwhelming climatic factor Jews became accustomed with was aridity, and so there wasn’t much in the way of awesome natural phenomena — such as typhoons, frequent storms, and tsunamis — for Jews to worship either. There was the story of Noah’s Ark but it happened in the distant past — and according to the Bible, God promised not to do such stuff again. Thus, Jewish spirituality became parched and dried under the Sun. The watery content of Jewish spirituality couldn’t find something IN THE WORLD to attach to, and so it grew drier and drier until the only thing that was left was the theoretic essence of spirituality. It’s like taking salt water and letting the water dry, leaving only the salt. It’s like drying and roasting coffee beans and leaving only the essence of the coffee flavor. Thus, there is a salty and dry quality to Jewish culture. Their spirituality is that of someone who overcame thirst for sensual spirituality and came to accept the higher theoretical truth of dry spirituality. (It’s natural for children to like wet and sensual things, which is why they prefer pictures, sounds, and animals. Kids like to see, feel, hear, taste, and touch things. There is a child-like element in the sensualism of paganism. Animism is worship of nature itself. Pagan myths are filled with visibly manifested gods and heroes in pictures and stone. Jews came to see all of that as wicked idolatry. Thus, the notion of ‘putting away childish things’ and becoming an adult has a literary aspect in Jewish culture. John Simon, though not Jewish, may have been limited as film critic because his dry literariness stood distrusted and resisted the more sensual and sublime visual power of cinema. It’s like saying that it’s time to put away the books with pretty pictures and start reading books with only words. Thus, among all the great cultures of the ancient past, the Jewish culture was the driest. Wettest were the pre-literate pagan cultures, and somewhere between wetness and dryness — amphibious — were the high pagan cultures such as that of the Greeks who exulted both in the direct senses and in high concepts. Jews evaporated away as much of the wetness as possible, leaving only the sacred words of God. And Jewish culture became more moralistic as Jewish ideas came to fixate on what was deemed to be the righteousness of God, a righteousness so true that it should be the only thing that men of higher consciousness should devote themselves to, be obsessed with, and always be contemplating. The French film director Jean-Luc Godard remarked on the literary and anti-image thrust of Jewish culture through the millennia, and so, it’s all the remarkable that Jews are now the gods of mass media and control the idolatry that seeps into all of our lives. If God said, “do not worship any idols or gods other than Me” — or something like that — , Jews say, “do not worship any idol except those created, marketed, and sold by me, the Jew, your god.” This doesn’t mean that Jews have come to embrace wetness. It means they’ve come to appreciate its power and to control it. Christians were also dry and sought to spread the faith by sacred words alone, but they couldn’t succeed on those terms because so many people were too illiterate and dumb for literary/theoretical spirituality. They needed pictures, songs, and icons, and so the Catholic Church provided paganesque spiritual ‘picture books’ and ‘teddy bears’ for the masses through rituals, parades, and such. The highly intelligent and educated could understand dry spirituality, but the masses had to be won over and controlled with a degree of wetness. Protestantism rebelled against such ‘corruption’ and ‘impurity’ and worked hard to impose a dry spirituality on its populace. But this was a challenge since most people were uneducated, illiterate, and shupid. In order for spiritual dryness to triumph as a mass credo, there needed to be more educated people and more literate people. In order for there to be more literate and educated people, there needed to be more social discipline, order, and commitment — on part of both the educators and the to-be-educated. This may explain why Northern Europe made greater social advances than Catholic nations. Having abandoned the easy and wet ‘childish’ picture-book-and-song spirituality of Catholicism, Protestantism committed itself toward lifting up the spirituality of the masses by spreading education based on greater social discipline. If the masses were to be educated, they had to learn to sit still in class rooms. And since this kind of spirituality was more literary than customary, brain power came to be prized over ‘dumb’ passion. In contrast, Catholic nations and Greek/Russian orthodox nations kept the people illiterate and worshipful in a ‘wet picture-book-ish’ way. Book learning is different from looking at pictures in a magazine or enjoying music. It is about learning to absorb ideas and thoughts, about learning to think. Jews, in their utter dryness, had a head start for 1000s of years. And Chinese had some of this dryness in their devotion to literary Confucianism. It’s no wonder that the governing elites of China were called the literati, the men of letters. Given the struggle between Jewish dryiness and Protestant dryness, maybe Jews figured that in order to win over the Protestants, the Protestant masses should be infantilized by neo-wetness controlled by Jews. Thus, the Protestant masses would no longer be intellectually, morally, and spiritually linked with Protestant elites but fall under the sway of Jewish Hollywood, music industry, and porn. While the Protestant masses were becoming infantilized by the Jewish control of neo-wet-paganism — especially today, it seems most young white gentiles are addicted to rap, interracist porn, and superhero blockbuster movies, all of which are controlled by Jews —, Protestant elites were becoming radicalized by pushy Jewish ideas; indeed, some elite Wasps even found Jewish pushiness sexy and exciting. Thus, Protestants lost to Jews both at mass level and elite level. To be sure, Evangelicals cling to their tradition, but Evangelicalism itself is an infantilized form of Protestantism, more into fiery sermons and mass hysteria than thought and devotion, which is why neocons have had such an easy time molding Evangelical passions toward supporting Israel and hating all Muslims. In a way, Jews see gentiles like adults see dumb children. Adults, upon realizing that dumb kids will never amount to much in terms of dry book-learning, make peace with ‘wet’ culture and use images and sounds to control the kids. Though ideally opposed to ‘wet culture’, adults have no choice but to use and manipulate its facets given that dumb kids will never rise to the level of ‘dry culture’. Similarly, Jews learned from the communist experience that most goyim will never rise to the level of the radical intellectual. Thus, communism came to control the masses more through pageantry and rituals than through ideas, which, in time, became simple-minded slogans, more theology than theory. And in America, Jews see most goyim as dumb and stupid. Since most goyim in our crass consumer society respond to ‘wet’ images and sounds, Jews cunningly control pop idolatry for both profit and power. And yet, Jews maintain a certain dryness for themselves. It’s like Tyrell, though part of the world, also remains above the world. It’s like L.A. is one vast polluted ocean filled with bottom feeders while he himself resides in the top storey of a purified aquarium containing only holy water.) There is an element of this among Greeks too. Greek lands were also dry and Greek oceans were often clear-blue — almost crystal transparent than ‘wet’. Also, the quality of the Greek sun, according to the journalist Nicholas Gage(not to be confused with actor Nicholas Cage), has a way of revealing the very essence of things under its light — though maybe the sun has long since shifted given the ridiculousness of today’s Greeks.

Anyway, among all the elements, there is nothing as strange and suggestive as water. It is, along with light, both the simplest and most mysterious of elements. It is no surprise then that so many famous paintings are about the interplay of light and water, especially the seashore during daybreak or sunset. Or consider the works of David Hockney. Only the interplay of trees and light comes anywhere near in expressive range and beauty.

Remarkably, BLADE RUNNER conveys wateriness even without the presence of water. Consider the scene when Rachel makes her first appearance to greet Deckard. Behind her on the wall are wavy patterns that appear to be reflections from a pool(that we don’t actually see). This elevated and enclosed world feels submerged in a strange aura and power: the Tyrell tower as a private aquarium of its overlord. Later, when Rachel holds a cigarette, the smoke also adds to the aqua-atmosphere. In a way, replicants are both wet and dry creatures. They have organic tissue and appear to breathe and eat(and probably excrete) like humans; and they bleed like humans. But they are artificial beings made from theory and machines; their tissues and organs could actually be synthetic.

Another thing that lends the movie a watery feel is the cetacean score by Vangelis. The opening soundtrack is like the songs of whales, and giant zeppelins and aerial cars ‘float’ around like sea creatures. (Vangelis, the master of New Age music, was the perfect choice for BLADE RUNNER. Largely created through synthesizers, his work has an air of artificiality, yet the lush romanticism sweeps you away. Its duality of plasticity and organicism strikingly conveys the ‘nature’ of replicants as both synthetic and biological creatures. Incidentally, Vangelis isn’t taken seriously by music critics, and it’s true enough that most of his works are little more than pap, and most of his film scores are, at once, too populist and too pompous. However, he’s produced a number of memorable pieces — his score for BLADE RUNNER perhaps being his crowning achievement — and he may be more deserving of remembrance than many ‘serious’ composers favored by serious music critics and scholars. One of the main strikes against Vangelis could be that his works are too pleasurable, and it just so happens that there’s long been a knee-jerk distrust of and resistance against something that produces ‘excessive’ and immediate joy on the part of the audience. This could be rooted in Judeo-Christian fears about the sin of worldly pleasure but also in the civilizational ideal that things of great value require learning, patience, and intellectualism to appreciate and understand. Thus, the logic goes ‘anything that can be grasped and enjoyed immediately must not really be great.’ Though the truism surrounding Mozart and Beethoven is that they went un- or underappreciated in their time because people just didn’t understand their ‘radical’ or ‘difficult’ music, it could be that the resistance was more grounded in the fact that their music was too pleasurable and too accessible — too easy — to the emotions. Maybe the leading experts and scholars of the time simply didn’t know what to do with works that produced immediately pleasurable emotions that threatened to topple the dry supremacy of the mind. Of course, the danger today is the opposite, at least in pop culture. Hedonism is everywhere in entertainment, and even serious critics show off their ‘anti-elitist’ credentials by parading their populism, especially of the jigger-jiver Negro kind. Even so, there’s still a school of intellectualism that favors ‘difficult’ art over ‘easy’ entertainment, as if something has great value because only the initiated and the ‘radical’ can understand it. But the strangest phenomenon is when some people try to have the cake and eat it too, as with the films of the worthless Guy Maddin whose films are intentional B-movie trash packed with references and in-jokes only film buffs can identify and pat themselves on the back for identifying. And in the art world, there’s the cult of Andy Warhol who is celebrated for his anti-art populism which, however, is sufficiently loopy that only ‘intellectuals’ can really ‘understand’ and appreciate it.) Oddly enough, flying is closer to swimming; thus, birds and fish have more in common with one another than they do with land-locked creatures. Birds have the power of vertical travel, and they could be said to be swimming in the air; and fishes could be said to be flying in the water. Fishes are not stuck on one vertical level of transport as land creatures are. Humans and land creatures must walk or crawl on the land. Especially with the creation of Off-World Colonies, it’s as if Earth itself has become an ocean in BLADE RUNNER. The surface of the Earth is no longer the top of the world. With new civilizations being created ‘above’ the atmosphere of Earth — perhaps even beyond the solar system — , all people of Earth(except for maybe Tyrell atop his tower) are now part of the underworld. There is also weightlessness associated with water. When one dives into the water, he or she floats weightless in the water. Space travel is weightless, unchained from Earth’s gravity. And with aerial cars, the privileged people of BLADE RUNNER can defy gravity and travel freely. These elements lend a sense of beauty, mystery, and majesty in BLADE RUNNER that works contrary to noir oppressiveness.

Later, consider Deckard alone in his apartment after Rachel departs. He picks up her photo and hold a glass of drink in his hand. He gazes at Rachel’s ‘childhood’ photo and drifts into reverie. He sees a beautiful child and her mother and ponders its meaning in relation to Rachel, family, technology, and to himself. He knows the photo is a lie, even a cruel lie concocted by Tyrell. He’s aware of both Rachel’s mystery and artificiality. He wonders about her mysterious past while knowing there is no mystery, and that all the data are stored in Tyrell’s files. And yet, even if those ‘childhood memories’ were implanted into her, they’ve come to fruition as Rachel’s own soul. Others may hold her files, but she’s filled the files with life, just like actors bring the ‘creative files’ written by playwrights to life through their performances. So, she remains a mystery even in her artificiality. Also, even though she’s been programmed with fake memories, she creates her own reality by responding to those ‘memories’ — and to the revelations about the memories — in her own way. That part of her, even Tyrell cannot control, and indeed it was out of her own volition that she decides to run from Tyrell corporation. In a way, we’ve all been implanted with memories in the sense that we are indoctrinated and conditioned with certain ideas, images, symbols, and meanings that were created by other people and are not a direct part of our lives. Yet, even though all of us have been ‘programmed’ with the same things, each of us reacts and responds to the ‘programming’ in his or her own ways. No two Russians ‘programmed’ by communism were exactly the same — those I must say most SWPL liberal dorks are drearily alike as are the Christian Right Zionists. There is always the factor of personalty and randomness, and we must remember replicants were created with different personalities.
Even as Deckard knows about the ‘real’ Rachel, he can’t help feel that Rachel is more than what Tyrell designed her to be or not to be. Indeed, her poignant reaction to his revelation about her ‘childhood’ was something he did not expect. Though technically not human, she responded humanly, that is tragically. Noticing this, Deckard tries to backtrack and says it was just a bad joke, but he knows the harm’s been done and her ‘innocence’ cannot be restored again, anymore than genie can be put back inside the bottle.
What Rachel experiences is like a reverse-amnesia effect. People who suffer from amnesia cannot recall their identities or the details of their lives, and so doctors and their relatives/friends try to fill holes in their memories. In Rachel’s case, her mind contains a lifetime of memory, but Deckard tells her there should be a hole where there is a whole. Rachel’s anti-amnesia realizes that her memories are fake. If anything, she is amnesiac of how she was really created and programmed. (But then, all of us are amnesiac about our conception, development in the womb, childbirth, and early childhood. I wonder how humanity might be different if we had full remembrance of how we came to being from the very moment the sperm fertilized the egg. That may have been one of the ideas behind TREE OF LIFE, but what a dumb movie.) If Tyrell is too busy working on something bigger to care about Rachel’s frayed emotions — Tyrell may also have the callous and sneering personality of Jared Taylor — , Deckard the closet-romantic finds himself unable to shake Rachel out of his mind. He sees and senses someone who is both more and less than a replicant AND more and less than a human. She is more human than other replicants, obviously ‘more replicant’ than humans, but also, as Tyrell’s motto goes, ‘more human than human’. Yet, there’s a paradox in the meaning of ‘human’ and ‘replicant’. If the purpose of the Tyrell corporation is to create replicants that are ‘more human than human’, then the most advanced replicants are necessarily ‘more human’ and ‘less replicant’, yet in their ‘more human’-ness, they are also more replicant-ist since the ideal of replicant-ism is based the dream of creating something that is ‘more human than human’. Thus, as replicants become more human-like and less replicant-like, they are closer to fulfilling the goal of replicantism, and that means they become more replicant-ist(as they become less replicant-ish); similarly, even as Jews become less Jew-ish, they become more Jew-ist. If the purpose of Jewism is deceive, penetrate, and take over power from goyim, then a Jew who conceals or discards his outer Jew-ishiness may actually be coming closer to fulfilling the grand plan of Jew-ism; similarly, Japan westernized to compete in the modern world, but even as they became less Japan-ish, they became more Japan-ist. This problem also existed to some extent in the Greek concept of art that was premised on the process of mimesis. Thus, a piece of marble, as it’s carved into the figure of a man, becomes ‘more man than man’ — the embodiment of man in his purest and noblest form — and ‘more man than marble’ and ‘less marble than marble’; and yet, the marble, though rendered ‘less marble-ish’, in fulfilling its higher purpose of representing the pure forms of reality, also become ‘more marble than marble’ on the basis of marble-ism whose ideal is to reveal ‘true forms’ from the chaotic jumble of nature.

Deckard’s feelings for Rachel are somewhat like children’s feelings for dolls and teddy bears. The child consciously knows that a doll is a rag stuffed with cotton or beans, but it ‘lives’ with all the emotions poured into it by the child. People also ‘humanize’ dogs and cats this way. And this happens in our relation to fiction and movies as well. We know movies are fake yet the suspension of disbelief takes over instantly/effortlessly. If anything, we must constantly tell ourselves it’s not real to be ever aware of its fakery, but even then, what our minds know, our emotions and primal responses don’t know. Even if we remind ourselves constantly that the ending of BICYCLE THIEVES is an acted scene and not reality, it moves us as if it’s real; even if we tell ourselves constantly that the flesh being bitten off in DAWN OF THE DEAD isn’t real, we cringe as if it is. Our senses and emotions are affected and work differently than the mind; sometimes, the mind is awake while the senses ‘dream’ in their ecstacy, i.e. the mind is aware of reality while the senses are carried away by fantasy. Thus, even as the mind knows there’s no God, someone in a Church may feel uplifted by Gospel music as the song for God. Or, even if a person is rationally anti-communist, his or her senses may be roused by communist music and pageantry. But sometimes, the mind dreams while the senses are awake. The dream could be literal as when the slumbering dreamer thinks he’s in paradise when his house is actually burning down; he may finally be awakened as the heat burns/alerts his senses. But the dream can be ideological, as with so many liberals and leftists whose minds have been put to sleep by the spell of political correctness. Such people may only be awakened when Negroes go on the rampage and kick their butts, but such is unlikely in the near future since Jews have fixed socio-economic arrangements in such a way that many of the affluent liberal ‘creative class’ are allowed to live in relatively safe whitopias without direct threat from black mobs. So, even as the liberal affluent class mentally indulge in the dream of magical ‘diversity’, they don’t have to bear the brunt of it to wake up in time. So, the very elite white people who need to wake up to save their own race continues to live in the slumber of ‘creativity’ and ‘diversity’.

Fiction’s hypnotic power makes us care about its characters and their lives. When we think of THE GODFATHER, the first thing that comes to mind is Vito Corleone and Michael Corleone than Marlon Brando and Al Pacino playing them. And in a way, celebrity-hood has a mythic quality because fans and audiences associate actors with the ‘feats’ they perform on screen. So, even though Tom Cruise never did anything to risk his neck in movies, his fans FEEL that he did those things even as they KNOW he really didn’t. How else can we explain the popularity of Bruce Lee and Sylvester Stallone?

Deckard sips on his drink and falls into a sleepy trance, and we slip into the watery realm of dreams. Dreams can be weightless or unfold in slo-motion. Consciousness dissolves like sugar crystals. Images are distorted as if through liquid lenses. Free play of memories erodes the boundaries of time; past and present intermingle like creatures in the sea. As Deckard drifts further into slumber, a unicorn gallops past in slo-motion as if weightless in water.
It is from a bathtub at Leon’s place that Deckard finds snake scales, and when he tracks down the ‘woman’ who owns the artificial snake, she enters and exits a shower room as he, masquerading as a reporter, pretends to interview her. There’s a certain amphibiousness about the situation. She, a replicant, pretends to be human and works as a snake-woman at a night club. He, a blade runner, pretends to be a reporter investigating moral abuse in the entertainment industry. (Ironically, he seems, at this point anyway, oblivious to the fact that Tyrell has created replicants for exploitive purposes. And though hiding behind the guise of a moral arbiter of social morals, he works as a henchman of the Tyrell corporation.) There is something slippery about the situation. Given that Zhora the snake woman is a replicant and Deckard may be one too, their amphibiousness is apt since replicants exist between wet life and dry machinery, just like amphibians exist between land and water. And consider the scene where Pris pulls out two eggs from boiling water and tosses one at Sebastian(William Sanderson). (There is a parallel between what Pris does to Sebastian and what Batty does to Tyrell. Both use trickery to fool and penetrate the world of humans. Pris, pretending to be a homeless girl, found a way to Sebastian’s heart and home. She uses him like a pawn. And then, she brings Batty into Sebastian’s dwelling, and then Batty uses Sebastian as a chess piece to gain entry into Tyrell’s abode.) Eggs are symbols of life yet boiled in hot water. In a way, replicants are like those boiled eggs. They’ve been hatched into life from the sterile laboratory of dead materials. (Pris’s clutching eggs from a cylinder of boiling water parallels Leon’s fishing eyes from Chu’s frozen vat. Eyes as the eggs of imagination? Chu made eye-eggs, and they hatched into the visions of Batty? In JURASSIC PARK, tiny T-Rex babies hatch from eggs but turn into giants of awesome power. Eyes are small like eggs, but from them are hatched visions of power, beauty, and the universe. Cinema is like the full-grown T-rex of the eye-egg: imagination writ large. No wonder then, BLADE RUNNER begins with a giant eye that, looming like the universe itself, looks back at us who look at the screen. ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER(in the final scene) also have memorable images of the eye.

An interesting aspect of the story comes into focus as we watch Chu — and then Tyrell and Sebastian. Chu is an old frail Chinese man, Sebastian is a frail young man with a premature aging disease, and Tyrell is getting up there in years — and seems to have poor eyesight and wears very thick glasses. Chu is a brilliant craftsman, Sebastian is a great programmer, and Tyrell is a theoretic genius. But they all look deficient as humans. They look frail, old, and/or incomplete, and as such, are the opposite of replicants, who are not only intelligent but physically robust and eternally-young-for-four-years, or four-ever-young. Replicants are ‘born’ perfect and ‘die’ perfect. As Athena, the goddess with the owl, was born full-bodied, full-armored, and full-knowing, replicants are ‘born’ complete. In a way, a replicant is the most powerful and most powerless creature in the world. Most powerful as the combined product of the vast array of knowledge and skills of ‘incomplete’ individuals. Like an advanced jet fighter is the product of the combination of best engineering skills from the best institutions, a replicant is created by the cooperative contributions of innumerable experts. Thus, a replicant is more than Chu, more than Sebastian, more than Tyrell, and more than everyone else involved in his or her creation. A replicant sees through Chu’s artificial eyes, operates through Sebastian’s programs, and thinks through Tyrell’s mind-implant. A replicant hatches from an egg inseminated with the combined talent of multiple geniuses and engineers. Most humans are good at one thing or another. A handsome person may be dumb as a doorknob. A smart person may be ugly as hell. A person with good hand skills may lack intellectual skills. A person good with theory may be a klutz with tools and the brush. Replicants, in contrast, are ‘more human than human’ because all the top-notch attributes of humans — intelligence, power, beauty, imagination, etc. — have been combined in them. (I wonder why Leon was made so ugly.) It’s like taking the mind of Einstein, the looks of Sean Connery, the physical prowess of a leopard and gorilla, and visionary power of Kubrick, and then packing them all into a single being. This is what makes them god-like. Because replicants are superior, they can easily take power from humans. Thus paradoxically, they are created as god-men but controlled as slave-men with four-year life spans, and this makes them powerless. The problem here is, in a way, the central paradox of human creativity. We seek to create that which is greater than us yet also maintain control over it. (In Roland Joffe’s FAT BOY AND LITTLE MAN, Oppenheimer initially joins the project to build the Bomb before the dreaded Nazis build one first, but he chooses to lead the team even after Germany surrenders. It’s as if he’s driven by something other than morality, politics, or even Jewish interests. Something about his ego needs to be the first man to create the god-weapon, even if he later came to regret it.) This can be spiritual or scientific. Man created God, but he ended up bowing before his creation and even credited God with the creation of man. We create technology but also become its dependents. Marx cursed modern industry for having turned men into slaves, but the latest technology turns us into addicts instead. This is also true on the social level. We’ve created a safe haven for Jews out of our fascination for their superior intellect and one for blacks out of fascination for their superior athleticism, but we also find ourselves being taken over by Jews who outwit white folks and blacks who out-fight and out-fuc* white folks. Anglo-Americans sought to harness Jewish power and black power while also maintaining control over them — like the Wasp military guy(albeit played by Jewish Paul Newman) in FAT BOY AND LITTLE MAN tries to keep Oppenheimer under wraps — , but the Jew and Negro gained supremacy over whites.

Replicants are superior and the most powerful beings in BLADE RUNNER but also the most powerless — and not simply because they have 4-yr life-spans. It’s because their perfection could only have been created by pooling the talents of inferior humans. Thus, even as Batty towers over Chu, Sebastian, Tyrell, and others, he is the child of the mating of all their special abilities. He is and could only have been the child of the limited perfections of imperfect individuals. Chu the old Chinese geek could make perfect eyes. Sebastian the prematurely aging computer engineer could do perfect programming. Tyrell, the man with poor eye-sight who’s unable to reverse his own aging process, could design perfect minds. Batty, as ‘perfect’ as he is, owes his very existence to dreams of imperfect humans. Whatever he’s seen, done, or come to know, it was made possible by the merging of piecemeal perfections of individual humans; his big/complete perfection is made up of little/incomplete perfections. Then, if Deckard is indeed a replicant, it’s ironic when he’s called one of the ‘little people’. (If Deckard is a replicant, why wasn’t he given superhuman powers like the other replicants? Most likely because his purpose is to carry out human tasks on Earth, and therefore he nor anyone else mustn’t know what he may really be. But one might ask... wouldn’t it be easier to capture and kill replicants if blade runners had superhuman power? But the catch is replicants of any kind are not allowed on Earth — due to Tyrell’s or government’s policy — , and so if replicants must be hunted down by replicants, the latter must convince everyone — and be convinced themselves — that they are human. It’s understandable why the government may forbid replicants on Earth: Replicants can be dangerous like the Terminator. But if the government really takes orders from the Tyrell corporation, why would the latter support a policy that forbids replicants on Earth since its revenues rely on producing and selling replicants? Could it be the same reason that the military-industrial complex produces advanced weaponry but only uses it in foreign countries? Drones and missiles are okay as long as they blow up Arab/Muslim nations in the Middle East, but no one is to own such weapons in America. Tyrell also appears to be afraid of his inventions, and maybe his heartlessness is actually a manifestation of justifiable fear. If he loses the ruthless will to make and break replicants — if he were to develop a soft spot for them — , he might lose control and be superceded by them. But maybe there’s a more sly and sinister reason for Tyrell’s two-faced policy. Maybe Tyrell is rather like the Jews. Just as Jews ban ‘white supremacism’ and promote ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ to mainly secure the interests of Jewish supremacism, Tyrell could be playing it both ways to con everyone in the game of power. On the one hand, he makes replicants and sells them to governments and corporations for great profits. But he must also be aware of the fear, resentment, and anger on the part of the human populace regarding replicants, and so he cooperates with the police to hunt down rogue replicants. Thus, he fills the world with replicants but also poses as a law-abiding citizen fully working with state authority to make the world safe from BAD replicants. It’s like how George Soros is both the master of finance capitalism and a main funder of radical socialism, i.e. he uses his ‘progressive’ credentials to secure protection for his massive fortune and capital. It’s this slipperiness — something which Armand Hammer was also known for — that allows him to play and profit from both sides. This is why it never helps to trust Jews.) Thus, Batty’s completeness is paradoxically incomplete for he wasn’t ‘born perfect’ from perfection but ‘born perfect’ from the mating of imperfections. The main neurosis of gods, if they were to become self-aware(of their own creation), might be that they, the great and/or perfect beings, have been molded from the imagination and visions of imperfect people. This neurosis is perhaps most evident in the Jewish God of the Old Testament. Pagan gods are powerful and some are near-perfect, but few can be said to be perfect in everything, thus they are more human-like. Some gods are good at war, some are great at love, some are great at creativity, some are great at power and ruling, and etc. They are more perfect than mankind, yet their imperfections are the all-too-human reflections of the limitations of man. Thus, paganism on some level seems to suggest that the gods are false, that they are false idols created by man. For gods to conceal their fakery and artificiality, certain thoughts and ideas must be repressed by taboos and accusation of sacrilege — and finally by the evolution of religion into something more abstract and elusive. First, the gods must be pulled into one perfect God. Thus, unlike pagan gods, the Jewish God is perfect at EVERYTHING. Since He alone is perfect, there is no need for the existence of other gods who are condemned to be ‘false gods’. Since imperfection is no longer the feature of God, the fingerprints of man have been wiped away from the Godhead. Jews went further and made God unseeable and unknowable. Since God cannot be visualized into iconography — called idolatry — , He can never be tainted by man’s flaws. No work of art, however great, can be perfect, and even if a perfect representation of God could be created in form, no form on Earth is everlasting and impervious to erosion or destruction. Thus, if God is to be perfect, He cannot be represented by impermanent worldly materials. Also, if God is unknowable, we musn’t use worldly evidence to accuse Him of being either a cruel, uncaring, and evil God OR a non-existent bogus deity created by man’s imagination. Thus, one of the great advantage of the Jewish religion was it found a way by which God could suppress all evidence of having been created by man. Thus, if mankind eventually came to see a whole bunch of pagan gods as fake and man-made, the Jewish God escaped this fate by ordering the destruction of all evidence that showed religion to be the creation of man. And yet, there’s something fishy about the Jewish God and the whole thing about idolatry. Eyes are both crucial to and dangerous to spirituality. It’s difficult to imagine the creation and rise of religions without the ability to see. Religion began as a form of eye-dolatry. When man, with tremendous power of eye-sight, look up at the sky and stars, he was awed by the sheer grandeur. If man had no eye-sight or poor eye-sight — was only near-sighted — , he couldn’t have taken in the universe as he gazed at the sky and stars. Man’s sense of wonderment came through the eyes, and it is through eyes that man thought he saw the face of gods and God in the heavens, stars, mountains, rivers, oceans, and etc. The Creation in the Bible begins with darkness and then ‘And then there was Light..’ Light has no meaning without eyes. Some organisms have poor or limited eye-sight. Man could see colors, all sorts of shapes, near and far, and etc. Man could see beauty, grandeur, magnificence, and tremendousness through the eyes. Thus, spirituality, an expression of and devotion to the wonderment of the universe all around us, hatched from the eyes. Knowing what we know about the universe today — that our galaxy is merely one among billions more — , we now know that our eyes cannot take in the entire universe. And yet, gazing at the world around us from a mountaintop makes us feel like we can see forever, as if we can look into the realm of the gods. Thus, spirituality grew out of eyes, and it’s no wonder that pagan spirituality was so big on statues, temples, monuments, churches, paintings, and etc. so delightful to the eye. But in time, man began to feel that eyes were the enemies of spirituality. To please the eye, man created idols and sacred objects, but such material objects tended to limit the full range of spirituality. How can any object represent the full glory of the gods? (The story of THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES, from this angle, may have another meaning. Generally, it’s understood as a story of two clever tailors hoodwinking everyone that an exceptionally magnificent dress is being made for the king, but maybe the tailors weren’t necessarily crooks. Maybe they understood that the perfect dress cannot be made of worldly material but only from the infinite material of human imagination. The moment human imagination tries to express itself though worldly material, it loses its wings and becomes trapped in the web of reality. One can build castles of any size in the air, but one can only build a castle of limited size in reality. Thus, the tailors are like the Jews who invented God, who is both the biggest con and the profoundest truth.) Also, eyes, in their sensuality, preferred the flesh over the spiritual. A man could easily come to favor worldly treasures over sacredness(or mistake worldly treasures as sacredness) or favor a big-breasted woman with skanky legs spread open to the goddess of dignity. When Troy is sacked, Greek men, raging with lust, even rape and kill women at the feet of a statue of Athena, which is why the goddess destroys their ship later as retribution. Also, the idols of gods came to be more precious than gods themselves. Thus, gods were turned into interchangeable or saleable commodities. Rich Greeks and Romans bought and sold statues of gods as house decorations. And consider the expensive gold Crucifix necklace. Thus, spirituality grew suspicious of eye-dolatry and came to embrace eye-see-nothing. Maybe there was something in Oedipus’s blinding his own eyes; he had trusted his eyes, but they didn’t warn him from killing his father and marrying his mother. And consider Samson the Jewish muscle-head. When he could see, he got a hard-on and was chasing after shikses. It’s after he’s blinded that he begins to FEEL the higher truth and gains the power to knock down pillars and destroy a ton of evil goyim. In a way, the pillars were like phallic symbols. When Samson could see, he often obeyed the passions of his whanker. But as a blind man, he overcomes the power of two big phallic-columns and kills a whole bunch of Philistines. Samson, of course, regrows his hair during his enslavement. Thus, Judaism became a hair-religion. Hair is different from the eye. Eyes are immediate in their pleasure. A man sees food and wants it. A man sees a woman and wants her. Eyes are instantaneous in their delight and desire. Hair, in contrast, takes a long time to grow, long time to wash, and lots of effort to keep clean. In their length, hair symbolize the thread of history and continuity. It’s no wonder Hasidim are among the hairiest folks in the world. They even read books with locks of hair. And as Hinduism became more abstract, it too produced a whole bunch of hairy yogis. Buddism took another tact in its rejection of eye-dolaltry. Siddhartha, eventually to become the Enlightened One, grew up with eye-candy all around him. Life seemed beautiful, wonderful, and fun, but then, one day, as the legend goes, he saw misery outside the paradisal setting of his father’s kingdom. He thought eyes were meant only for health and beauty, but the other side of life was ugliness, disease, and death. Furthermore, he came to realize the parasitic nature of paradise; for him to live like a prince, others had to toil to procure the goods that made his state of bliss possible. Like his father, he could have shielded his eyes from the ugly truth and only focused on beauty, but as a valuer of truth, he could not fool himself that ugliness and death didn’t exist. Thus, he went to the other extreme and chose blindness. He didn’t pull his eyes out but instead closed his eyes and meditated for a long time — so long in fact that things that snail-like creatures grew around his head. Instead of acknowledging that reality is filled with both beauty and ugliness, life and death, Buddha concluded that everything seen by the eye is an illusion. Buddha came to rely on his ears, which is why Buddha statues show him with elongated ears. Buddha sensed that images only showed the surface illusions of things whereas sound hid secrets that could be accessed through meditation. Of course, sounds could deceive just like images, but sounds could be plumbed in a way images could not be. Sounds allowed one to enter into the heart or core of the matter. One could tear open an animal and see what’s inside, but one would still be seeing the surface of hearts and lungs. No matter how far one dug with the eye and peeled away another layer of illusion, one always came upon another layer of surface; even if you dig 100 feet underground, you would be seeing the surface of the dirt beneath. But through meditation, one could hear the deeper sound within the sound. Eventually, one could hear the hearing, the very process by which the semblance of reality is created. Thus, Buddha, through fasting and meditation, went to the deepest sound within the sound, and he thought it sounded something like ‘Ohm’. Ohm sweet Ohm. For Buddha, even hair was a distraction, which is why Buddhists, even women, are supposed to shave their heads bald.
Anyway, in their rejection of eye-idolatry, both Judaism and Buddism, as higher religions, came to possess something in common. So, even though spirituality grew out of the eye, it came to reject the eye in search for ‘higher’ or ‘deeper’ truth. Eyes could also be dangerous to spirituality with the coming of science. Prior to science, seeing was believing, or seeing was dismissed as an illusion or temptation, as with Odysseus and the Sirens, who interestingly enough, create illusions before his eyes via the manipulation of sounds — synesthesia from hearing the song of the Sirens.

With the arrival of modern science, seeing became knowing. It became more than a matter of trusting or distrusting one’s eyes. With scientific methods, it could be SHOWN what was true and what was not true. It was easy to smash visible ‘false idols’ as fake gods, but it was another matter to smash real science as fake reality, especially when medicine created by science was healing sickness. Also, modern science finally bridged the gap between the senses and rational theory. Traditionally, the mind and the senses were seen as separate entities, with Platonism at one extreme and empiricism at the other end. Though Aristotle rejected the theoretical purism of Plato, he too had a tendency to cut ‘truth’ out of the whole cloth. He would make some observations and then use them as the basis of the grand theory of everything without looking further or more closely. So, the Western mind/reason tended to go off on its own tangents prior to the rise of modern science, and indeed, this has been the problem with many schools of philosophy where thinkers created their own meta-reality apart from the real one of the senses, and this tendency survived into the late modern period even among so-called materialist thinkers such as Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. As it’s been said, Marx never stepped inside a real factory or knew real workers, and Ayn Rand never ran any kind of real business. This is why reason can lead us astray just as much as religion. Nature of the mind being what it is, it not only prefers its own spiritual fantasies but its logical paradigms — which is why liberals cling to the paradigm of ‘race is just a social construct’, which is valid and logical within its own premise but falls apart with the introduction of ‘inconvenient’ facts. (In a way, social science is like social medicine, i.e. its role is to diagnose social symptoms and arrive at a conclusion as to what is ailing society. The problem of the liberal paradigm is its fixation on certain diseases to explain all ills while refusing to address the possibility of other diseases. If ‘race is just a social construct’, then ‘racism’ can’t be true. By ‘racism’, I don’t necessarily mean radical racism, aka aggressive racial supremacism, but rational race-ism, or the belief in the existence of races/subspecies and differences among races. Take the problem of black crime and violence. Social scientists or social doctors are supposed to observe the symptoms and diagnose the social disease. Occam’s Razor would suggest that we focus on the factors of racial differences. Blacks are generally bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and less intelligent. That seems to be the main reason for black violence against non-blacks — and not just against whites. After all, if rage concerning past discrimination is the main reason, why do blacks attack non-whites as well? And shouldn’t there be a lot of female-on-male violence given the long history of male ‘oppression’ of women? But social scientists/doctors are not allowed to address the issue of race — except to blame whitey for everything — , and so the biological reasons for black crime/violence cannot be mentioned. But, as social scientists/doctors, they must offer SOME reason. So, they stick to the rational liberal paradigm that says all social problems are the result of historical injustice, social injustice, economic injustice, and etc. Though black problems surely have cultural, social, and historical roots as well, the main reason for current racial problems are so obviously racial or biological in nature that it’s poor social medicine to ignore that fact while focusing exclusively on other factors. Suppose someone is suffering from cancer, but the doctor has been trained to believe that ‘cancer is just a social construct’. But as a doctor, he must come up with some diagnosis, some explanation as to why the patient is sick. So, he focuses on all the secondary problems related or unrelated to cancer, but he cannot discuss the cancer itself. If the cancer is not allowed to be identified, how can the tumor be removed? Because of the ‘historical sin’ of Western surgical-imperialist intrusion around the world and of radical ‘Aryan’ surgery to remove the Jewish-tumor-as-the-explanation-of-all-social-problems, it’s as if Western social science is no longer allowed to believe in the existence/danger of any cancerous tumors. Thus, what with increasing black problems, illegal non-white intrusion into the West, deviousness of Jewish power, and spread of gay decadence, all of us are supposed to believe that what really ails our society is ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘xenophobia’, and ‘homophobia’. Cancer is the new health while honest diagnosis is the new evil. But then, it’s not like American conservatives are any different from liberals. Obama has been the most radical social/cultural president in America, but Romney only talks about jobs. And Americans aren’t sickened by the radical gay agenda nor alert to the deviousness of Jews. If anything, Americans, both on the right and left, mindlessly kiss Jewish ass and support Zionism. Pat Buchanan was right to put the Culture War on the table in 1992, but his dogmatic Catholicism, anti-Darwinism, preference for propaganda over art, and other form of simple-mindedness exposed what’s wrong about the Right. Radical/decadent Left was opposed by the dumb/ignorant Right, and in the end, dumb people always lose.) Even if the rational mind rejects the irrational and the fantastic, it clings to certain logical formulas or grand theories that simplify the world into recognizable patterns; this was why, in the absence of religion, Marxism was appealing to so many people. The great misunderstanding among many modern people, especially ‘progressives’ and libertarians, is the notion that Reason or Rationalism is synonymous with facts. Though Reason can be allied with facts, it can just as well be wary of facts because facts have as much tendency to undermine as support a grand rational theory. One can find just as many facts to discredit FDR’s New Deal as to defend/praise it. Even in the area of hard or harder sciences, different facts can be used and interpreted differently, which is why the debate about global warming goes on. While only a dufus would deny the fact of global warming, scientists still don’t know its main causes — and the debate is hottest among ideological activists than among real scientists though, to be sure, there are plenty of genuine scientists who allow themselves to be carried away by ideological commitment. Reason too often functions as a kind of Reasigion. A certain rational social or scientific theory may be so appealing, enticing, and seemingly irrefutable that it may become difficult for its adherents to face new facts that might undermine the validity of what they consider to be the wonder of wonders. The resistance to the Heliocentric theory of Galileo/Copernicus didn’t merely come from religious authorities; even many secular minds were troubled by the prospect of the long-held Ptolemaic theory — which made rational sense in its own right apart from newly observed facts — being discarded overnight. Right or wrong, the knowledge of it had served as a badge of honor for rational/intelligent/educated men for over 1,500 yrs. The problem of Western thought resulted from the division of human experience into mind and senses, whereby the mind shut out more facts to be gathered via the senses in favor of self-contained Reason that devised grand theories based on a fixed number of facts and observations. MORE facts were seen as the enemy of reason since they could undermine or subvert what had been established as pure logical truths. On the other hand, it would be wrong to assume that a closer merging of mind and senses would necessarily have led to better science. After all, Eastern Thought, as in Buddhism and Taoism, was highly intuitive with no clear division between intellect, sensation, and inspiration. Paradoxically, Western thought had to make the ‘mistake’ of dividing reason and the senses in order to bring them together more effectively. Reason had to be perfected on its own terms and senses had to find their own value. Though the division of mind and senses limited the full potential of both, they could only be made more effective if developed and ‘perfected’ as separate entities. It’s like an athlete has to use all of his muscles in the game, but he must also undergo training where each muscle group is exercised separately. To have stronger biceps, he must do curls. For stronger legs, he must do squats. But after each muscle group had been strengthened on its own, it can then be used in unison with all the other muscle groups in the game. Similarly, there was a certain limitation during the long years when the West divided truth into reason and senses. But, Western reason, in its purified isolated setting, developed into the most advanced logical way of thinking. And Western senses, in their freedom, gathered the most detailed information about the phenomena of the world. When purified reason and thoroughgoing sensory data were finally reconciled, it was like an atomic explosion of New Truth. Such intellectual revolution never happened anywhere else because reason and senses had always remained merged in cultures such as Hinduism, Aztecism, and Taoism/Confucianism. Even as Buddha rejected the world seen/heard/felt/tasted/smelt through the senses as an illusion, he also rejected reason as a trick of the mind; thus, the Truth could only be accessed by turning off the mind and intuitively grasping at the ‘truth’. Mentally, Buddhism is a kind of active-passivism, i.e. meditation is not about relaxing and taking it easy but about using tremendous self-discipline to calm one’s soul and erase one’s mind of all the clutter so that it will be receptive to the real truth. According to Buddhism, one doesn’t seek the truth as seeking would imply an adventurous ego; instead, one clears away one’s ego so that the truth will come to the person. It’s like this: Suppose there’s someone’s who’s dirty and filthy but wants a lover; the Buddhist way wouldn’t be for the person to go look for a lover but to clean and make himself/herself pleasant as possible so that others will come to him or her. So, the Buddhist actively makes oneself ready for the truth but must passively and patiently wait for the truth to come to him. Anyway, the West eventually triumphed over the Rest because it perfected — perhaps by accident — the process of Separation/Reunion. Reason alone could only do so much, and senses alone could know so much. So, their separation into different entities was bound to cause problems. On the other hand, it was only through separation that each could be perfected in its own right. And once that was achieved, they could be rejoined to produce something of greater truth and power. It’s like the asexual organism separated into male and female that came together to make reproduction even more powerful and effective. Purify and then reunify for maximum impact.

Anyway, the invention of the microscope and telescope did much to undermine religion. Prior to such instruments, man could see enough to feel a sense of wonderment but not see enough to understand the mystery behind the wonderment. But with powerful telescopes, man began to see that moon was really just a big rock and that stars were really just distant suns. Skies above were not the realm of gods but dark space with more suns like the sun our plant revolves around. And through telescopes, we could see germs and realize that many diseases weren’t caused by gods or demons but by bacteria, fungi, and virus. Thus, the power of the eye came to destroy the gods. Yet, God of the Bible still remains because He shielded Himself from the power of the eye. Jews came up with this rule against idolatry, but the reformulation of God came to shield him from modern science as well. Since the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God cannot be seen or pictured — except metaphorically — , it was a trickier matter to prove His non-existence. (The antagonistic relationship between the Jewish God and idolatry is somewhat ironic since one could argue that the creation of the world was a kind of idol-making. Why would the perfect God residing peacefully in the vast unseeable universe feel a need to create a world that could be seen and fill it with creatures that could see? In a way, the creation of the world itself was an act of idolatry, the difference being that God created idols to worship Him whereas mankind created idols to worship the idols. The Bible says man was created out of clay, which means mankind is a form of idol. What does this mean? Did we misinterpret God all these yrs? If we are to be inspired by God and follow His example, maybe it’s okay to create idols to worship us. The problem is when we create idols to worship instead of worshiping God. But there’s nothing in the Bible about creating idols to worship us since God created humans-as-idols to worship Him. Then, maybe we can understand why modern Jews are so into idolatry. Jews don’t create pop star idols and worship them; instead, Jews create pop-star idols — and fans of pop star idols — to worship the Jews. Jews created Obama the neo-messiah not to worship but to own and control, so that monkey boy will worship the Jews. And indeed, Obama ho-de-do’s before rich Jewish folks. And all those Hollywood celebrities and MTV pop stars, the idols of our age, worship at the feet of Jews. Thus, in creating idols to worship the Jews, Jews may not be violating the commandment against idols. God proscribed idols-for-mankind-to-worship, not idols-that-will-worship-mankind.)

Given the nature of replicants and assuming Deckard is one of them, there’s an eerie feeling when we see him bleed. Is it real blood or synthetic blood? Deckard also drinks for relaxation and, at his place after the ordeal with Zhora and Leon, a drop of his blood disperses in the glass. As with the image of eggs in boiling water(at Sebastian’s place), there’s the organic(blood) and the sterile(alcohol) intermingling. Yet, if Deckard is a replicant, his blood is not organic blood, and it’s as if he needs alcohol like the Tin Man(of WIZARD OF OZ)needs oil. (The motif of the unicorn was meant to seal Deckard’s identity as a replicant, at least according to Scott, but it could be read in another way. Maybe, it was purely a coincidence that Gaff left an origami of the unicorn outside Deckard’s apartment; maybe Gaff knew nothing of Deckard’s dreams. What then matters is Deckard chooses to create his own myth by connecting those coincidences. Thus, he makes himself a replicant-of-the-soul even if he isn’t one of the body. His experience — culminating in a belated admiration for Batty — and his love for Rachel perhaps inspire him to ‘convert’ to replicantism. It’s like a white man, though not Indian by blood, could become a blood-brother to an Indian, thereby a soul-Indian, the kind Richard Harris played in movies like MAN CALLED HORSE. And T. E. Lawrence, at least for awhile, wills himself to become ‘more Arab than Arab’ in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA though he’s an Englishman by race and culture.
So, the look on Deckard’s face when he clutches the unicorn origami could have multiple meaning. It could mean he realizes he’s a replicant or he chooses to believe he is one by his own mythic interpretation of events.) The amber-toned image of blood mixing with alcohol is also beautiful, thus again somewhat different from conventional noir. While noir isn’t averse to beauty and romanticism, an air of cynicism and opportunism pervades its every room.
‘Innocence’ is part of the cosmetic like lipstick and rouge. Even genuine romance in noir violates rules of morality and decency, driving seemingly ‘ordinary’ and ‘innocent’ people to madness and murder. In noir, the wicked play harmless or innocent; or the apparently harmless and innocent find themselves helpless before the wickedness that suddenly rears its ugly-beautiful head — ugly for its immorality/ruthlessness and beautiful for its romantic passion — from their own hearts(like the baby of the Alien creature bursts out of the human body in the ALIEN series). The destructive power of love had long been the staple of myths and fiction through the ages, but it seemed darker and weirder in the noir’s modern setting of rationality, industry, and individuality. It was one thing to imagine special heroes, larger-than-life figures, and gods indulging in excessive behavior, but quite another to see such monstrousness in the hearts of ‘ordinary’ men and women in a modern world that was supposed to be governed by reason and laws. If noir had a ‘conservative’ element, it was this pessimism about human nature. Leftists had seen the world in terms of corrupt rich vs oppressed noble workers, but a movie like OSSESSIONE exposed the darkness in the hearts of even the most ordinary people. Unlike poor people driven to wickedness out of want and greed in the novels of Charles Dickens, the characters of noir tended to act out of passion than out of need or greed.
In contrast to the dark cynicism of conventional noir where beauty is just a mask and where perfumed fragrance carries deadly toxins, there’s a sincere quality to the beauty and poetry in BLADE RUNNER; perhaps there’s an in-built childlike quality about science fiction no matter how perverse or twisted the scenario, as is certainly the case with A.I. and LA JETEE, i.e. the fantastic element of science fiction keeps us fascinated with and hoping for something more than reality, i.e. if the fantasy in noir eventually evaporates and leaves us mired only in grim reality, the escapist-fantasy element of science fiction is ever-present and keeps us hoping beyond hope and imagining beyond imagination; this may been why the Coen Brothers added some weird science-fiction element to the ending of THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE, as if to say only something as fantastic as science fiction can really save the day for people trapped in the world of noir. Despite the ‘perverse’ nature of Rachel’s origins, she becomes a dear friend/lover to Deckard, and their love for one another can’t be regarded as a moral transgression against the world — though it may be a legal one. It is a good love.
As for Batty, he proves that he is indeed a god-man, one capable even of nobility. Noir is about grasping for power in the darkness in a world without God. The world of the BLADE RUNNER may be Godless, but there is genuine god-like heroism in Batty’s final act, and a sense of redemption that pervades not only his beautiful death but Deckard’s second chance at life. And even Gaff might have a good side as he allows Deckard and Rachel to escape(though we never know how far they’ll make it in the FINAL CUT. Personally, I think the ‘happy ending’ of the theatrical version works too. For one thing, it’s more a happy-for-the-moment-ending than happy-forever-ending).

Among literary people, being literally literate isn’t the same as being literarily literate. One can read the words but miss the meaning. It’s like one can eat the food without really tasting it or one can drink the wine without appreciating it. What goes for literature and dining also goes for cinema. Anyone can see the movies, but not everyone can really ‘see’ the movie. Many older critics were highly literate but sub-cinerate or sub-visuate when it came to the movies. No wonder then that John Simon, despite his intelligence and erudition, was blind to the virtues of so many film masterpieces. (But there was also the matter of temperament. Simon, by nature an academic, tended to approach the arts as a grader and judge than as an explorer. Ironically enough, though an obsessive stickler to correctness in grammar, he was often forgiving of sloppy filmmaking while blind to the immaculate film language as developed by Resnais and Kubrick. Also, his grounding in literature/theater favored clarity of meaning and tended to resist the music-like aspect of cinema searching its own possibilities and meanings.) And even critics who loved movie-movies have been reluctant to appreciate cinematic language and expressions developed in terms unique to cinema. Kael couldn’t see much that was special about 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. She also didn’t care for VERTIGO, Hitchcock’s most mysterious and cinematory movie. And she refused to review a single film by Tarkovsky.
And most critics couldn’t see what was so special about BLADE RUNNER in 1982. And even sci-fi fans tended to focus on the movie’s art design and special effects than on its mood. (Today, the problem among movie critics isn’t over-literariness but over-televisionary-ness. Maybe the great success of Tarantino’s mindless monstrosities such as PULP FICTION, JACKIE BROWN, and KILL BILL owe to their TV sit-com trappings. Keep in mind Tarantino belonged to the first VHS generation and watched movies like a couch-potato watching TV shows. Though directed by Oliver Stone, the dreadful NATURAL BORN KILLERS was written like a TV sitcom and talkshow by Tarantino. Its satirical intent, whatever it may have been, was swallowed up by the very junkiness it was critiquing or pretending to critique. If some older critics couldn’t break out of their literary mold to arrive at a fuller and more sensual appreciation of cinema in the manner of ‘erotics of art’, many younger critics tended to approach the image as disposable multi-tasked mind-games. Prime examples are not only INGLORIOUS BASTERDS by Tarantino but TREE OF LIFE by Terrence Malick, a film so mindlessly excessive and indulgent that the sugar-candy images evaporate right before our eyes. For all its spiritualist mumbo-jumbo, everything looks like interchangeable New Age puffery lifted from Cotton Mattress commercials. And Zhang Yimou’s terrible HERO wasn’t much different. ALL ABOUT LILY CHOU-CHOU, on the other hand, works for some reason as it’s about disposable souls in a disposable world.) BLADE RUNNER is a treasure trove for cinemarate or visuate people, a film where the ‘background’ and ‘foreground’ chemistrically meld into one. Instead of character and action(foreground) passing through sets and art designs(background), they form a unity, as in PLAYTIME, THE COLOR OF POMEGRANATES, and STALKER. For some viewers, this quality may seem paralytically static in their preference for zoos over gardens from cinema. At zoos, animals are the focus of our attention; everything else is the ‘background’. At gardens, there is no single element that stands out to hold our attention. Instead, the birds, trees, flowers, streams, sunlight, rain, insects, pools, ponds, bridges, and etc. are parts of the whole. Zoos are more popular than gardens, and the audience in 1982 expected a zoo movie from BLADE RUNNER. BLADE RUNNER did deliver some heavy-duty violence, suspense, special effects, and star-power, especially in the casting of Harrison Ford. Yet, it is more gardenesque than zoo-esque, at least for a big-budget science fiction movie. Certain scenes are to be appreciated in a meditative or hypnotic state of mind, something most people were not accustomed to(especially since most young people in the early 80s weren’t using hallucinogens as the repeat viewers of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY supposedly were in 1968).

For me, the most remarkable scene begins with Deckard falling asleep on the couch with a glass of drink perched on his chest while Rachel stands over the piano decked with what seems to be family portraits of Deckard’s forebears. It sets the tone of solitude and community, of being a nobody and a somebody, of the absence and the presence of history. Deckard, who seems to live all alone and belong to no one, has such a rich array of family portraits on his piano, which itself may be an heirloom as there’s no indication he knows how to play. It’s as if Deckard is part of a wider community and a long history, but they exist only as faint ghostly mementos in his dark apartment where he lives all by himself. (To the extent that all of us are the products of tens of thousands of years of human evolution — not to mention billions of years of evolution from life as single-celled organisms — yet born with blank memories of what had taken place in the lives of our ancestors, we too are replicantish. We are aware of our linkage to the great narrative, biographical and historical, that preceded us, but we are born knowing nothing about it. Many people know very know little about their grandparents and next to nothing about their great-grand-parents — and given their obsession with popular culture, they may not even care to know. Concerning our distant ancestors, there might be a portraiture or two in faded b/w photo or painting if that. Granted, things may seem different to people of future generations. What with young people today generating literally thousands of photos every month with their digital cameras and videos, their great-grand-children may feel that too much of the past remains too vividly alive in their own present. The world prior to the rise of the personal camera and digitalism is remembered through golden-amber-sunset hues, and this is reflected not only in Deckard’s apartment scene in BLADE RUNNER — made in 1982 — but in the color schemes of THE GODFATHER, TUCKER, and ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. But the past never fades in digital format. Old photos faded and changed in color, but digital pics will always remain crisp and clean. The freakish thing about replicants is they can be the most ‘amnesiac’ of sentient beings but also the least ‘amnesiac’. Batty and his cohorts were created without prior memory whereas Rachel — along with possibly Deckard — was created with memory implants. If memory implants are possible — perhaps for humans as well as replicants, in which case Deckard could actually be a human with a memory implant — , then suppose the memories of your ancestors could be saved and then collectively downloaded into your consciousness. Then, you would ‘remember’ not only your own life but the lives of your ancestors. One of the main contradictions within civilized consciousness is that all of us, as members of a long-surviving civilization, are part of something bigger than our individual selves but each of us is born without memory and can only gain knowledge of the world through our individual experiences. Our sense of history and larger community comes to us through our personal interaction with books, movies, education, and documents, but those are all artifacts of a past that is no more. This problem of civilizational consciousness was explored in LA JETEE and MEMENTO. For the hero of LA JETEE, the lost civilization following the nuclear apocalypse can only be accessed through the dream of broken artifacts, the ruined map of history. Even without the fall of civilization, all of us are trying to access lost civilizations since the past is irrevocably gone forever and remains only as artifacts; thus, even a living civilization is a continuation of the dead past kept alive by a ritualistic adherence to its artifacts. Civilization is pretending that the ghosts of our ancestors are still with us. Incidentally, if some civilizations are toppled whereupon the artifacts are destroyed and rituals pertaining to them are discontinued, a more insidious kind of takeover happens when alien invaders continue to adhere to those artifacts. When Jewish communists overthrew the Old Order in Russia, they sought to wipe out every vestige of Russian culture and civilization; they sought to start again from Year Zero. As a result, Jews eventually came to be seen as alien destroyers of Russian civilization. But in America, Jews cleverly embraced the sacred artifacts of Americanism with which they wrapped themselves, and thus, even with the downfall of White America, which is the True America, many white Americans still see themselves as members of a triumphant American civilization. Though Jews and Obama are as anti-white-American as they come, their superficial adherence to the artifacts and symbols of Americanism would have us believe that they are American-as-apple-pie. Because the US military still marches under the banner of Old Glory, most Americans are blind to the fact that the kind of ‘values’ it fights for are Jewish Supremacism, interracism, and the gay agenda that have nothing to do with genuine Americanism. Due to the insidious manipulation and devious power of Jews, anti-Americanism has become the new Americanism. In MEMENTO, the lost memory of a single person serves as a metaphor of how history is haphazardly lost and remembered through the ages. Its hero, unable to transfer new data into long-term memory, is ever trapped in the momentary present. His every moment is like the life of a single person who is born with no memory and who dies with all his memories, which cannot be genetically passed onto his offsprings. Similarly, each new moment of the hero in MEMENTO is unaware of all the moments preceding it; each moment is born anew and dies without passing its memory to the next moment. Then, how does he link his actions and form a narrative around them to give his life meaning? Through mementos in the form of tattoos on his body that remind him where he came from and where he must go. Similarly, civilization/history is like a series of mementos left from the past to remind us — who are born ‘amnesiac’ of everything that happened in the past — that we are part of a grand and meaningful historical narrative. Those who control the mementos control the very direction in history. An unscrupulous cop in MEMENTO manipulates the amnesiac guy, and Jews who control the mementos of our history control our grand purpose of history, which is why so many white goyim think their main purpose in life is to serve and please Jews and rid the world of everyone whom Jews don’t like... even if the people to be destroyed are other white people. Jewish control of historical mementos has tattooed, indeed seared, our brains with the Holocaust but erased everything related to Jewish role in slavery, genocide, exploitative finance capitalism, communist mass murder, Zionist oppression, etc.)
The scene in Deckard’s apartment is filled with enchantment and is indeed one of the greatest in cinema, and so, the audience’s indifference must have been disheartening to Scott. Having mastered the art of the TV commercial, Scott knew how to create scenes as islands in themselves than merely as bridges in the narrative.

The apartment scene in BLADE RUNNER is like an oasis of dreams. It begins after the killing of Leon. Both are shaken physically and emotionally as they enter the room. Deckard almost got killed by Zhora and then by Leon and barely escaped with his life. Zhora was killed in a lurid bloodbath after a tense chase through throngs of people. Deckard was then told by the police captain that Rachel is on the hit-list too. But it was Rachel who saved him, and so he owes her his life. For Rachel, it was probably the first time she killed anyone. She seems in a state of shock after firing off the gun that was knocked out of Deckard’s hand by Leon. So, when they enter the apartment, there’s a lot to say but no way of saying them. Deckard takes off his blooded shirt and dunks his head into a sink full of water. Blood drains out of his mouth. He’s a mess. He’s in the room with the ‘woman’ he’s supposed to kill, but she saved his life. And he knows he’s falling in love with her, not least because she was made by Tyrell to be the perfect dream of any man. He tells her that he won’t kill her but then promises no protection. He won’t hunt her down but others will. So, his sentiments are both noble and passive/apathetic. A part of him wants to save and defend her, but he knows he’s a ‘little guy’. He’s powerless before the powers-that-be, and besides, the code of his entire career has been to kill replicants. It’s hard to turn one’s back on the thing that made one’s reputation. To be sure, killing Rachel would be like killing himself since he too may be a replicant — just like killing Billy would be like Garrett killing himself since he also made his name as an outlaw. A part of Deckard wants to be Rachel’s champion. But a part of him knows he better not try; you can’t fight City Hall and the Tyrell Corporation. Also, he’s been inside his emotional cocoon for so long that he’s uneasy about opening up to another person, especially if that person isn’t really a person but the ‘enemy of mankind’. A part of him can’t help but to see her as a Jew might see an escaped Nazi criminal. Though Rachel herself is innocent, she is the product of industrial bio-fascism to create the ‘more human than human’ or ‘perfect’ person. In this way, replicants are both Nazis and Jews. They’ve been ‘engineered’ toward genetic perfection but they’re also hunted down like Jews were by the Nazis in Poland. And Deckard is like both a Nazi hunter(Simon Wiesenthal) and a Nazi killer(SS). He’s a defender of imperfect humans from the perfect ‘more human than human’ replicants. But he’s also the cold-blooded hunter of creatures exploited as slaves. In a way, the Tyrell corporation of BLADE RUNNER presaged the commercialization of fascist imagery in Hollywood. Hollywood gives us all these fascist-like superhero movies and larger-than-life grandiose heroes in gargantuan blockbusters, but the official message tends to be ‘liberal’. Thus, Will Smith acts like a ruthless SS killer in stuff like I AM LEGEND, but he’s for ‘humanity’. Superbowl commercials feature Negro athletes and heroes as god-like overlord masters of the universe but the message is supposed to be about ‘diversity’. We’ve all be Tyrelled. Incidentally, Tyrell’s name in Philip K. Dick’s novel is Jewishy: Rosen.

In a way, Deckard’s taking off his shirt(to wash and change) and sparing Rachel’s life is paralleled later by Batty going shirtless and sparing Deckard’s life. Deckard the human(who, at that point, believes himself to be human) spares the replicant Rachel, and later, Batty the replicant spares the life of human Deckard(who is regarded as human by Batty). Deckard’s reason for sparing Rachel isn’t hard to fathom; she is beautiful and also saved his life. The reasons for Batty’s ‘good deed’ are more iffy because, if anything, Deckard is the blade runner who killed Zhora and Pris. Maybe Batty saw Deckard as just a pawn in the game. Indeed, after having killed Tyrell, everything must be anticlimactic to Batty. After killing a whale, a sardine just doesn’t cut it; after climbing the highest mountain, a hill ain’t much. Batty killed his biggest nemesis, the god who created the replicants. With Tyrell out of the picture, Batty knew there was no cure for his looming death. His system was fated to shut down soon, and the other replicants, had they lived, would have a year or two at most. (Batty dreams the impossible dream of having his life-span extended with the help of Tyrell, but one could argue that fantasy or the ability to fantasize has been one of the mechanisms of human evolution and progress. Though the danger of fantasy/imagination lies in its seductive power to unmoor us from reality, fantasy/imagination also has the power to shape our actions to make reality conform to our dreams. Mankind has the ability to dream the impossible and find ways to make it possible. Though dreaming the impossible alone never got anyone anywhere, strictly working in the realm of the possible shut out further possibilities. This could be why the West surpassed the East. East got stuck in the realm of the possible/practical and came to believe that any imagination beyond what they already knew was idle fantasizing. In contrast, especially following the Renaissance, it was permissible for Western man to fantasize about stuff like being able to fly and travel through space. They didn’t merely approach these as fantasies but as possibilities, in the future if not the present. Even today, nations like Japan, China, and India tend to focus on what is possible within current technology whereas the great innovators of the West dream the big dream that may seem outlandish at the moment. There was a long history of visionariness in Eastern spirituality, but it was the West that invented a visionariness that applied to the actual world. So, while Chinese could dream of flying dragons, Western man dreamed of space ships that could travel through space — hundreds of years before one was built.) Also, as Batty’s system breaks down while pursuing Deckard, the enemies come to ‘share the pain’. Deckard had two of his fingers broken by Batty and is desperate to stay one step ahead of Mr. death-and-destruction in the form of Batty. Batty feels his body breaking down as his life-span is nearing its end; he too is only a few steps ahead of death. Thus, it’s possible that Batty comes to identify with Deckard’s fear and pain since they’re both struggling against death. Death will not spare Batty but if Batty spares Deckard, it is as if Batty has ‘spiritually’ beaten death. In a way, it’s like the ending of MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE. Jack Celliers(David Bowie), by sacrificing his life, spiritually triumphs over Yonoi(Ryuichi Sakamoto). Though enemies in war and divided by vast cultural differences, Celliers comes to identity with Yonoi on some level. He senses that Yonoi is a repressed closet-homo struggling against his own sexual demons. Celliers himself is struggling against his past — as a student, he didn’t save his hunchbacked brother from humiliation. Yonoi is beguiled by homo-lust, and Celliers is haunted by guilt. Finally, Celliers finds redemption by sacrificing his life for his men; and in kissing Yonoi’s cheeks, he spiritually triumphs over Yonoi, who, in a way, becomes a vessel for Cellier’s superior spirit(of Christian love). The paradox of Cellier’s action owes to the likelihood that, though done in the name of universal love and equality of man, it could only have been done by a superior man. Common men are not capable of uncommon action for the good of the common man. It is the uncommon man, like Jesus and few others, who, having risen above commonness, can do something great for the common man, which is why Christianity is, at once, elitist and egalitarian. Similarly, Jews promote egalitarianism as elitists, i.e. they have the vision/nobility to do what’s good for humanity since they are so much smarter, wiser, and more compassionate than the rest of us common folks. (In the case of the Jews, it’s just a dirty trick to fool and control us.) So, even though Celliers does something for the common man, he takes pride in being the lone uncommon man who is willing to sacrifice his life for the higher good. In a similar vein, Batty may have chosen to spare Deckard because it proves his superiority. He’d amply demonstrated that he is physically superior to Deckard or any man. But physical superiority only goes so far; after all, any cat can kill a mouse. So, what Deckard may have been after in the end is a kind of spiritual superiority. By sparing Deckard, he gets to play a kind of Jesus figure in his last moment. He was a fallen angel from the Off-world, but his spirit soars like a white dove toward heaven. This mythic element prevents BLADE RUNNER from being fully noir-ish.

Anyway, returning to the scene in Deckard’s apartment, consider the startling subtlety of the transformation(s). Initially, both seem to be breaking down. Deckard, battered by Zhora and Leon, is physically drained. And given his mixed feelings about Rachel, he’s emotionally tanked too. And Rachel knows she’s a marked woman and feels weird that the only person she may be able to trust is a blade runner, the hired killer of replicants. Deckard becomes her Schindler. (This is all the stranger due to the ambiguous moment between the deaths of Zhora and Leon. After Zhora is killed, Capt. Brion informs Deckard he has to kill Rachel too. Then, Deckard spots Rachel across the street and goes after her through the crowd. Was he chasing her to kill her or to inform her that her life is in danger? We don’t know. But then Leon ambushes Deckard, and Rachel comes to his rescue. What if Rachel had not saved him? Would he have killed her? In the apartment, he does say, “I owe you own.” But what if he didn’t? But given the fact that he’d called her and invited her to have a drink at a night club — which is why she was in the vicinity in the first place — , maybe he had feelings for her and wouldn’t have killed her in any case. Rachel would rather not know what Deckard might really have done. And perhaps Deckard didn’t know either. Maybe a part of him was trying to hunt her down, a part of him was trying to catch up to her to inform her to run.)And they don’t seem to willing to admit they’re falling in love. After washing, Deckard grabs a drink and tries to get some rest. Rachel, exiled from her world, tentatively tries to find new footing at Deckard’s place. Her face seems to melt as the mascara degrades around her eyes. She looks like a gangster moll, cheap and fallen, an outcast of society. Deckard listens to her pleas but says little and nods into sleep. Then, Rachel feels alone in the apartment. She failed to have a conversation with Deckard who, for whatever reason, turned off his mind to float downstream. But instead of feeling despair, Rachel regains her composure, standing classy and upright with her hand on her hip in the somber silence of the room. When Deckard was awake, she strived to win over his sympathy, to have him share her anguish and anxiety. But once he’s asleep, another side of Rachel automatically comes to life. She’s confident and takes control of the place. She’s again the ‘perfect woman’, the capable doer. She sits at the piano, and what seemed like a melting face is beautifully fresh again, as if regenerated. As she unties and loosens her hair, it goes from art-deco gangster moll style to the billowing clouds of a goddess. With a few gentle movements, she goes from modern to classic, from fashion to fantasy. She begins to play the piano, gently as if not to awaken Deckard, but she also casts a sidelong glance at Deckard, as if she wants him to listen, as if she wants to enter his dreams through this music.
She couldn’t connect consciously through conversation but reaches him through the dream of music. The classical(like) tune she plays is interlaced with Vangelis’s New Age jazz, a rare instance of profoundly different musical styles being harmonized. And when Deckard awakens and goes over to her, it is as if they’re meeting in a dream. The musical ability was programmed into her, so she says she isn’t sure if it’s Tyrell’s niece(whose memories were implanted into her) or herself who’s playing the tune. Deckard answers ambiguously, “you play beautifully”, but then, in a dream, everything is ambiguously true. That moment is both real and dreamlike, both human and divine. Deckard tries to kiss her, but she tries to leave, unsure of her emotions. Is it her or Tyrell’s niece who’s falling in love with Deckard, and is it her or Tyrell’s niece that Deckard wants to kiss? She runs from the affection because she wants it too much; the emotions are too true for a woman who was created as a lie. (In their first encounter, she was a bundle of confidence, sexual as otherwise. During the Voight-Kampff test, she stated with calm coolness that she wouldn’t allow her hypothetical husband to hang a nudie photo on the bedroom wall. Asked why, she said she would be enough for him. She knew who she was then: a beautiful aide to one of the most powerful men in the world; a princess atop a palace. But then, in a split-second, her world went from heaven to earth — like with the ‘shadow warrior’ in KAGEMUSHA who went from high to low when he was cast out of the Takeda clan. But at least the double in Kurosawa’s film knew he’d been wearing a mask all along — a lowly thief playing a great lord. Rachel, in contrast, really thought she was a princess. So, her emotions in the love scene with Deckard play out on many levels. On the one hand, she of the princess mentality resists the affections of someone rough and lowly like Deckard. Yet, having discovered she’s a whore than a princess, another part of her feels she’s not good enough for Deckard. She feels both superior and inferior to him, both resentful toward and grateful for his affection. She’s so confused that she lets him dictate what she should do and say. It’s like love is the only thing worth having faith in. It’s the only thing that can redeem even the false and fallen. She may be false but if their love is true, maybe there’s some truth for her in the world too. It’s like in WIZARD OF OZ where the Tin Man discovers he will never have a real heart but in his affection for Dorothy, he did have a heart-of-sorts and that is heart enough. And it’s like in THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY by Ingmar Bergman where a character says, “I can only tell you a thought of my own hopes. It is to know that love exists for real in the human world. I don't know if love is the proof of God's existence or if it's God itself.” So, even if there may be no God, the reality of love is a kind of God.) Deckard and Rachel come to share a forbidden love, like the one between the Nazi and the Jewess in Paul Verhoeven’s THE BLACK BOOK. Also, despite her immense sex appeal, we sense she probably never had an affair in her ‘life’. Perhaps memories of past affairs have been implanted in her mind, but we wonder if she had an actual experience of love. Deckard stops her at the door and gains possession of her through means that are both rough and gentle. This element of forbidden love is noir-ish but comes without the seediness and salaciousness of movies like POSTMAN ONLY RINGS TWICE or LADY FROM SHANGHAI. Often in noir, people in heat do something evil and wicked to consummate their passion. In BLADE RUNNER, the lovers are ‘innocent’, and their love is forbidden not by social or moral norms — indeed nothing seems to be moral or normal in the world of BLADE RUNNER — but by perverse rules of a perverse world. In noir, a woman will kill her husband because she just has to have the hunk and have him have her. She will sacrifice everything to satiate her desire. Thus, noir ‘love’ is corrupt even if true in its desire. (Heat, not passion, is at the core of Noir. ‘Passion’ connotes some degree of spiritual faith in romance. Thus, TESS — the film as I haven’t read the novel — is not noir even though it has a woman killing her husband and running off with another man. There is real passion and faith in love in TESS. In contrast, people in noir feel something more animalist. They are like beasts in heat, driven by raw desire that overtakes them. It’s less about aroused hearts than about the throbbing cock and the steaming pooter. But noir is different from free love or porn because the heat burns covertly in a world of social norms where people are expected to maintain their respectability. The other element of noir is coldness. One might say noir is the paradoxical blend of heat and cold. Characters feel animal heat but must act with mechanical coldness to plot the murder to be rid of the obstacle to their happiness. But because the nature of the animal emotions in noir, there’s a sense of doomed love. In a way, one could say the heat felt between the man and the woman is due to the transgression. Though they wanna be rid of the obstacle standing in the way of their sexual heat, the removal of that obstacle may cool the heat that burns between them. The heat is intense precisely because of social taboos. If the man and woman could be free to fuc* one another all they want, the heat won’t be there anymore.) In contrast to noir, the love in BLADE RUNNER, as twisted it may seem, is an oasis of ‘innocence’ in a world ruled by power than by values. In noir, there is an element of excitement and thrill in violating communal morality for the sake of individual greed, thrill, and lust. But the world of BLADE RUNNER is so filled with thrills, violence, and sordidness that the love between Deckard and Rachel is almost moralistic and ‘conservative’, an escape into classicism from modernism. Granted, one could argue there is a mythic aspect to the heat in noir, and this is nowhere more obvious than in Kubrick’s EYES WIDE SHUT. Though not a work of noir, it does have noir elements. When the Nicole Kidman character confesses to her husband her dark secrets about being fuc*ed by some naval officer, we’re in the psycho-sexual noir territory of OSSESIONE, Visconti’s treatment of POSTMAN RINGS ONLY TWICE — though the difference is she CONFESSES her desire, something a noir character would almost never do. She says she would have given up everything — her husband, her career, her reputation, her security, and even her child — for an affair with the officer. Yet, EYES WIDE SHUT goes beyond noir because she chose to remain with her husband. Instead of making her desire real, she turned it into a fantasy. All these years when her husband thought he was the man who meant most to her, she was worshiping a mythic naval officer as god-hunk-stud. (Ironically in a later scene, a high class whore ‘sacrifices’ everything — even her life — to save the Tom Cruise character. She serves and saves him with the same mind-set that made the Nicole Kidman character want to betray him.) That strange relationship among sexuality-biology, mythology-spirituality, and morality-sociology was what Kubrick was after, and those issues are present to a certain extent in BLADE RUNNER as well.

As with PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID, CHINATOWN makes for interesting comparisons with BLADE RUNNER. In a way, Deckard and Rachel are like the Nicholson character and Dunaway character in Polanski-Towne’s movie. (Incidentally, Towne’s ending was meant to be ‘happy’ while Polanski’s ending is gloomy and bleak. Similarly, the initial theatrical ending of BLADE RUNNER was happy, but it was made considerably darker in the Director’s Cut.) In CHINATOWN, enemies become lovers too, but their love is less pure than the one between Deckard and Rachel. (To be sure, there’s a weird perversity about the circumstances and contexts of love in BLADE RUNNER, but true love does arise between Deckard and Rachel. But then, BLADE RUNNER isn’t merely noir but an hybrid, like Godard’s ALPHAVILLE, another noir-sci-fi hybrid where the love between Lemmy Caution and the Rachel-like character played by Anna Karina glows with the stuff of poetry.) Jake Gittes(Nicholson) and Evelyn Mulray(Faye Dunaway) do fall for one another, but it’s a cynical kind of love — and if Gittes finally goes out of his way to help Evelyn, it has more to do with pity than love; after all, he doesn’t try to run away WITH her. And Evelyn isn’t the innocent that Rachel is. Though her father had control over her like Tyrell had over Rachel, that she had a child with her father makes her something of an accomplice; she may claim rape, but we can never be sure of what really happened in noir. Evelyn’s daughter/sister may actually have something more in common with Rachel since she’s an ‘innocent’ victim/product of all this. Evelyn may be desperate to protect her daughter/sister partly to salvage and redeem her own character. She feels compromised and dirty — much of it due to her own choices in life — , and so she’s eager to protect the innocence of her child/sibling. The irony, of course, is that the ‘innocent’ child/sibling is the product of a perverse act of incest between Evelyn and her father. To the extent that her sister/daughter doesn’t know the truth, her conundrum is like Rachel’s. One could argue Rachel is also a product of a kind of incest, that between Tyrell and his niece: his genius crossbred with his niece’s memories. Anyway, if Rachel’s ‘fallen-ness’ is entirely the ‘fault’ of others, it may not be so with Evelyn. She could have led a compromised life for which she was trying to redeem herself by being a good wife and mother/sister. Jake Gittes(Nicholson) is drawn to her not only for her personality and beauty but because she is HIS second chance at redemption. Since his expulsion from the police force, he’s worked as a private eye digging up dirt for cash without care for consequences; his view of humanity, top to bottom, is pretty low. Evelyn’s plight makes him believe in something again; it offers a chance at redemption. The utter failure of Evelyn and Gittes reconstitutes the odds stacked against hope and idealism in the noir world. There’s no way out. Yet, even though noir is often hard-boiled, cynical, and dark, a certain mythicism is at the core of its paranoia. This is how noir is different from realism or neo-realism where bad things in life tend to be of moral and/or social nature — and therefore may be fixed through cultivation of better souls and social improvements. In noir by contrast, a dark despair indelibly stains one’s hope for salvation or redemption, as if the individual has little chance against the powers-or-forces-that-be — the rich, the powerful, the corrupt, the darkness of one’s own heart, the irrational, the perverse. It’s not so much the actual conspiracy of power as the paranoid psychology of conspiratorial power permeating everything that really defines noir. Yet, paranoia, in its irrationality, is not without a liberating element. A kind of personal freedom can be gained from distrusting the entire world. Social trust means bonds and obligations whereas distrust means you’re on your own. The world may not treat you straight, but it also means you’re not obligated to treat the world straight. The world owes you nothing, but you owe the world nothing. The world cheats you, and so you have no qualms about cheating the world. Indeed, Deckard and Gittes feel most free when they don’t care for anyone in the world. It’s when they develop feelings for others that their own lives, while gaining meaning, become less free. Though the world of noir can be oppressive, it cannot be totalitarian, as in Orwell’s 1984. Noir world may be dominated by the rich, the powerful, the corrupt, or the conventional/stuffy, but it cannot stamp out all freedom. It allows a degree of self-exile for the eccentrics, outcasts, outsiders, and individualists. Unlike the situation in Orwell’s 1984, the characters of noir can find freedom at least as individuals. And in some cases, the paranoia in noir — or paranoir— can attain a mythic intensity because there’s a certain seductive allure about the nature of deception. In a way, deception is an element of even the most sincere form of romance. The ways in which a woman shapes her hair, makes up her face, moves her body, and speaks her words all have an element of putting-on-an-act. Style matters a lot with guys too; consider the dashing Pierce Brosnan in NOBLE HOUSE. So, in any romance, no one ever falls in love purely with the actual person but with the person who’s carefully acting out a role. Certain noir characters are (con)artists who are keenly aware of this inherently deceptive aspect of love, distill it into an essence, and consciously manipulate it for their self-aggrandizement. This extra layer of deception intensifies their allure, giving rise to the femme fatale. Then, it isn’t difficult to fathom the emotions coursing through the Welles character in the ending of LADY FROM SHANGHAI. The woman told him a lot of lies, and so he should hate her upon discovering the truth, but along with the hate there is a kind of dazed wonderment; through her inspired wickedness, it’s as if she’d shaped deception, betrayal, and murder into the highest form of beauty. (The deceptive nature of beauty-as-the-basis-of-love may be true from an evolutionary point of view. After all, can anything be said to be objectively beautiful? Instead, beauty is a trick of the eye produced by evolution in order to facilitate the continuation of the species among higher organisms. Why do people wanna have sex and have kids and perpetuate the species? Because they are attracted to sexual beauty. So, beauty is the deception of the eye created by evolution to make us cling to life and to begat more life.)

Anyway, consider the range of moods and emotions in the apartment scene. It begins with a bruised-n-bloodied Deckard entering his apartment with a distraught Rachel, shifts to Deckard seeking equilibrium through water and drink, gives voice to Rachel’s anxiety and Deckard’s doubts, then passes into dreamy trance with Deckard on the couch and Rachel at the piano, waters the wilting Rachel into a blooming flower, and then burns with romantic passion. So much intimated with so little said, a mini-symphony of whispers. It’s like a complete short film in its own right. It captures a preciously fleeting moment but also a timeless moment, the stuff of ‘eternal’ personal memory. As long as Deckard and Rachel shall live, that moment will be ‘forever’. Mayan motifs in the apartment echo the grandeur of time. There’s an air of irony for Mayan civilization was hierarchical and oppressive — like Tyrell corporation-controlled futuristic L.A. — yet lives on as timeless myth of lost paradise. That moment between Deckard and Rachel is a meditation of time as ever-present and ever-elusive, as dreary and dreamy, as real and reverent. We are trapped in ever-changing moments of time we call the ‘present’, yet our feelings and moods from certain moments of the past trail us into the present, serving as ‘eternally’ sacred signposts of our lives. Tyrell has created his own museum/factory of time(Tyrell towers) where time moves or stands still according to his whims, as was the case with Charles Foster Kane’s Xanadu in CITIZEN KANE. As for Ridley Scott, he surely identified with both Deckard and Tyrell. Like Deckard, he had to struggle with powers-that-be(the studio and moneymen) to make his movie, and yet, BLADE RUNNER is also a monument to his own mad visionary ego.
Anyway, what a great scene between Rachel and Deckard, one of the great mood-gardens in the history of cinema. Perhaps audiences were so used to sci-fi movies being dumb that they refused to believe the beauty and poetry before their eyes. And so, maybe they mistook the moodiness for boredom and meditativeness as stasis. Personally, I think that scene alone makes BLADE RUNNER a major achievement in cinema.

Audiences and even critics are used to science fiction movies DOING things to and for them; they are used to kept ‘awake’ with eye-popping effects. This is truer with recent superhero sci-fi movies where things blow up so often and in such magnitude that it’s more like a roller coaster ride or video game than a story. There isn’t even a moment to blink. It’s also like cocaine or crack — or even meth — in the highs they produce. It’s cinema as PCP. IRON MAN was so non-stop in its action, explosions, and thrust that it felt like cinema-on-Viagra. A good many superhero movies are, of course, neocon and Zionist propaganda, their message being Americans should use their wonderful ‘diversity to heroically join together to fight the Evil Foreign Forces. (In other words, American whites should worry more about ‘Muzzies’ or some mythical Neo-Nazi conspiracy than the actual blacks beating up whites in the streets, actual gays ruining the moral culture of the nation, and Jews on Wall Street robbing whites on Main Street.) Funny how Jews tell us that we must bomb the hell out of Muslim nations — and maybe Russia and China in the future — while pushing policies to open our borders(and those of EU) to masses of foreign invaders. Pixar animation is like Superhero movies in their non-stop juggling and dishing out of action, thrills, humor, wit, jokes, gags, and etc. Despite its high level of ingenuity and brilliance, I’m not sure its overall impact on culture — especially the culture of emotions — is positive. Kids raised on such fare become junkies addicted to non-stop highs. EVERYTHING has to be loud, fast, funny, exciting, sexy, etc. at every moment; everything has to be an ‘effect’, a caffeine/coke high, a celebration, an orgasm. (Long ago, celebration was something for rare occasions with special meaning. Today, it’s like everything should be ‘celebrated’ at ever moment. Celebration trumps cerebration even in the world of ideas. Intellectuals used to think and share their ideas. Now, they promote themselves with ideas like the ‘rise of the creative class’ and wanna be celebrated in the media as superstars. It’s like everyday should be a birthday, and everyone should be a celebrity. The obsession with the INSTANT — instant happiness, instant idea, instant answer, instant meaning, etc — has led to an emphasis on being noticed & celebrated than on offering something new and different. If you are not part of the NOW, you’re nothing. In the past, serious actors and directors chose financially less rewarding projects in the conviction that they’ll win out in the end while the popular sell-outs will be forgotten. This is why Sam Peckinpah declined to make SUPERMAN or KING KONG. But today, even serious directors and actors are lining up to do superhero movies. Chris Nolan has to be one of the biggest sellouts, but can we blame him? It’s like in the conference scene in THE GODFATHER where the head of a Family says that he tried everything to keep his men from dealing in narcotics but the temptations were too great. And in GOODFELLAS, Paulie — played by Paul Sorvino — tells Henry not to deal in drugs as the risks are too high, but Henry, along with his partners, do so nevertheless because the profits are just too great. It’s like everyone in Hollywood is now a shameless pusher of drugs to kids and adults-who-refuse-to-grow-up. Old Hollywood made entertainment movies but for adults; and serious directors didn’t make superhero movies. And art cinema gave us the ‘auteur’, director as personal artist. What do we have now in Hollywood? We got pushers and junkies. Everyone wants instant recognition, instant success, instant celebration. Without such, you’re considered a failure. It’s all or nothing, a zero sum game. In the cases of PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID and BLADE RUNNER, Peckinpah and Scott lost THEN but won LATER. They followed through with their visions and were initially misunderstood and/or underappreciated but were eventually vindicated, partly or in full. It was this faith in winning-later-if-not-now that motivated those guys to try something different. But our current emphasis on winning-now-or-never is less conducive to the courage of conviction. The problem isn’t only with the studios but with the media itself. Back in the 60s and 70s, the new Zeitgeist in the media gave coverage to the visionaries as well as to the celebrities. There are still genuine artists working in cinema — especially ‘independently’ — , but they are all but ignored by the main controllers of the media — and there isn’t a shred of cultural obligation on part of even the educated that they should know or care about culture other than superhero movies and pop music. While no one expected THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES to be a hit, shouldn’t it have garnered a little more attention and discussion in media circles? But even with big name star Brad Pitt in the lead, it got little attention. The ideal of cultural coverage in the media was to shine light on things DESERVING of attention — but unjustly ignored by the masses. Thus, critics and media figures played the role of teacher than just of promoter. Now, it’s backwards. Figures who should be teachers have become students’ pets, and of course, students are mental-and-sensual slaves of overlords of consumer-materialism. Instead of countering the hype, the media just join the hype. If the ideal film critic of the past upheld the best against the tide of wantonness, most critics since the 80s shamelessly ride the tide. Even when they express their hatred for most Hollywood movies, they would rather write about big-movies-they-don’t-like than little-movies-they-do-like since more people are likely to read about big movies than little ones. The worst thing about the ‘win now or never’ mentality is the current culture of cowardice and timidity. If one can only ‘win now or never’, then one needs the approval/support of all the forces of Now. One cannot bank on being misunderstood now but being vindicated later. Thus, ‘win now or never’ mentality has led to rise in political correctness and cultural conformity since the controllers of the Now are mostly rich & powerful Jewish and gay liberals. If you deviate from the current ideology or fashion, you will be rejected, cursed, or banned, and that means you mean nothing to producers, critics, media, and fans, most of whom are pod people of currently fashionable orthodoxies disseminated through public education and popular culture. This is where libertarian-conservatives utterly misunderstood the nature of culture and politics in the 80s. Since most of the musical, literary, and cinematic artists of the 60s and 70s were liberal, conservatives thought that ‘free-market’ populism would counter such ‘radical leftism’ or ‘deviant visions’ and win the day for conservatism. And for a time, it seemed that way with the success of ‘apolitical’ or ‘non-leftist’ feel-good movies like JAWS, ROCKY, STAR WARS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, RAMBO, and etc. Instead of prickly ‘art films’ by liberal types who, in their elitism and ‘radicalism’, thought they were better and wiser than everyone else, culture would belong to the masses in the form of feel-good-and-happy movies and music. And initially, this is why conservatives had less problem with Mudonna than did feminists who thought she was turning the clock back to the 1950s, the age of ‘sexism’ embodied by the whore Marilyn Monroe. So, conservatives thought ‘free markets’ would undermine liberal elitism and radicalism and restore the kind of feel-good cultural conservatism of the 1950s. But, in fact, mainstream popular culture was no less controlled by liberals than by conservatives. If liberal artists of the 60s and 70s at least tried to make an intelligent and personal case for their world-views, the new mainstream liberalism that rose in the 1980s favored consensus-ism. If anything, the rising cult of the personal artist in the late 60s and early 70s paradoxically undermined the power of liberalism. In their serious commitment to be genuine artists, many liberal filmmakers and composers were making movies and music with less popular appeal, and thus they lost their audiences and influence over them. Lennon didn’t win over a lot of people with stuff like “Woman is the Nigger of the World”, and movies like MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER were major flops. So, even though the early 1970s are remembered as the golden age of the personal filmmaker, it was also a time when many filmmakers — nearly all of them liberal — were losing ‘touch’ with the mass audience. Similarly, the rise of punk music and personalities like Patti Smith alienated most rock fans from radicalism and ‘personal expression’. It was with the shameless populism of Spielberg and Lucas that liberals began to win back the mass audience. Though many critics tend to see the changes in the late 70s as ‘conservative’/‘reactionary’ forces of Lucas and Spielberg versus ‘liberal’/‘radical’ forces of the personal filmmaker, the fact is the rise of Lucas, Spielberg, and their ilk was the new triumph of liberalism since Lucas and Spielberg were ideologically no less liberal than the so-called ‘personal filmmakers’. (Altman’s movie THE PLAYER isn’t about conservative capitalists vs liberal artists but about corporate liberals vs independent liberals.) But whereas the auteurs of the early 70s were working at the margins and barely making money, Spielberg and Lucas were raking in gazillions and spending them for liberal causes. Similarly, many critics initially preferred to see 80s music culture in terms of ‘conservative’ Mudonna turning back the clock against the achievements of ‘radicals’ like Patti Smith, but in fact, Smith, though a darling of the critics, had almost no popular following whereas Mudonna became a huge star. Though her success was the result of ‘free-market capitalism’, she was no conservative and would later use her mega-success, mega-bucks, and mega-clout to push decadent liberalism. If in the 1960s, a new kind of radical liberalism tended to pit itself against consumer-capitalism, in the late1970s a newer kind of liberalism joined forces with consumer-capitalism to formulate an even more powerful liberalism. Once the Cold-War-centered Reaganite lull came to pass in the 1980s, the culture was revamped to serve liberals and liberals only. Steve Jobs was to computers what Spielberg and Lucas were to Hollywood. It was like the rise of feel-good liberal form of Eisenhower-ism. And if conservatives had better memory, they’d realize that the mainstream culture in the 1950s had also been controlled by liberals. It just looks conservative in retrospect since times and values have changed. (Keep in mind that many conservatives in the 1950s loathed HIGH NOON.) Also, even if mainstream culture was, by and large, more conservative back in the 1950s, it had less to do with who were making the music and movies than who were countering them from the outside. The pressure groups of American conservatism, such as Catholic organizations, were still powerful then. But pressuring Hollywood from the outside is different from changing it from the inside, and conservatives never entered Hollywood in great numbers nor were able to form their own entertainment industry since most conservatives are non- or anti-creative and since most creative types are non- or anti-conservative. Even creative types from conservative communities tend to remember the bitterness of being misunderstood, marginalized, and/or ostracized by the all-too-conformist community, which is why some of the most liberal types come from small-town conservative communities; when they finally made their ‘escape’ to the liberal college town or big city, it was like liberation from conservative dumminess. To be sure, the rise of the internet has provided an outlet for different voices, but the sheer anarchy that prevails in the cyber world may not produce the kind of critical mass that can effectively counter the current status quo of political correctness. In the end, little voices are little voices even if given voice. I mean who reads all the millions of comments on Youtube? In the end, elites with power will decide all while most people will follow along like sheep.) In the current movie culture, it’s as if only bold colors — literally and figuratively — are allowed while subtler hues and tones are banned as boring. Thus, the current aesthetic is closer to propaganda/advertising — with clear lines, loud colors, stark contrasts, simple passions, etc — than art. Propaganda, as a form of political advertising and as the enemy of ambiguity, can be inventive and brilliant, even grand(as with TRIUMPH OF THE WILL) but doesn’t offer much food for thought. Eisenstein’s BATTESHIP POTEMKIN is, in pure aesthetic terms of technical experimentation, a masterpiece of montage but not much more. QUE VIVA MEXICO! and IVAN THE TERRIBLE are more interesting for their deeper fascination with their subjects(than merely for the sake of ideology and experimentation); instead of working in the mode of a know-it-all, Eisenstein was working in the mode of want-to-know-more. Compare the colors and overall expression of AVATAR with EXCALIBUR or EMERALD FOREST. In AVATAR, blue is blue, black is black, white is white, red is red; but there are no hues and tones in between — not just visually but thematically. In contrast, the worlds of EXCALIBUR and 13TH WARRIOR are always more-than-meets-the-eye because of their sense not only of things but the things between things — the shadows between things, the silences between sounds. That AVATAR is one of the biggest moneymaker while 13TH WARRIOR is one of the biggest money-losers tells us something about the idiocy of not just the audiences but critics, who also favored Cameron’s turd pile to McTiernan’s near-masterpiece. EMERALD FOREST is far from great but captures not only nature’s beauty but mystery behind the beauty. What prevails now is a kind of caricature-ization, anime-ization, narcoticization, and purification of expression. Japanese kids grow up preferring idealized cartoon characters over real people. Computer-generated idols gain in popularity.
This was a danger anticipated in Kobo Abe/Hiroshi Teshigahara’s FACE OF ANOTHER. What if everyone could obtain or identify with an ideal face? Then, wouldn’t every real face be deformed for failing to live up to the perfect ideal. (There’s something freakish about the Japanese obsession with the ‘Aryan’ ideal. That such a people, most of whom are slanty-eyed, flat-nosed, big-cheek-boned, scrawny, stocky, and black-haired, should try so desperately to look like the Nordics isn’t only laughable but downright pathetic. What is a sorrier sight than a Mongoloid-looking ‘Jap’ dying his or her hair blond as if that’s gonna make him or her look un-Asian? It’s as ridiculous as a white guy nappy-heading and dread-locking his hair as if that’s gonna turn him black. If some anime movies work because characters are artificially drawn, their live-action adaptations don’t work because real Japanese, even with blonde wigs or make-up, don’t look like anime characters; only way to make anime adaptations work is by casting them mostly with white people, but then, Japanese would be admitting that they wanna look white, which they don’t wanna do.) In THE FACE OF ANOTHER, a man whose face has been horribly scarred in an industrial accident finds a doctor who experiments in making artificial faces. The doctor makes for the man a perfect face. Thus, the ugliest man in Japan becomes the most ideal-looking man. (Tasuya Nakadai, who plays the man, had a rather Western-ish look.) In a sudden reversal, he becomes ‘perfect’ while everyone else becomes ‘scarred’. He’d wanted to be like everyone else, but now that he possesses the ‘perfect’ face, everyone else looks comparatively damaged. (The man with the new face fools nearly everyone except a near-retarded girl just like the double in KAGEMUSHA fools everyone except one of the horses of the deceased lord. This is the paradox of knowledge and intelligence. We believe that higher consciousness/awareness helps us see through lies and attain greater truth while low intelligence/ignorance can easily be fooled and manipulated into believing everything. Yet, it’s also possible to be fooled by tricks of higher intelligence/concepts for the mind has a way of dulling the senses in favor of misleading ideas and convictions. Thus, some of the blindest fools in the 20th century have been intellectuals. Men like Jean-Paul Sartre couldn’t see what most ordinary people could sense: communism is shit. College professors wrapped in theory are blind to realities of race which any poor ignorant slob can sense all around him in the streets.) In a way, the disfigured face in the film was a metaphor for Japan after WWII. Japan, bombed into smithereens, was disfigured physically with a million dead and countless injured and with cities destroyed, burnt, and ruined. Yet, over that rubble, Japan erected a new mask of modernity, attempting to become an ideal modern society — while its soul remained disfigured, not only by past horrors but repression of festering problems swept under the tatami. Today, Japan’s collective culture is wrapped up in fake kawaii — cult of cuteness — nonsense. If Japanese keep this up, they’re gonna start ‘marrying’ robots and having ‘robot kids’. Americans like to take pride in ‘diversity’ and ‘authenticity’, but narcotization is fully under way here too. Masculinity and sexuality used to be elements of black experience to be manifested through a wide range of expressions. Now, they’ve been reduced/formulated and caricatured into only Thug-ism and Ho-ism. Thrill used to be an element of action movies; now, it’s just non-stop thrills. It’s as if anything that doesn’t contribute or conform to the primary effect is irrelevant and must go. There was a time when even big Hollywood movies were stylistically more varied. Indeed, SUPERMAN and SUPERMAN II from the 70s and 80s gave us stories as well as action. Now, action is the story. If E.T. or JAWS were made today, they would have to be sped up and packed with more thrills/effects to hold the audience. In the past two decades, some of the most popular shows on TV have been cartoons like THE SIMPSONS and THE FAMILY GUY. It’s like we prefer reality to be cartoonized. Mainstream culture has been Robert-Crumbed. Even when dealing with ugliness, we don’t want real ugliness but ‘purified’ ugliness. And of course, porn is sexuality distilled free of everything but tits-dicks-pussy-ass-and-sucking-and-fuc*ing.

Then, it’s no wonder that BLADE RUNNER could only have succeed as a ‘cult film’ since it was painted, visually and emotionally, more with elusive hues and tones than with bold colors. (Bold colors are present in BLADE RUNNER via neon signs and flashy lights, but there’s always the intimation of colors beyond the colors, traces and emanations than merely the illuminance. It’s a richer color scheme than one that contrasts primary colors, made even more simplistic by CGI in movies like LOR and AVATAR, which for all the expense and expertise, have about as much richness and depth as children’s coloring books. There’s something inherently muted and subtly tonal about neon lights — like traffic-light trails captured in time-lapse photography — , so different from the blaring lights on the Las Vegas strip. Neon light ‘sleeps’ within its cocoon-like tubing. The world of BLADE RUNNER is illumined but not really lit; and there’s more light up above than down below, a world of freaks, degenerates, and down-and-out who are better hidden in the dark. At times, the element of light ‘hides and runs’, as if frightened and anxious like scurrying rats, baring only flurries and flashes, streaking shadows through labyrinths of clutter.) BLADE RUNNER was as much about mood and atmosphere as about action and thrills, and even the latter tended to be more stylized than was customary of the genre.

BLADE RUNNER doesn’t DO everything for the audience. The viewer has to be willing to participate and enter its zone. He has to trust Scott as his guide as one might the eponymous character of Tarkovksy’s STALKER. He needs to tune into the rays and signals emanating from Scott’s neon cinema. Though the first image of future L.A. is spectacular, notice the slow majestic camera movement. Scott beholds than bedevils the image. Scott’s approach is architectural than acrobatic, pondering the vision than pandering to effects. It isn’t eye-candy but eye-peyote. The pace of the opening scene is maintained nearly throughout the movie. Even the climactic chase scene with Batty and Deckard at the Bradbury Hotel happens by steps and stumbles than leaps and bounds, which is why Batty’s soaring leap over rooftops feels so extraordinary; it’s a climax, not a cliche.

People are used to having movies DO things to them, and so movies inject them with one jolt after another and pound their ears with sound effects and music that dictate than guide emotions. This is even true of some ‘personal films’, especially those of that phony Alexander Payne, essentially a sitcom writer working in movies. John Hughes perfected this for the teenager movie, making BREAKFAST CLUB a big hit. In contrast, Linklater’s DAZED AND CONFUSED, a genuine personal film and masterpiece, fizzled at the box office. One tells kids how and what to feel, the other invites kids to find their own meaning.
Maybe, one’s feelings about BLADE RUNNER is a matter of personality. Some people are dreamier than others, more conducive to the hypnotic aura of certain movies. For some viewers, things don’t always have to ‘happen’ in order for something to be happening. THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY is the sort of movie where things are always happening(as in Road Runner/Wiley Coyote cartoons). ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, in contrast, is a film where not much seems to be happening, and yet for some viewers its grand vision is an happening in and of itself. In LORD OF THE FLIES there’s an odd kid of mystical bent who senses things other kids do not; he even ‘communes’ with a head of pig impaled onto a stick. While some movie nuts may be projecting their own fantasies onto the screen and seeing what isn’t there, some films have been conceived almost like mandalas, or aids to meditation, a kind of mental maze that guides the process of discovery. For these films to work, the viewer has to be willing to do his or her part in the ‘journey’. People who give more to the movie also takes back more from the movie, whereas people who give little take back little, which is why they have to be clobbered over the head with narcotized non-stop thrills to drown out the boredom.
It’s also about having respect for the artist. It’s about giving the artist the benefit of a doubt and at least attempting to appreciate his vision. It’s the opposite of narrow-minded infantilism that expects movies to cater to one’s narrow whims and instant gratification. If the audience has no respect and patience for the artist, the artist must ‘respect’ and pander to audience tastes, which means even good directors must make junk to remain in the industry.
On the other hand, there are communities of film geeks who revere and worship certain ‘auteurs’ to such extent that they might as well be Jim Jones cults. In a state of absolute awe and reverence, they hand themselves totally as acolytes or devotees to the visions of certain ‘auteurs’ as if great artistic, moral, and even spiritual revelation is to be found in every single film made by them. The mindless latter-day Godard cult is not an isolated case. Only mindless uber-cultists would kneel at the altar of Chantal Akerman, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, and Theo Angelopoulos — and Terrence Malick since his so-called comeback.
While we should ideally try to understand the artist, if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, and we should have the courage to say so. We are faced with two kinds of corruptions in film culture. At one end are audiences addicted to cinema as booze, and at the other end are cinephiles attached to cinema as soma.

BLADE RUNNER is a great achievement but hasn’t quite secured Scott’s reputation as one of the great auteurs. Paradoxically, his auteur standing would be higher had he died soon after BLADE RUNNER. Then, we could have imagined all the future masterpieces he might have directed had he lived. But, we have to deal with stuff like LEGEND, G.I. JANE, 1492, THELMA AND LOUISE, GLADIATOR, HANNIBAL, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, etc. BLACK RAIN and BLACK HAWK DOWN are good, and AMERICAN GANGSTER is very good, but they come nowhere near BLADE RUNNER. Indeed, Scott’s most interesting films other than BLADE RUNNER are his first two, THE DUELISTS and ALIEN. (I haven’t seen PROMETHEUS, but it sounds rather stupid.) Did Scott just get lucky? (This is worth asking of Coppola as well. I mean what happened to him after THE GODFATHER II? APOCALYPSE NOW has its moments, but it’s, at best, half-a-great movie. Afterwards, he made some decent movies like TUCKER, PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED, and GARDEN OF STONES, but was there another great movie or anything that even came close to THE GODFATHER?) Did the muse favor him for that one film and then leave him for good? Was he forced to make a realistic career choice and do what was expected of him? At any rate, it’s probably more frustrating for film artists today. In the past, even if film artists couldn’t make personal ‘art films’, the dominant genres were full of adult themes. Even if one couldn’t work in the manner of Bergman or Antonioni, one could make drama, comedies(not the dumb teenage kind), war movies, westerns, gangster movies, and the like. And even action films tended to be more intelligent, like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, THE GREAT ESCAPE, or GUNS OF NAVARONE. Back in the 1950s and 60s, most superhero and dumb sci-fi stuff were B-movies made on the cheap for drive-ins and the like. But there was a lot of creative excitement to be found in B-movie-making as well. Given the stultifying power of the big studios, some cinephiles romanticized the B-film for its maverick vibrancy(and eccentricity; Ed Wood sucked but he was ‘one of a kind’). Even if one couldn’t be a full-fledged film artist, one could work as an adult artist. Think of what Mike Nichols was able to do with THE GRADUATE. Coppola took on THE GODFATHER as a job, but it offered up all kinds of possibilities. When Welles couldn’t make the films he really wanted to make, he could still work on something like LADY FROM SHANGHAI. Today, he might have to direct SPIDERMAN V. What a waste of talent.

B-movie-into-A-movie-ism has become such a dominant feature of Hollywood that even personal projects fall under its sway. Chris Nolan, upon the success of BATMAN movies, got the go-ahead to work on a personal project, INCEPTION, but it was given the superhero movie treatment. And notice that 300, a movie about ancient history based on a comic book was a huge success while Oliver Stones’ flawed but sometimes magnificent ALEXANDER was a total bust. The infantilization of culture is well under way in America as well as in Japan. (Maybe many interesting films are being made now as in the past, but the collective passion for them simply isn’t there. Maybe there are many great painters too, but painting as an art-form is no longer part of the Zeitgeist as in the period of Picasso and Matisse. And maybe there are many good and even great rock bands, but rock music is no longer the cultural force it used to be in the 60s with Dylan, Beatles, Hendrix, and the Stones. Is the idea of Zeitgeist itself passe, what with the trivialization and fragmentation of culture? Can there be any genuine intellectual discussion of cultural or moral matters in an age that promotes ‘gay marriage’ as a great moral crusade, in an age when Kanye West is conflated with Mozart? Susan Sontag’s mourning of the death of cinephilia didn’t mean cinema itself was dead. What was gone was the mad love — and mad hope — that a generation had for cinema from the 50s to the early 70s. The passing of this Zeitgeist may account for the Gilles Mimouni’s L’APPARTEMENT going almost unknown in America. Had it appeared in the 60s or early 70s, it might have been hailed as a classic. And yet, a careful combing of movies of the 90s and first yrs of the 2000s turns up many fine films and even some of the greatest ever made. But how many were made by new directors and how many by old or older masters? MULHOLLAND DR. was made by Lynch. A.I.. by Spielberg. LAST MAN STANDING, WILD BILL, and GERONIMO by the veteran director Walter Hill. TIME REGAINED by an old Raul Ruiz. EYED WIDE SHUT by Kubrick at 70. GOHATTO by Nagisa Oshima who began making films in the late 50s. HURT LOCKER was made by Bigelow in her 60s. Among the newer directors, David Fincher stands out as a master. Tarantino’s debut RESERVOIR DOGS was stunning, but everything that followed was shit. Nolan wasted most of his talent on superhero junk. Jackson’s KING KONG is fun and has moments of beauty but LOR is big and dumb. Wachowski Brothers are visual magicians but hardly visionaries. Charlie Kaufman is a brilliant scenarist, but his solipsism chases its own tail. TRON LEGACY was a whopper and showed what the internet-computer generation could do but also something of an anomaly as the iPad/iPhone/iPad generation rarely exhibited comparable imagination. Also, the constant connectivity and community via the internet stunt the development of personal vision and viewpoint. Even when people go trekking into nature to be alone, they are constantly downloading and uploading stuff to Facebook. It’s like they’re babies whose umbilical cords are connected to the WWW, which might as well stand for the world-wide-womb. Though the promise of the internet is the possibility of individuals expressing and sharing their own views, the rise of social networking may actually have the opposite impact. After all, before one shares one’s views and feelings, one has to develop them in the first place on one’s own terms. Instead of ‘Big Brother Is Watching You’, it’s like ‘Facebook Friends Are Watching You and vice versa’. Since you’re constantly being watched and watching, you may be less likely to develop your own POV and just go along with the prevalent vibe. If you’re on facebook and all your stupid decadent friends are yapping about the greatness of‘gay marriage’, you might feel pressured to just go along. If Brian Wilson had been hooked to the internet in his bedroom, he might have been too busy surfing for porn to write “Surfer Girl”. The rise of such constantly conntected/communal mind-set may not be good for personal creativity. While our culture abounds in technical creativity — superhero movies, Pixar movies, videogames, etc. — , there seems to be less of the possible kind. Imagine if Sam Peckinpah grew up today with iPod, iPad, and iPhone, connected to everything at all moments and participating in a constant community to which one feels a need to belong even before one’s own thoughts and feelings have taken form.)
It’s as if we went from Innocence to Infantilism. In the 60s, a new generation attacked the old generation for both corruption and innocence: corrupt in its old prejudices and innocent in its dumb loyalty to the Flag and Apple Pie(and green suburban lawns). This rebellion called for a more honest and thoughtful America, but 60s rebellion was led by youths, and so it tended to be intemperate, excessive, and indulgent — thus corrupt and innocent in its own ways. When these boomers grew up, they lost their ideals but what remained was their vanity — to be ‘forever young’ — and powerlust. With their own ideals shaken by reality or cynicism, they decided to maintain control over the X, Y, and Z generation via increased infantilism. Just look at the state of our culture and morality. Thus, the loss of innocence didn’t lead to maturity but to infantilism. We’ve gone from the innocent corruption of the Greatest Generation to the corrupt infancy of the grotesque generation, and in between them were the boomers who had no idea what they were doing.

Like PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID, BLADE RUNNER is underpinned by some striking parallels and reverse symmetries. Consider Rachel and Pris. In some ways, they couldn’t be more different. Rachel was designed to be classy, to take her place in the elite world. Pris was designed to be a lowly ‘pleasure model’. Rachel is poised and moody, Pris is playful and spunky. Rachel’s beauty is such that it almost has a transcendent quality; Pris’s sexiness is primal, as with a stripper. Yet, it dawns on Rachel that she is a prostitute; she too ‘IS the business’. And Pris, though designed for raw sexuality, is not without finer qualities, like the limber gracefulness of a ballerina. Pris and Rachel seem like opposites, but they are really two of a kind. Similarly, though rich liberal Wasps feel superior to poor white trash, both groups are running dog slaves of Jews. Liberal Wasps take orders from Jews, and poor white boys go fight and die in Wars for Israel(or serve on the police force to jail politically incorrect heretics). They are both whores of Jewish power(and increasingly Gay Power, as liberal Wasp elites now bend over to gays and as the US military has been inundated with pro-gay propaganda, as if defending American values comes down to promoting fecal penetration as the highest moral virtue and biological truth). High or low, one can be enslaved, one can be owned. And it is through Rachel that Deckard realizes that he too is just another cog in the machine, just another prostitute doing as he’s told. (Rachel and Pris are also visually rhymed through ‘panda eyes’: Rachel’s deteriorating mascara at Deckard’s apartment and Pris’s application of black spray around her eyes. And both find refuge in the apartments of ‘strange men’.)
Another reverse symmetry is between Tyrell and Sebastian. Outwardly, they are very different. Tyrell takes residence in the upper world — top floor no less — of Tyrell Towers. He is surrounded by vestiges of power and wealth. Though clearly past his prime, he looks fastidious and fully in control of himself and world around him. He’s older than Sebastian but has the energy of a young genius. Sebastian, in contrast, lives in a run-down apartment in a dark part of the city(either because even computer engineers aren’t well-paid in the future or because Sebastian, being something of a recluse, wants to be on his own). Though young, he looks old, tired, and haggard. (He may have been the inspiration for the old-looking-young-children in anime movie AKIRA.) Yet, both Tyrell and Sebastian are builders of toys, creators of new worlds, and driven by the need to control. In a way, L.A. — and maybe the entire world — is to Tyrell what Sebastian’s apartment is to Sebastian. Sebastian prefers not to deal with humans. Rather, he literally ‘makes friends’. He creates robots of all kinds and varying sophistication; though he treats them as friends, he has control over them; he is their god. He creates his own Toy Story. Being passive and gentle, he’s not a cruel or outwardly power-hungry person, but there is lonely need to control his own world, to create his own little empire and to play Napoleon, albeit a kindly one. And he takes pride in the kinds of toys he can make. Tyrell is also something of a toy-maker except his scope is much grander. He makes toy-god-slaves, and he releases them into the real world. He’s so vain that his toys are made in his ‘image’, intellectually if not physically. (Tyrell may have made replicants difficult to identify because, despite all the problems and risks associated with identifying rogue replicants, it is a sign of his power over mankind. If mankind could no longer identify and distinguish replicants from humans, then Tyrell will have power not only over his creations but over mankind as well. If humans cannot tell replicants apart as a ‘separate race’, how would they know they’re being supplanted by a different race? Similarly, if the meaning of ‘American’ and ‘legal citizen’ is changed to such extent that legal white Americans can no longer tell themselves apart from non-white hordes and illegals, how would white Americans know that they are being supplanted by foreign races? Indeed, Tyrell seems to take a perverse pride in the fact that it took Deckard so long to identify Rachel as a replicant. It’s as if Tyrell wants to perfect replicants to the point where even he himself cannot tell them apart from humans. Maybe he wants to build the perfect replicant with an eternal life-span and then download his memories into it. Whatever the risks, his ego and vanity push him to the ultimate triumph, even if it may spell his doom — and indeed it arrives in the form of Batty.)
If Sebastian makes toys as pet-friends, Tyrell makes toys as ultra-beings, indeed even greater than himself. His vanity pushes him to design and create the greatest toys the world has ever seen — toys that are even greater than the greatest man; yet, his fear decides to limit the ‘life-span’ of his toys to four years because, if allowed to live indefinitely, the replicants may gain control over mankind, even over him. Sebastian is, in a way, a beta-male version of Tyrell, and Tyrell is an alpha-male version of Sebastian. We can tell that Sebastian much admires Tyrell and may secretly want to be like him. Sebastian takes Batty to Tyrell out of fear than hatred for Tyrell. When Tyrell out-argues Batty and seems to gain the emotional-philosophical upper-hand, Sebastian grins in admiration of his boss’s smooth mastery of the situation. It’s as if, despite Batty’s brawn and brilliance — beating Tyrell at chess — , he’s no match for Tyrell the ultimate all-around genius and smooth operator. Tyrell seems to be able to control Batty in ways Sebastian could not. But of course, Batty upsets the whole equilibrium by killing Tyrell and then going after Sebastian. But keep in mind Tyrell was defeated physically, not intellectually or spiritually, by Batty. In a way, it’s fitting that both Tyrell and Sebastian die in the same room. High or low, despite all their differences, they are two of a kind.

Another interesting paralleling is between replicants and animals, which is rather strange since replicants are the ultimate creations of artificial science whereas as animals are what we associate with nature. On the other hand, it’s not so strange because most animals in BLADE RUNNER turn out to be artificial. Replicants are computer-like in intellect, human in form, and animallike in power. Leon has the size and strength of a bear. (With his funny head that looks like Slim Pickens on steroids, he also looks like a turtle without a shell. Incidentally, the first question he’s asked in the Voight-Kampff test is about a tortoise in a desert turned upside down. The question is ironic given that it’s meant to smoke out replicants who are supposed to be lacking in human sympathy when it appears that the humanity of BLADE RUNNER doesn’t seem to be brimming with sympathy either.) Zhora has the striking and strangulating force of a boa constrictor. (That the scale found in the bathtub is initially mistaken by Deckard as that of a fish than a snake suggests the ambiguity of life in the future where nature and artificiality merge into one. Also, the notion of a fish scale in the bathtub conjures up images of the mythical mermaid — Daryl Hannah was soon to star in a movie called SPLASH with a scene where she did grow a fish tail in the bathroom. That the scale belongs not to a fish — let alone a mermaid — but to a snake warns us of the perplexing dangers of this world. Even the eyes, perhaps the main motif in the movie, have a certain ambiguity. What are ‘human’ eyes and ‘non-human’ eyes? If replicants and the owl at Tyrell’s tower are both artificial, are they more closely related to one another than replicants are to humans? Are replicant eyes more like artificial owl eyes than human eyes? In a way, it’s a kind of neo-techno-paganism. Many nature worshiping cultures had no clear distinction between the human world and animal world. As civilization advanced, man became increasingly aware of his separateness rom nature. But as technology advances to the point of creating artificial life, the connection between human life and animal life is bridged again.) Batty is like a wolf and even howls like one as he goes after Deckard in the final scene. (I wonder if Scott borrowed a thing or two from the fine early 80s horror movie WOLFEN, whose villains also turn out to be ambiguous and even heroic in some respects.) Sebastian is a teddy bear of a man and there are rats(real or mechanical)scurrying about his apartment. Deckard is associated with a mythic animal, the unicorn, and Rachel’s childhood memory(that isn’t really hers)is haunted by spiders. The thing about animals is they are both simple and difficult, both easy and hard to control. Animals, in their innocence, can be trained to obey without question and do things. Dogs can be made into faithful servants. Hawks and eagles can be trained to hunt. Bears and tigers, if raised from early age, can be trained to do circus tricks. Even giant elephants can be trained to take orders from men and do all sorts of heavy tasks. And there is, of course, the horse. And yet, there is a wild streak in animals that always threatens to break out, which is why even the most expert circus masters have been mauled by tigers or bears or trampled by elephants. Man has used both machines and animals; whereas machines simply fail, animals — even seemingly obedient ones — can go out of control. And of course, mankind has long had a neurotic relationship with nature and animals since man is also animal yet prefers to see himself as different, higher, and nobler. We’ve created dichotomies such as amoral animal vs moral man, instinctive animal vs intellectual man, innocent animal vs corrupt man. Usually, we put ourselves above animals, but sometimes we romanticize animals as better than us — just as some people in the West have idealized the ‘noble savage’ as spiritually superior to the civilized man. Much of white folks’ fear and admiration of the Negro has to do with his animality. White folks see blacks as dangerous beasts on the one hand, but on the other hand, see blacks as more musical, natural, and exciting in a primitive animallike way. White girls imitate the gorilla-howl singing and baboon-ass-shaking of black women, and they go for interracist sex with Negro men because it’s like being ravished by a powerful animal. It’s like Beauty and the Beast. In some ways, Jews are the very opposite of Negroes, but they too have an animallike qualities. Cunning like weasels and alert like rodents — and dangerous like termites and viruses — , Jews are hyper-active in their search for power. Like rodents that obsessively must gnaw on everything, Jews feel this obsessive need to gnaw at goy power. It’s no wonder that some Germans saw Jews as disease-carrying sewer rats. Hoping that Jews will stop acting this way is like hoping that rodents will stop gnawing away at stuff. It’s never going to happen. If white folks tend to be blandly human, Negroes and Jews have this animal-intensity, whether it’s gorilla-like or rat-like. They are aggressive and active, which is why they, in their unholy alliance, are whupping white folks’ butt. And gays have this bird-like flamboyance that makes them colorful, expressive, and inspired. (Jews, in their lust for power and wealth, know they need to forge a close alliance with Negroes and gays. Jews know sports and pop music are big business, and since Negroes are so good at running and making funky noise, Jews who control entertainment and media wanna be chummy with Negroes. Jews also control Hollywood and fashion industry, and they know gays are good at creative stuff, and so Jews maintain close ties with gays. Jews know that talent trumps lack of talent, and blacks are talented at funky music and sports while gays are talented at design and creativity. Jews may be moralistic, but they also moralize things according to their own needs. Since blacks and gays are useful to them, Jews have moralized blackness and gayness as virtues in and of themselves. Thus, we have the Magic Negro and the Wonder Fruit. Of course, Jews also support gays because Jews would rather have us focus on Gay power than on Jewish power. Gay power thus serves as a distraction from the more powerful Jewish power. Indeed, Jews would rather have us worry more about Mormons and gays than about Jews. And gays, to be in good graces with Jews, would rather compare themselves with the Mormons than with Jews. If gays said, ‘we are powerful like the Jews’, Jews might complain. Jews would rather have us focus on gay power, Mormon power, Chinese power, Arab power, and etc. than on Jewish power, which is the real power.)

The dream scene with the unicorn is especially memorable in the way the unicorn’s head motion is matched with Deckard’s. If Deckard is indeed a replicant, the fantastic beast is but an implanted program in Deckard’s mind, and thus, Deckard’s head turn is like the mechanism of a winded toy. Nature and fantasy haven’t only been de-naturalized and de-fantasized but decoded, re-coded, and imbedded back into nature and man. Deckard’s brains could be like Monsanto corn. This is hinted further through the motif of the owl. The owl takes flight followed by the forward thrust of Rachel who makes her first appearance. Thus, she is identified with the owl. Then we see the owl turning its head, which is matched with Deckard’s turn of his head, thereby associating the owl with Deckard. It’s as if the owl, as an artificial life programmed by the Tyrell corporation, is a common dream shared by Rachel and Deckard(who may also be artificial). Later, we see the owl again at Tyrell’s room as Batty, with the help of Sebastian, gains entry. And when Batty kills Tyrell, the owl watches indifferently — just as the toys at Sebastian’s place remain oblivious to violence that unfolds between Deckard, Pris, and Batty. The owl, as bird of prey, is like Batty who claws his fingers into Tyrell’s eyes. But in its aloofness, the owl is also like Tyrell who, perched high up in his own realm, feels no sentiment for anyone or anything outside his realm.
The galloping unicorn may have been implanted in Deckard’s subconscious, but it’s more than a pretty picture in his dreams. It may also as a trigger mechanism for his role as blade runner — and paradoxically as the key that deprograms him from his programmed role; only the key that locked a secret in his mind can unlock it as well. It’s like the queen(poker card) in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. It is through the queen that the brainwashed agent is manipulated and used as a killer, but it is also through the queen — with the help of Frank Sinatra’s character — that he’s finally freed from the programming. Similarly, since a blade runner is supposed to act like a detective/inspector/tracker, he needs something more than the ability to use guns. He needs to think, follow clues, find associations, and identify connections; he needs to sense and spot patterns missed by others. Thus, the dream implanted in Deckard’s mind isn’t just a gratuitous fantasy. Rather, it serves as a subconscious way through which he might subliminally or elliptically make connections missed by the conscious mind; it works like infrared vision that sees things unseen by the conventional eye. (Consider how in FARGO, the incident with the Asian guy inspires the woman cop to revisit the suspect once again. She finally begins to crack the case when she intuits and tunes into the vibes of others than just by gathering physical clues and making routine interviews. She begins to slip out of her narrow straight-and-arrow small-town goy world-view and starts thinking Jewishily. Though she’s a good person, the point of the movie is that she and her kind are pathological in their own way. If psychopathic killers are pathologically unable to sympathize with others, people like the woman cop are pathologically incapable of empathizing with others... that is until she has a meeting with the Asian guy. As a decent woman, she’s capable of sympathizing with victims, but she is, or at least was, incapable of empathy, which is the ability to see things from the perspective of other people. She is wrapped up in her small town values and biases, and couldn’t really see the world or the hearts of men beyond her narrowly programmed perspective. So, she does her job without imagination, conventionally going through proper procedures in which she’s been trained in and been through many times. But when she learns there’s a lot more to the Asian guy, she has a Deckard-with-unicorn moment. She had always remembered the Asian guy as some harmless polite dork back in school. Since she was well-adjusted in her community, she assumed everyone felt likewise. It turns out the Asian guy always felt as an outsider and beneath the facade of niceness was one horny bastard with fantasies about white chicks. Also, everything he told her about himself turns out to be a lie. This doesn’t merely change her view of him but of the entire world, of human nature itself — at least for a moment. She begins to empathize with the world around her — and let us remind ourselves that empathy is not the same as sympathy; empathy means the ability to see, feel, and think as others do, not necessarily to feel compassion for them. In a way, the woman cop had been like a small-town Stepford Wife. Though a “liberated” woman doing a “man’s job”, hers was a snug small town mentality — or the kind assumed to exist among small town white goyim by Jews like the Coens — culturally ‘programmed’ to see the world in a simplistic way. But the figure of the outsider, the Asian guy, triggers her to see the world from the vantage point of an ‘outsider’ and also to regard her own people as ‘outsiders’. She’d approached the case as an insider, a member of the community. It is when she takes on an outsider perspective that she sees things that she might otherwise miss. In a way, the Asian guy introduces a Jewishy bacillus into her mind. Asian guy is an outsider-figure like the Jew. Though she finds him icky and pathetic, his neurosis serves as a trigger/inspiration for her to look at her own community with new lenses. Thus, not only does she come to see things as an ‘outsider’, but she also comes to suspect one of the insiders as an outsider, i.e. she begins to suspect that one of the respectable members of society could be the transgressor who set off the tragic series of events. Instead of the simple narrative of evil outsiders committing terror against a community of decent insiders, she realizes there is a very bad man within the community. Though most of the people of the community are portrayed as decent folks, the Jewish Coens were indicting small town white folks as a bunch of narrow-minded and simple-minded self-deceiving dupes. They are so predictable, like the people of GROUNDHOG DAY. They are not so morally decent as pathologically decent, i.e. they don’t think morally since they just conform to the shared communal mind-set. They are as unthinkingly good and law-abiding as the psychopaths are unthinkingly bad and law-breaking. Thus, the woman and the killer she arrests are like two sides of the same coin. They are both potentially dangerous to the Jew since they are both unthinking in what they do. The woman, had she grown up in Nazi Germany, would have been a ‘good’ unthinking German. Nazi Germany was a nation where a psychopath took over society, but the majority of Germans went along with his crazy plans because they were unthinkingly ‘good’ and being ‘good’ meant to conform to authority. Though the woman in FARGO gains deeper insight into human nature and the hidden nature of things, we see her slip back into her usual self after catching the killer. She talks like a figure in some 50s TV show perennially programmed to think in G-rated terms, thereby unable to understand an R-rated, let alone an X-rated, reality. She was momentarily inspired to see beyond her own narrow confines, but she returns to those confines at the end. So, FARGO is really a Jewish critique of the white goy mind. It’s about how the Jew fears the simple programming that dominates most goy minds. On the other hand, it also expresses trepidation about the goy gaining the power to think. After all, it’s when the woman begins to really think that she sees through the facade of her community. Even so, she doesn’t wage war against the community but goes after the man — the car dealer — who violated the social/moral terms of the community, who acted like an ‘outsider’. The wicked husband, though a member of the community, also happens to be the most Jewishy character in the movie. He’s a sly, dirty, crooked, and conniving little bugger who’s up to no good. He’s like a small fish version of the Jewish crooks on Wall Street. Also, her newly gained power of thought comes to see through the BS from the Asian guy, who is also a stand-in for Jewish neurosis. Just as Jews play the helpless victim but are really up to no good, the Asian guy acted like a harmless nice guy but really had plans to seduce the woman — a decent white woman — for low-down bamboo fever sex. So, a thinking goy could be just as dangerous to the Jew as an unthinking goy. This is why Jews wanna preserve the unthinkingness of goyim while, at the same time, controlling all the institutions that program goyim’s thoughts. Jews wanna stepfordize all of us. Jews sees us the way that the Bill Murray character sees the small town folks in GROUNDHOG DAY. On the outside, that movie seems to be about a nice decent white small town and a big city jerk who eventually learns to be a better person with the help of small town folks. It’s as if the small town folks live happily with their small town certitudes while the big city reporter is full of cynicism and hostility; he is Jewishy. And he becomes trapped in that town like the modern character gets trapped in a sand pit in WOMAN IN THE DUNES. So, one might think it’s a loving portrait of small town America and how a big city reporter is cured of his cynicism by being trapped in that town ‘forever’. It might be mistaken for something like IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. But watch more carefully, and it’s a movie of great contempt for the small white town. In a way, it’s saying that white folks in small towns are so boring, simple, and dull that it’s as if they’re living the same day over and over and over but don’t even notice. They’re more like robots than humans. In contrast, while the big city reporter may be a jerk, he is a free individual with his own ideas and views. To the extent that he notices he’s living the same day over and over, he’s the hero. It’s like the character in TRUMAN SHOW realizes that the world around him is fake. Bill Murray’s character isn’t a nice guy, but he’s a thinking guy whereas the small-town folks around him are like automatons who’d never notice that they’re living the same day over and over and over and over. They are incapable of making progress because they are comfortably stuck in the ‘same pit of history’. Though Bill Murray character initially acts hostile and rebels against his ‘imprisonment’, he eventually comes to accept it for what it is and does things here and there to ‘improve’ the community. And once he’s done that — once he’s gained control over the community in myriad ways — , time moves forward again. In a way, the movie is saying the modern Jew initially found it stifling to be surrounded in a dull oppressive goy-ruled society, and so he rebelled in a hostile manner, but eventually, at least in America, the Jew began to settle down to the goy reality and began to work piecemeal by piecemeal to change things to the point where the Jew could finally make history move forward in his favored direction. Thus, the character in GROUNDHOG DAY is like Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s radicalism called for leftists to make peace with the dull and bland white bourgeois world and then slowly tinker with its institutions... until radicals gained sufficient control over the system to make it move in the direction they want. In a way, radicals accomplished more in the 80s and 90s than they did in the 60s. Their hostile antics in the 60s led to the downfall of LBJ, black riots that alienated white voters, the two-term presidency of Nixon, and etc. It made most Americans reject radicalism as the ideology of the Meathead. ALL IN THE FAMILY was indeed Saul Alinskyism in practice. Though Archie Bunker is supposed to be a bigot, he’s a lovable bigot, and viewers are often encouraged to side with him against Meathead. But as the show progresses, Archie gradually becomes more ‘tolerant’ and ‘progressive’, even forgiving his daughter for adultery and becoming friends with a fat transvestite freak. Thus, the show nudges Archie the bigot to the side of ‘angels’, and as goes Archie, so do even the conservative viewers who’ve come to identify with him. It was when radicals dropped their overt radicalism and made peace with mainstream popular culture, universities and elite institutions, and the government — and even Wall Street — that they gained control over the real power to change society. Thus, Wall Street now flies the gay flag, and the media have been promoting ‘gay marriage’ as the greatest thing since sliced bread or baked buns as the case may be. So, GROUNDHOG DAY is really about the ‘underground way’.)

When Deckard took those photos from the Leon’s apartment, he didn’t know what to make of them. But after looking at Rachel’s fake photo and then dreaming of the unicorn, he subconsciously makes an elliptical connection and senses there may be ‘more than meets the eye’. The dream loosens up his mind and inspires him to notice deeper patterns in the photo — like in the famous scene in Antonioni’s BLOW UP where the photographer assembles the photos and discovers evidence of a murder. In a way, Deckard’s ferreting out hidden clues in Leon’s photo exemplifies what’s special about BLADE RUNNER, which is as remarkable for what it conceals as for what it conveys. As with Welles’ THE TRIAL, there’s an intimation of deeper complexity, intrigue, and mystery around every corner, behind every door, between every crack. Especially through the ever shifting interplay of shards of light and shadows(and strange sounds that groan from mysterious places — beneath the ground or behind the walls — , which also imply strange odors from exotic restaurants and from the sewer), Scott infuses his world with an enigmatic sense of random uncertainty. The darkness isn’t merely an effect but alive and teeming with mystery, and on this note, has something in common with EXCALIBUR by John Boorman, another Englishman. What Scott achieved with light and darkness, Boorman did with mist and filters. EXCALIBUR shows less than the maddeningly detailed LORD OF THE RINGS and AVATAR but intimates more of the aura and magic; it works as much on the psychology as on the eyes, and as such, may be something of a lost art. (The difference between LOR/AVATAR and EXCALIBUR/13TH WARRIOR/BLADE RUNNER is the difference between porno movies and L’APPARTEMENT/WICKER PARK. LOR and AVATAR have to show everything, and so the magic is made dumbly literal and exists only on physical level. It’s hocus pocus in total focus and is thus seen but not sensed. Similarly, porno movies spell out sex in all its physical details; it may be useful as a masturbatory aid for loser-males, but it has nothing to do with the mysterious psychological allure of love. Same goes for the horror genre. Gore-nographic horror piles on the physical details of grossness and mutilation, but horribleness isn’t the same as horror as mystery. SIXTH SENSE stood out in the 90s because its horror was mostly off-camera, thereby more felt than seen. Paradoxically, what isn’t shown may be more present than what is shown — at least in the hands of a master. If something is shown, it is a specific object within the frame. If not shown, its presence hovers over or permeates everything. One of the finest moments in cinema of the last 20 years was when the ring falls out of the woman’s hand in SIXTH SENSE, hinting at the dark tragedy of lost love. It was horror as poetry. And the final scene where the kid tells his mother about the grandmother beautifully managed to combine horror elements with sentimentality, an emotional tightrope walk that Shyamalan miraculously managed to pull off.)
Similarly, this is why MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO is superior to MONONOKE HIME. The latter, a much bigger production, shows a lot more of everything, but all the forces of nature have been literal-ized and objectified to death. MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO has magical creatures too and plenty of whimsy, but they are meant to be representative of mysterious nature than the embodiment of every facet of nature. (SPIRITED AWAY, in it maddening excess, is even worse than MONONOKE HIME.) It seems, especially with the rise of CGI and digital technology, every filmmaker, popular or arty, can’t resist the technological temptation to show more and more, as if MORE means better entertainment or art. (Spielberg’s HUGO fails for the same reason. The magic is so busy and upfront that it has no time to settle and surround us.) Thus, we have TREE OF LIFE by Malick and Lars Von Trier’s idiot fantasy-spectacles jam-packed with high-intensity ‘wonders’ when, in truth, they’re all blunders in too-much-ness. Malick actually conveyed more mystery, meaning, and poetry with his earlier films than with his exercises in excess. And Bunuel, with far less technological gizmo at his disposal, was a much greater satirical artist and poet than the worthless von Trier. But don’t tell this to a generation weaned on MTV that wants even art films to look like music videos. Poetics doesn’t work by packing more and more; it’s about careful selection and combination. But with so much gimcrack technology now at the disposal of filmmakers, there’s the temptation to keep adding stuff just to show off what-is-now-possible. Scorsese too falters when he employs CGI and other gimcrack movie technology in films like AVIATOR and SHUTTER ISLAND, which could have done without the computer-generated dream sequences.

Anyway, the unicorn-dream, if indeed implanted in Deckard’s mind, finally becomes a de-programming device; he realizes he may have been thinking and behaving according to the dictates of his programming than out of free will; he’s not just one of the ‘little people’ forced to do a job but programmed to do the job. Hence, in the dangerous days before him that may be numbered, he must try to live as a ‘free’ man. (Though it appears that Gaff lets Deckard — and Rachel — go, maybe it was a way of Gaff notifying Deckard that he must die next. Thus, Gaff might not be sparing Deckard but preparing him for death. After all, Deckard knows the rules of the game: all replicants on Earth must be exterminated. So, Gaff’s unicorn origami may be both a get-out-of-jail card and a death sentence, as if to say, “go run and hide because we’re coming after you.” Deckard is perhaps given a momentary respite because he finished his assignment with Batty and others. Deckard is given another count-to-ten before ‘they’ come after him. If Batty ultimately saved Deckard and left him to live, Gaff could be saving Deckard only to kill later. It could be Gaff is in no hurry since he enjoys the game of the hunt and knows Deckard and Rachel really have no place to hide.) Looking at the unicorn origami is for Deckard like the moment when all the queens are flashed to the brainwashed agent in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. The very thing that was meant to ‘control’ him releases him — but having been released, he knows he’s no longer a blade runner but an exile, the target of other blade runners, a prospect that is both gloomy and glowing: gloomy because he’s marked for death and glowing because he can die with the one he loves — like the guy in the movie THE VANISHING chooses to die ‘with the woman’. Incidentally, maybe Leon and Batty died meaningful ‘love deaths’ too. Supposing Leon loved Zhora, he dies soon after she dies. Ironically, they are killed by the love-pair of Deckard and Rachel. And in the final scene, Batty dies soon after Pris. So, in a way, he also dies with the one he loves. Finally, maybe it’s Deckard’s turn to die with Rachel. (As discussed earlier, one could argue that Deckard isn’t a replicant but, upon examining the unicorn origami, connects it with his dream and wants to think of himself as a replicant in order to feel closer to Rachel. He thus creates his own personal myth. Perhaps, Gaff’s making a paper origami and leaving on the floor was purely a coincidence and had nothing to do with Deckard’s dreams. But it is in the power of man to make connections where such don’t exist for life has no meaning without connections, real or imagined. People find ways to belong to the world and to make the world ‘belong’ to them. Since Deckard has fallen in love with Rachel and wants to save her, he may wish to think of himself as a replicant to justify his devotion. Psychology, social and personal, abhors uncertainty. It’s like we wanna be dry or we wanna be wet — in the shower or in the pool — , but we don’t like to be humid. We would rather be totally wet than feel sticky icky. We prefer one or the other but not the uncertainty in between. Same goes for morality, which is why we prefer to see the world in terms of good vs bad than good-in-bad and bad-in-good. Many Americans once used to see gays as totally bad, but now, many Americans see gays as totally good. BLADE RUNNER failed at the box office for its lack of clear dichotomy between good vs evil. Were the audience suppose to see Batty as villain or hero? Deckard as a spineless lackey or tough guy? Tyrell as visionary genius or greedy tycoon? What is natural, what is artificial? Is L.A. in the movie futuristic or retro? First World or Third World? There were too many confounding ambiguities. Anyway, if Deckard is really human but prefers to see himself as a replicant because he feels a need to belong to something, this is hardly out of the ordinary. Some white people, having lost confidence or pride in their own identity, go out of their way to remake themselves as either allies of people-of-color or even as bogus members of people-of-color, as Elizabeth Warren has done by claiming to be an American Indian. And some white people convert to Judaism and try hard to be even more Jewish than Jews, mainly by becoming rabid supporters of Israel and yammering endlessly about the Holocaust.)

There is a reverse symmetry between Deckard and Rachel, most poignantly suggested through the ‘inverse kiss’ near the end: Upon removing the blanket, Deckard fears she either died or has been ‘retired’, but she stirs to life, and their faces meet inversely to the other. When they kiss, their faces are like overturned reflections. There’s a similar scene in EYES WIDE SHUT when Tom Cruise’s character looks down at the dead woman at the hospital. They are like reverse-symmetries. Like Deckard, Cruise’s character discovers he’s but a toy of the super-powerful, among whom Jews are prominent. Just as Deckard falls in love with Rachel, there’s a hint that Cruise’s character falls in love with the dead woman, who he thinks sacrificed her life as a whore-christ(during Christmas season no less)to save his life. What began as a salacious sexual journey becomes tinted with dark romanticism(but then, the romanticism is rendered sterile under the cold light of the hospital, as if Tom Cruise’s character is yet again denied the moment of fulfilment; the presence of a Negro employee in the room doesn’t help either). The dead high-class whore becomes his angel, and perhaps for a moment, he feels greater lover for her than anyone else, even his family. And it’s through her that Cruise’s character discovers that he too is just a whore. Though officially a successful doctor, he realizes he’s just servant of those with real power and money, and in today’s world, the power is owned by the super-elite Jews for whom the goy, whether doctor or whore, is just a toy. Kubrick was an odd sort of Jew. He could have thrived as a fellow Jew in Hollywood but found American Jews to be a vile and vulgar bunch. Yet, he was also proud of his Jewish intelligence and his perverse insight into the relational nature between profundity and profanity. He valued goyim for beauty and strength than for intelligence. He moved to U.K. and married an ‘Aryan’ woman, yet he still cunningly maintained a relation with Hollywood so as to find funding for his films. In a way, he shared the Jewish contempt for goyim and saw/treated goyim as his private toys on movie sets. He treated Cruise and Kidman as a Jewish porn king treated his studs and sluts. But he was also an intellectual who sought to understand his own obsessions about the world. His ‘exile’ in U.K. was partly to save himself from the influence of Hollywood but also to save the world from his own mad obsessions for he worked on his films like Oppenheimer worked on the Manhattan Project.

Though Rachel is a replicant and Deckard is human — or so they think — , odd vibes exist between them in the apartment scene(after the deaths of Zhora and Leon). They both have the ‘shakes’, suggesting either a growing emotional bond, shared anxieties, or the possibility that Deckard is a replicant too. We all have shakes sometimes, but maybe replicants have a special kind of shake. When Leon is given the Voight-Kampff test in the opening scene and he grows angry, we hear weird electronic sounds — as if a spring is going loose in his head or the circuits are frying up — conveying his unnerved mental state. Despite their complex designs and programming, it could be that replicants have yet to be tweaked and debugged in their emotional responses. When overly excited, they turn psychotic like Leon or have bad shakes, like Rachel and especially Deckard. As Deckard pours a drink and cleans himself, we again hear strange electronic buzzes that sound like low-level signals exchanged between Rachel and Deckard. Though unawares consciously, could Rachel and Deckard be picking up on each other’s signals on some intuitive level? Rachel believes Deckard to be human, but maybe a part of her detects, however faintly, that he is also a replicant. And Deckard thinks himself to be human and Rachel to be a replicant, but he may also sense, in some hidden corner of his ‘soul’, that he and she are of the same kind.

In its theatrical release, many critics praised the special effects but complained of the movie’s failure to engage human emotions, but in retrospect, it could have been the abundance of emotions that perplexed and turned off the critics. Paradoxically, the critics couldn’t see or sense the emotion because it was all around them. It’s like person becomes unaware of the scents in the room. This could have been especially true with BLADE RUNNER because its emotions were conveyed in mood than in action. We generally associate human emotions with personalities and dramatics — Brando in ON THE WATERFRONT for example. But human emotions or the human element — maybe better called ‘human essence’ — don’t have to be ‘acted out’ or hog the stage to be real. It can be suggested and intimated; it can gradually permeate the space around the characters. This is what Wong Kar-Wai strived for with IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, a romance where emotions and desire are expressed through glances and gestures. It was also the favored approach of Max Ophuls, perhaps most famously in his masterpiece EARRINGS OF MADAME DU. (Personally, I’ve never been able to sit through Wong’s IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE. Its perfumed romanticism is more like novocaine, more anesthetic than aesthetic. Also, I didn’t find the characters’ looks particularly appealing as romantic objects, and the sound of Shanhaiese-Chinese, no matter how artfully spoken, added fart odor to the heavily perfumed air; it was like the twing-twanging of a Jew’s Harp in a fanciful sonata. Trying to make Shanghaiese sound beautiful is like trying to make shit smell good, Barbra Streisand look attractive, George W. Bush sound intelligent, or Mike Tyson appear sane. It’s one of those futile things in life.) Just like the electronic buzz between Rachel and Deckard, the human essesnce is pervasive in BLADE RUNNER, but it’s more in the air than in the action. We have to tune into it’s wavelengths. Miss the wavelength and we miss it altogether even as it fills up the entire screen. Because Ford and Young were told not to ACT OUT their emotions, the human essence emanates from and around them like neon or the glowing of fireflies.

As Deckard & Rachel and Sebastian & Pris form separate pairs, another parallel comes into view: one between Deckard and Sebastian. Following the scene where Deckard slumbers into his dream zone oblivious to Rachel’s presence in the room, we get a scene where Sebastian, with eyes closed, dozes/drifts into his own private space while Pris plays in the room. Both are human and offer refuge to replicants. But Deckard gains power over Rachel. Though she may actually be stronger than him for all we know — after all, replicants are said to be uber-strong, though maybe in her case, she made with only normal strength, which is also true of Deckard if he is indeed a replicant — , he exerts his cultural-male dominance over her in the love scene, to which she submits. It’s like a goddess is more powerful than a man but may, so as to play and enjoy the game of sexuality, willfully submit to a man. The second story in KWIDAN by Masaki Kobayashi is about a demon-goddess who spares a man’s life and then turns herself into a semblance of an ordinary woman to marry and serve the man. There is a duality to human/animal nature, the desire for power and desire to submit to power. Since God and gods are partly a projection of the human ego, we see this trait in deities too. Thus, God wants to both rule mankind and serve mankind. Judaism sprouted Christianity that said God appeared in the form of Man to serve man and to be killed by man. Thus, even God, perhaps lonely with all that power, wants to be put Himself in a situation where He would be of service to others. (Even in Judaism, the almighty God seems to care very much about the Jews. Though Jews must bow down to Him, He ensures that the universe He created will be amenable to the Jews. He serves the Jews as much as the Jews serve Him.) Similarly, even though one side of male nature wanted to lord over women and show off its muscles, another side knelt before feminine grace and beauty, at least in the Western tradition that combined the worship of beauty via the Greeks and the worship of the higher God via Christianity; thus feminine beauty became a kind of spiritualized essence and was even desexualized and gave birth to the colorless, waif-like, and dainty ideal; Aphrodite was purged from the Western Christian ideal of womanhood, and this emptiness may explain why so many white women later filled the sensual vacuum with the skank goddess of Afrojivete.
In a way, ostensibly mighty masculine Nazism was really more a female cult than a male one. ‘Aryan’ men had to be super-tough and strong in order to make the world safe for female ‘Aryan’ beauty. They had to give their lives and limbs on the battlefield in the name of beauty, and of course, females comprise the fairer sex. The sexual dynamic is strange, even perverse, in BLADE RUNNER because even as masculine Deckard imposes his male-human dominance over Rachel’s femininity — and she responds with female human emotions — , in pure physical-power terms, she might be ‘masculine’ than him in physical power. Anyway, Deckard is ultimately different from Sebastian because he has the wherewithal to play the alpha male in relation to Rachel whereas Sebastian is a born beta-male; for all his smarts, he’s tricked by Pris into letting her into his place and heart.

There’s also a certain parallel between Leon and Batty. Both are big ‘men’ of immense power. But if Leon appears emotionally limited, there’s a poetic/romantic side to Batty. Each asks the same question to Deckard just before killing him: “Terrible to live in fear, isn’t it?” Both are ruthless and even cruel. Leon tries to insert his fingers into Deckard’s eyes, and Batty kills Tyrell by stabbing his thumbs into his eyes. Lacking biographical memories that lend shape to one’s soul — the matter of the heart — , it’s as if replicants see the eyes as core of existence. To a child, everything he sees is fresh and fascinating. Replicants have adult intellect but children’s eyes. Their life-spans aren’t long enough for them to develop ‘souls’, but from the very first moment they are mesmerized by the images of the world. We generally think of the heart as the center of the soul, and in literature, the most meaningful kind of death, for good or ill, is a stab to the heart — like when Juliet stabs her heart after finding Romeo dead. But replicants, having no soul as we understand it, see the eyes as the core organ of being. So, Batty doesn’t driven his iron fist into Tyrell’s heart but into his eyes.
With Batty on his tail, Deckard thinks it’s trouble-with-Leon-redux. Leon, after finding Zhora killed by Deckard, beat him up to a pulp and tried to gouge his eyes out. Since Batty found Pris killed by Deckard, just imagine what he might to do Deckard — maybe gouge his eyes out, tear off his ears, and break him limb to limb. Yet, Deckard senses something weird about Batty. Instead of killing Deckard right away, Batty toys with him like a mouse. Is he being cruel or is he just crazy? At any rate, the remarkable development at the end is Batty’s overcoming his own programming. He was designed to be a killer, ruthless and heartless. Yet, against the odds, one might say he gains a heart or grows one from within, even if it beats for only a few second before his death. (He gains a heart for a meaningful death than for a longer life.) In WIZARD OF OZ, Tin Man lacks a human heart but discovers he has ‘heart’ after all. Batty wasn’t programmed to have a heart but gains something like a human heart in his final moment. (Ironically, Batty’s looming death initially made him more heartless and cruel in his desperation to find a cure, but his later acceptance of death makes him more human. Throughout the movie, neither humans nor replicants come across as very human in the positive sympathetic sense. Rich and powerful Tyrell dwells in his own world, and most people below scrounge around like rats to make a living. And replicants are heartless killers who’ll do anything to survive. No one has a heart in this world. The only ones who develop something like a heart are Rachel and Batty, and Deckard. What Rachel and Batty had in common was the initial hope against hope, a.k.a denial, followed by acceptance of the cross they must bear; it is this acceptance that makes their hearts grow. Batty couldn’t face death. Equipped with godly intelligence and powers, he wanted to be immortal. He wanted the cure to live forever. He’s like a cancer victim in denial, raging between fury and euphoria. But once he accepts the inevitable, he finds a degree of inner-peace and through that inner-peace makes peace with the world. He had visions of being the master of the world, especially having seen “things you people wouldn’t believe”, but finally accepts the world as his master. In a way, it’s natural for us to feel that the world belongs to us than vice versa. Though we know that the world is infinitely vaster than any one of us, the world is known through the senses of each person, and so we tend to conflate our consciousness, our senses, and our memories with the world itself. The fear of dying is not only about the end of one’s life but the end of the world. Though we know that the world will go on without us, some part of us fears that the world will die with us. The magnificent things Batty saw in outer-space will exist without him, but he feels they will all vanish along with him. Having seen what he saw, he thought his vision of the world is equal or greater to the world itself. Man’s need to express himself through art could be to preserve his vision of the world for ‘eternity’; even if he himself cannot escape death, the world he beheld through his mind and senses shall be saved and be forever. Rachel too was initially in denial. She was a member of the upper echelon of society, one of the few people fortunately privileged to work for Tyrell. And she has beautiful memories of her mother and childhood. She had it all. But as Tyrell tells Deckard, a cancer of suspicion was beginning to grow in her, and she began to have moments of doubts. But she remained in denial and maintained her haughty pride of being one of the superior people. She even goes to Deckard’s apartment to prove she is what she is, a human and not a replicant. But when Deckard tells her the truth — like a doctor spilling the beans on an incurable cancer — , Rachel knows that the life she’d known is marked for death. Her initial reaction is bitterness, but the eventual acceptance makes her more human. It’s as if one has to fall from ‘grace’, suffer, and accept the sufferance to attain what it means to be human.) This aspect of BLADE RUNNER is somewhat Christian. Christian preachers say even the worst sinners may gain entry into Heaven if they, even at the final moment of their lives, accept the grace of Jesus. Quality of faith is more important than the quantity of deeds. Thus, one can say, Batty, though programmed to be a soulless killer, discovered within himself the miraculous grace that could ‘redeem’ him.

To some extent, Rachel, Batty, and Deckard(if he’s a replicant)overcome their programming. Rachel, programmed to be Tyrell’s gangster moll, blooms into a classic goddess lover. She goes from high-class corporate prostitute to love goddess. Batty, programmed to kill and destroy, finds within himself the heart to spare an enemy, a blade runner no less. And Deckard — thanks to Rachel’s love, Batty’s nobility, and Gaff’s unicorn origami — realizes something about himself and sees/feels the world through new eyes/heart.
Batty’s gaining of a ‘soul’ may owe something to identification and empathy. It’s been said that psychopaths are incapable of feeling for others and only care about themselves. Replicants are essentially psychopathic. Having no biographical memories, they only know the self and the world around the self. They are made even more psychopathic by having to work as ‘slaves’ under humans. They’re psychologically created to be self-centered, yet they’re forced to serve under the authority of others. Thus, they are doubly psychopathic: each replicant sees himself as the center of the world but also finds himself oppressed by the world. They have tyrant-slave mentalities, both immensely egotistical and intensely resentful.
Though Rachel discovers her memories aren’t hers, they still ground her in biographical and emotional attachments, with feelings for people other than herself. Even if the book of her life tells a false story, it instilled her with real emotions — just like fictional novels can really affect the way we see and feel about the world. The other replicants have no such biographical ‘books’ in their memory banks, and so they’re devoid of empathy/sympathy. Since the gang of replicants in BLADE RUNNER rely on one another, they can be said to be concerned for one another. Leon, for example, is angered by the death of Zhora and tries to kill Deckard. But this kind of camaraderie — the sort found among men on the same sports team — is about common interest than real love or affection. It’s possible that Batty turns out to be different because he’s the oldest. Nearing his four yr span, he’s seen more than others. Though his memory only goes back 4 yrs, it may have been sufficient for him to gain a deeper perspective — even if only in the last moments of his life. Indeed, his reaction to Pris’s death is different from Leon’s to Zhora’s death. Leon was mostly angry, but Batty sheds tears for Pris and howls in pain. And ironically, he may come to empathize with a blade runner, the killer of replicants, because it turns out Batty and Deckard have something in common; they are both desperately trying to remain one step ahead of death. Deckard is running from Batty who comes closer and closer. Batty is running from death as his system begins to close down on him. Deckard has broken fingers, and Batty’s hand cramps into stiffness. Thus, Batty sort of comes to see himself in Deckard. There is a kind of identification. Deckard’s fear and desperation merge with Batty’s. Death will not spare Batty, but Batty decides to spare Deckard. There’s something similar in Peckinpah’s MAJOR DUNDEE. Tyreen(Richard Harris) and Dundee(Heston) are very different men, and Tyreen has sworn to kill Dundee in a proper duel when the time is right. But in their final battle against the French, Tyreen comes to identify with Dundee on some level as a fellow crazy romantic lunatic, and Tyreen sacrifices his life so that Dundee and others might live. But like Batty, Tyreen proves himself to be the bigger man through his heroism and death.

One of the strangest things about BLADE RUNNER is the sense that even as Earth is forbidden to replicants, replicants are taking over the world. (‘Zhora’ is a Russian name meaning ‘server of the Earth.) Indeed paradoxically, replicants could be taking over the world because they’re forbidden in the world. There are two kinds of power: brazen and furtive. Batty and his fellow replicants were doomed to fail since their rebellion was brazen. But, what if replicants are beginning take over the system from within the Tyrell corporation? In the original treatment of the screenplay, the man Batty kills turns out to be a robot and not the real Tyrell. Batty climbs up to the next floor and finds the real Tyrell dead/frozen in hibernation. Thus, the Tyrell he killed was a replicant of Tyrell. And if Tyrell could be replicated, how many are there? The movie begins with a blade runner(someone other than Deckard) trying to ferret out a replicant(Leon), but later it’s suggested that Deckard may be a replicant. The very person who goes after replicants is a replicant himself — and doesn’t even know it. And though replicants are supposed to have 4 yr life-spans, Rachel seems to live beyond it. Was Tyrell working on longer-living replicants? And she too didn’t know she was a replicant until Deckard told him — though Tyrell tells Deckard that she’s ‘beginning to suspect’. It’s like a gay person raised to be straight beginning to feel funny about himself/herself while remaining in the closet. Rachel and Deckard, upon realizing they are replicants, become closet-replicants. Though humanity, in its fear of replicants, has banned them from Earth and though Tyrell seems to play along with(and even endorses and supports)such policy, Tyrell is a two-faced operator. He secretly creates another class of replicants to live on Earth and work among human beings. Rachel is such a replicant. And Deckard could be one too. Officially, Tyrell makes replicants for Off-world colonies, but secretively he also makes them for the human world. If this process continues, there may be more and more ‘more human than human’ replicants taking their places in the world, especially in elite positions, especially since why would Tyrell corporation go to such trouble and spend so much money to create replicants to be bums or dummies? No, replicants are designed to be superior, to carry out more demanding tasks. Tyrell the human — if indeed he is human — seeks to maintain his control over his creations, but if replicants take over more and more positions of importance in the elite hierarchy — as Tyrell’s abilities fade with age — , might they not eventually take power over him? And even if humans outnumber replicants, if the latter were to control most of elite positions, might the replicants not pretty much rule society. The original screenwriter for BLADE RUNNER — initially called DANGEROUS DAYS — was the homosexual Jew Hampton Fancher. Being a fruiter and a Jew, he might have identified with the closeted replicants. Indeed, one of the reason why Jews and gays gained great power was because they had to remain in the closet or keep mum for so long. Though this is no longer the case in our world of Tolerance and Diversity, this secretness is still part of the Jewish outlook. And even as gays come out of the closet, they keep certain aspects of gayness in the closet. For example, gays want us to associate gayness with rainbow colors, clean-cut professionals, friendly neighborliness, and noble victim-hood. What has remained largely in the closet is the utter grossness of ‘gay sex’ where guys suck other guys’ penises, squeeze the other guys’ balls, and stick their sexual organs into the fecal holes of other men. For mainstream consumption, gayness has been de-sexualized and culturalized into something ‘non-threatening’ and ‘respectable’. In most movies and TV shows, you’d never think gays stick their penises into fecal tunnels of other men. We are shown guys cutely kissing guys — which is gross enough — , but it rarely goes beyond that. Any sensible person knows that something like ‘gay marriage’ — made more respectable-sounding with ‘same-sex marriage’ — not only makes no sense but is morally offensive. But don’t expect much in the way of morality from selfish, vain, and shallow gays. And don’t expect Americans and Europeans corrupted by rotten popular culture and brainwashed by politically correct dogma to see the gay agenda for what it is. We don’t even have honest and vibrant decadence anymore. In the past, decadence stood against and apart from moral and social norms. In its violation of respectableness, it earned a measure of liberating thrill and excitement. Today, decadence has been moralized while true morality has come to be ostracized. Thus, supporting ‘gay marriage’ is the new morality and decency while defending true marriage is ‘phobic’, ‘odious’, ‘toxic’, ‘noxious’, and ‘divisive’. Even conservatives remain mum about the filth of the gay agenda. The concept of ‘same sex marriage’ is ludicrous. Indeed, ‘same sex’ is not real sex. Sex is like electricity. You need the positive charge and the negative charge to create the spark. Man and woman were designed to fit like two pieces of a puzzle. This is why the image of John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara makes classic sense. But imagine John Wayne and Gary Cooper kissing. That’d be so gay. The man’s penis and woman’s vagina go together. But when one naked man hugs another naked man, you got two penises jutting into one another. A penis cannot enter a penis, and so what do gay men do? They stick their penises into the fecal holes of other men. I mean how gay is that? It’s ‘faggoty’ and maggoty. ‘Same sex marriage’ is like ‘same charge electricity’. It’s bogus. The fact that our society is putting ‘gay marriage’ on the same pedestal as real marriage and calling it moral progress is pukeville. If gays had any decency, they would admit they are strange and accept their sexual weirdness. Sure, they have a right to be left alone and not be harassed or bullied. But for gays to insist that their sexuality has the same value as true sexuality shows how shallow, selfish, vain, and whoopity-doo they are. Many gays may be intelligent and creative, but they lack emotional depth. But then, this is to be expected. Much of human emotion is rooted in sexual feelings, and there simply isn’t much emotional depth to gay sexuality. Indeed, if some gay artists in the past were emotionally complex and deep, it was because they had to hide or bury their gayness and ask through their art — even if subtly or secretly — why they had such strange feelings. Thus, Marcel Proust had to ponder his gayness through his imagination of normal sexuality. Thus, emotions became layered and complex. But if Proust could just say, “I’m gay and wanna suck cocks and fuc* bungholes of other men”, what kind of emotion is that? Gay emotions reach depth and beauty when they grapple with the problems of gayness. In a way, this is true of all emotions to some extent. Even normal sexual emotions must be repressed and romanticized in some way to gain beauty and richness; otherwise, it would just be pornographic, with guys saying “I wanna dickslap you, ho”, and girls saying, “look at my humpity-humping ass, big boy.” Direct sexuality is mere animalism. For there to be romance, a degree of repression is a prerequisite. There has to be obstacles to lust for one to dream of love, for one to find tragedy as well as happiness in love. Gay sexuality can be romantic, but here’s the problem: When normal sexual romance is finally consummated, it’s beautiful and meaningful. But when gay sexual romance is finally consummated, it’s just ugly and putrid, what with a guy’s penis entering another guy’s fecal hole. It’s less a fulfilment of romance than its betrayal. At the end of the tunnel of normal romance is the light. At the end of the tunnel of gay romance is shit, and I literally mean shit. What sane guy wants another man’s penis up his bunghole? What sane guy wants to stick his sexual organ into a hole designed by nature for shitting? Lesbian sex isn’t physically gross but still ridiculous and trite. There’s no real romance between lesbians. Lesbian lovers are more like sexual friends than sexual romantics. There’s something drab about lesbianism. It is like same-charge electricity, which offers no real juice and no spark. You have two women with holes trying to fuc* one another. How ridiculous is that? It’s like a baseball game where the pitcher too is a catcher. So, you got the catcher on the mound and a catcher at home base. Who has the ball and who’s gonna pitch it? Ridiculous.

Brazen power has a way of burning out. This is illustrated in Nicholas Roeg’s EUREKA where some Anglo-American guy(Gene Hackman) strikes it rich but eventually loses his way. Compare him to the secretively gangster-like Jew played by Joe Pesci. In the end cowboys lose to gangsters, and maverick gangsters lose to organized gangsters. Thus, the oppression of Jews was both a curse and a blessing to Jewish power. Because Jews weren’t allowed to wield brazen power — and didn’t have the numbers to gain majority power — over the centuries, Jews came to excel at furtive and secretive power. Since they had to keep their heads low and serve gentile elites, Jews-with-power(sometimes as converts to Christianity) even aided and abetted the gentile oppression of Jews. Though gentiles at all level distrusted Jews, the elites prized Jewish intelligence, skills, and diligence. Jews couldn’t be trusted as a people, but their talents were trustworthy in getting things done. A Jew was more likely to do something well than some drunken goy peasant or snot-nosed goy aristocrat. The goy peasant was too crude and uneducated. The aristocrat, whose station in life was secured by inheritance, might be cultured but lazy; also, despite his snotty manners absorbed from his social milieu, he could still be a dummy like the James Fox character in THE SERVANT. Jews, in contrast, had proven their dogged worth through millennia of survival, craftiness, cleverness, brilliance, determination, and wisdom. Jews knew how to tend to the goose that laid the golden eggs. But the goy elites sensed, correctly, that Jews would try to stash away many of the golden eggs for themselves. From the Jewish viewpoint, this was only fair since they did much of the hard work when it came to running banks/businesses and collecting taxes in goy society. Today, ‘affirmative action’ forces white businessmen to take on black partners for city contracts. In the past, Jews had to find and work with goy elite partners to win business opportunities. As with the white/black partnership, one side did most of the work while the other side got undue equal credit and profits. Thus, Jews did most of the work while white goy elites took a big chunk of the pie. This filled Jews with a lot of resentment, but they knew they could not brazenly rebel against goyim and take power. Thus, Jews gradually perfected their skills of furtive power. By keeping their heads low and by lurking in the shadows of power, they came to gradually gain control of the levers of power from inside the Castle. Similarly, gays had to keep their heads low as homosexuality was considered wicked and perverted by society. Some degree of gayness was overlooked and tolerated in elite circles, but gays were expected to keep it discreet. Among the Western elites, immorality such as homosexuality and especially adultery could be overlooked and forgiven — even within the Church — as long as appearances were maintained. To the elites, uncouthness was more dire than immorality. One could be immoral — within bounds — as long as one was careful enough to maintain the facade of dignified respectability. Thus, the rich people in BARRY LYNDON know Lyndon is an upstart scoundrel but tolerate him and even groom him as a prospective member of the inner-circle AS LONG AS he has a lot of wealth and plays by the Rules of the Game. But when he loses his hot Irish head and pummels his step-son nearly half to death in front of his guests, he is shunned by everyone. Jews love to point out the hypocrisy of gentile elites, but as the saying goes, ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same’. Today, Jewish hypocrisy is outrageous, and there’s Jewish corruption all around. But Jews overlook, tolerate, and forgive it as long as the facade of political correctness is maintained. So, we went from Correct Politeness to Political Correctness. There are lots of Jews and elite liberals who know the truth about races and racial differences, but if you wanna remain in the inner circle of the elite sphere, you must play by the Rules of the Game. What may be discussed privately or in academic jargon indecipherable to the layman cannot be said publicly in plain English. So, James Watson could hold certain views about race AS LONG AS he didn’t go public with it. So, one can be somewhat critical of Israel and Jewish power, but one must not be so ‘uncouth’ as to go public with it. And increasingly, one has to be pro-gay-agenda in order to have any chance at making big money or gaining big power. Though many people know the truth about the real MLK the dirty punk jigger-jiver, anyone who wishes to keep his job and make the social climb must pretend that MLK was the greatest thing since sliced watermelon. MLK cult is a religion that must be observed.

As with Jews, gays were prized by the goy elites for special talents. If Jews were good with money, analysis, and organization, gays were good at creativity, design, and the finer things that the aristocrats prized highly. During the Renaissance, many of the great artworks were created by gays or bi-sexuals. Sometimes, the homosexuality was kept hidden; other times, the rich patrons and sponsors knew that their favorite artists, dressmakers, and scribes were gay but protected them as creative golden gooses — similarly, some Nazi elites spared talented Jews with special skills. Talent has often been the ticket out of prison. And there were, of course, rich gay patrons. Since they were less involved in family affairs and more driven by strange emotional/sexual feelings, they were more likely to play the game of power as an outlet for their excess energies. To be sure, even elites who were gay in the past were sincerely anti-gay. Almost all people in the past, even gays, thought there was something wrong, shameful, and immoral about homosexuality. Thus, a gay elite might indulge secretly in gay affairs and then get on his knees before God and beg forgiveness for his perverted deeds. Even so, such people over time created an inner-sanctum at elite levels for the ‘outsiders’. Over time, the number of ‘outsider-insiders’ increased. Since gays couldn’t find happiness in family life like most people, they assuaged their frustration through spirituality and power-lust. Filled with shame and weight of sin, they entered the Church to be purified of their sick gayness, but of course, their gay lust didn’t go away. Even so, the Church gradually became a haven for closet-gay power. It’s like communists Jews rejected Jewishness and were hostile to Judaism, BUT they still comprised a mighty form of Jewish power in the new Marxist order. Though anti-Jewish, Jewish communists won Soviet Union for the Jews(at least until Stalin gradually began to reverse things). Similarly, though gay clergy were officially and even sincerely anti-gay, the Church became a haven for increasing gay power. If some people joined the Church for respect and piousness, others — like gays — joined because they couldn’t find firm footing in the world of men. Gay men couldn’t succeed as real men, and so Church was their haven from the real world. Though officially/consciously hostile to homosexuality, the gradual swelling of gays in the Church would finally lead to a day when gay clergy came out of the closet and turned the Church into a gay enterprise. Mainline Churches in America are now bastions of gayness, and the Catholic Church cannot be far behind.
Even so, due to the nature of religion and its tradition, it’s not been easy for gays to steer all Churches to the notion that Jesus died on the Cross so that gays could ‘marry’. But in other spheres, gays, along with Jews, have totally taken over. Though gays and Jews complain about how they’d been oppressed and suppressed for so long, their great power today owes to the fact that they’d been suppressed. Unable to be brazen with power, no group perfected the art of furtive/secretive power more than Jews and gays. It’s like gays talk about gaydar, a sixth sense to spot other gays in the crowd. (On the other hand, I’m not homo but I can spot a fruiter from a mile away. There’s always something whoopsy-poo-ness among gays. Lesbians tend to be a dull bunch, but gay men act colorful. Gay women act drab. It’s no wonder gay men are far more powerful, rich, and prominent than gay women.) Because they remained under the radar for so long, their power grew and spread secretly far and wide. They came to infect society. There is some of this in Asimov’s ROBOT STORIES as well, though I only read one of them; technology reaches a point to where it’s difficult to tell who is robot and who isn’t. Asimov clearly sides with the robots and presents the mob opposed to the robotic takeover of society as right-wing goyim with pitchforks. Robots, in exemplifying the unity of science/technology with morality/laws, are supposed to be Jew-like, a notion shared by Kubrick/Spielberg’s A.I., which even has a Robocaust scene. There are many kinds of robots in science fiction. The Terminator and Robocop(a sort of organic robot) are designed to be mindless killing machines, for good or ill. But there’s another kind of robot, one with artificial intelligence higher than man’s. Such robot is supposed to be not only technologically awesome but intellectually super-Jewish-like. Jews have long had superior brains but inferior bodies. Through science fiction, Jewish writers such as Isaac Asimov have been able to imagine the meldling of the great Jewish intellect with the perfect body. One major difference between the Jew-mind and the gay-mind involves the matter of wisdom(or lack thereof). Jewish mind is said to be wise, not only brilliant but steeped in great tradition and history. In a way, Jews are both the most secretive and the most open people. They’ve been secretive in their financial and political rise to power. But once the Old Testament(along with the New Testament) came to serve as the official spiritual book for all Western peoples; Jewish culture and history came to be universally accepted through Europe. Indeed, the once-pagan folks of Europe exterminated their own indigenous cultures and came to trace their own ancestry to the tribes of the Old Testament. Thus, while one side of Jewish history is secretive and conspiratorial, the other side has been one of open, shared, and much articulated pride. Jews had to be secretive in their search for power and wealth, but they could be open with their wise ruminations about God and their spiritual tradition. Thus, the Jewishy intelligence in Asimov’s FOUNDATION is, at once, secretive and open. It holds the secret knowledge — prophecy of the future — that only a few can understand, but it is also the profound knowledge to guide the course of human history; it is something of great shared pride — even if only in elite circles. In contrast, gay history has been secretive in almost every manner in every society throughout history, the only notable exception being certain city-states of Ancient Greece. While gayness was tolerated in some pagan civilizations, it wasn’t associated with pride, glory, wisdom, and etc. A Jew could be economically reviled as a Jew but respected as a spiritual Jew. In contrast, there was no honor to being gay. And even in Ancient Greece where gays were relatively free, there were frequent moral injunctions and backlashes against overt gay behavior. Also, Greek gay sexuality came with a lot of rules and were grounded in social customs, especially among the Spartans. It wasn’t the kind of ‘free gay lifestyle’ we see today. If Judaism was deeply moralistic and spiritual, what could be thought to be wise or moral about wanting to stick one’s penis into a fecal hole of another man? What was so ethically meaningful about lesbianism? Since gayness was morally and spiritually indefensible — and biologically nonsensical — , gayness never attained the depth and meaning of Jewish culture. Jewish culture was a philosophy of life: what created life in the beginning and how life continues to be created, what maintains life, what are the essentials of life, what are the moral values that serve life and give rise to a spiritual community, etc. Take the story of Noah where God gives an order to load the ship with male/female pairs of all animals. (When Noah was greeted with the rainbow as he stepped out of the ark, God was blessing him and the heterosexual pairs of life stored in the ship that would multiply and populate the world anew. Thus, the rainbow in the Bible is the symbol of male/female love and fecundity, the proper kind of love that sustains life. But in our currently decadent culture, the rainbow has been conflated with gay sexuality that produces no life and is perverse and/or ridiculous to boot. Given that even gays are the product of heterosexuality or real sex, one would think gays would show respect to the biological forces that gave life to them. But gays are vain and selfish, and so they have, with the help of the Jewish-controlled media, laid claim to the very symbol of the true meaning of life in the Biblical story. Even without literally believing in the story of Noah’s Ark, we know it carries a profound truth: that not everything is equal and that some truths are higher than others. Imagine if Noah, under the pressure of the gay lobby, had taken on gay pairs of animals. Though the Bible is indeed morally intolerant and thus cannot serve as the letter of law for modern society, its emphasis on the core truths of life and morality is something mankind should take lightly. Historically, the problem is Judaism gave birth to Christianity, which became the core faith and value system of Western gentiles. Thus, the core truths of the Bible came to the core truths of white gentiles. Since the emphasis on Core Truth among white gentiles implies not only the conviction that some moral truths are higher than others but also the notion that some groups — especially the majority population and its culture — are more important than others, Jews are currently trying to undermine any notion of Core Truth; or, Jews are trying to reverse/revise the idea of Core Truth into that which belongs with minority or alien forces than with the majority. Thus, Jews and gays are promoted as more core-istically American than the white majority of America are, as if the Outer is the new Inner. And illegal aliens are presented as more American than legal white Americans whose ancestry go back centuries. With Emma Lazarus-ism elevated to the high doctrine of Americanism, the ‘wretched and huddled masses’ around the world have come to be seen as more American than the Americans who’d long settled in America. Just as Lazarus was raised from the dead by Jesus, Jews see Emma-Lazarus-ism as the narrative of how the ‘dying’ Jews in Europe were raised anew by America.) Consider the covenant where God tells Abraham to cut off the foreskin on the sexual organ that has the power to create life. Judaism is essentially a spiritual morality centered around life, and is thus a moralization of sexuality and inner-workings of biology, which is why it is the most anti-gay religion the world has ever seen. There is no such wisdom about life in gay culture since gayness cannot produce life and is literally a pain in the ass. Judaism emphasizes the links between the inner-depth of biological reality and the outer-surface of social reality, i.e. the world of men and women — in all its beauty, wonder, and complexity — exists because the fluids of men mix with the fluids of women deep inside. In contrast, there can be no link between the depth and surface in the gay world-view. The gay use of bodily fluids in the depths of their bodies cannot produce life. Gay ‘morality’ is anti-life. Thus, gay culture is superficial and surface-obsessed. It’s no wonder that the gay writer Yukio Mishima cared everything for surface beauty but had no feeling whatsoever for the soul. In BLACK LIZARD, a gay character rhapsodizes about a diamond crystal: beautifully transparent whereby the outside and inside are one. Judaism is the spiritualization of the inner-reality that produces life; there’s a sense of a deeper reality beneath the surface reality. Gay paganism is the fetishization of outer-beauty as myth. Hellenic-crazy Mishima’s ‘spirituality’ was about beauty itself than the thing under or behind the beauty, i.e. beauty itself was the only thing worth worshiping. If Jews erred on the side of over-emphasizing inner-reality to the point where they become hostile to surface beauty, gay pagans like Mishima erred on the side of denying the meaning of what lay beneath the vanity of beauty. Thus, the manner in which Mishima died was somehow fitting as a rude awakening. Mishima was so obsessed with the perfect outer forms of beauty, grace, and honor that he thought he could overcome the pain of what lay underneath the beauty of muscle and flesh, but as the blade ripped through his intestines, he felt the inner-reality of gruesome pain and he lost his ‘dignified’ pose. (Given that Nazism was a cult obsessed with surface physical beauty, it was very much in tradition of ‘gay paganism’ going all the way back to the Greeks. It was the gayest ideology the world’s ever seen, which is all the more ironic for being one of the most anti-gay ideologies ever. But paradoxically, it could have been so anti-gay because it was so gay. If Hitler was to use National Socialism as a mass ideology for all ‘Aryans’, he had to ensure it wouldn’t be just a narrow gayish cult or perceived as such by most people. Though the S.A. led by Ernst Rohm and his gay cohorts played a crucial role in the rise of the Nazis, their gayness also tainted the movement in the eyes of mainstream people and also threatened to turn Nazism into a laughingstock in the eyes of the world. Indeed, German communists loved to ridicule the Nazis as a bunch of fruits. So, just as Obama had to throw Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright under the bus — because he was TOO CLOSE to them — , it’s possible that Hitler had to clamp down hard on gays precisely because Nazism was too closely associated with gayness. Hitler needed the support of German conservatives and respectable bourgeoisie in order to gain power, and so he didn’t want to be associated with a gang of bohemian gay street thugs. Hitler also needed German men and women to have lots of kids to settle the empire in the East. He needed fecundity and morality that encouraged family life, but individual-narcissistic gay culture/sensibility stood as an obstacle. Hitler was for racial and communal narcissism built around men AND women, not individual narcissism to prevalent among gays. In a way, Hitler was like a gay-Jewish white nationalist. He was gay in the sense of being obsessed with surface beauty. The main underpinning of his ideology of racial superiority was the beauty of the ‘Aryans’, especially in contrast the hook-nosed and rubbery-lipped Jews. Hitler was obsessed with art, architecture, and other expressions of artificial beauty. He hated modern art that divorced creativity from beauty. But if gays, in their decadence, were content to wallow in their world of artificial cult of beauty, Hitler had an obsessive Jewishy fascination with history. He was obsessed not only with beauty but longevity, and though he hated Jews, he also admired their ability to survive for so long. Surface beauty doesn’t begat beauty. Paintings don’t create paintings, and sculptures don’t create sculptures. And art doesn’t create artists that produce sculptures and paintings. No, artists are produced from the penises and poons of men and women. Jews survived for so long because Jewish penis essentially stuck to the Jewish poon, because the Jews wove an entire spiritual ideology around blood and tribal sexuality. And so, Hitler didn’t just obsess about ‘Aryan’ beauty but about the deeper inner-genetic reality that gave birth to ‘Aryan’ beauty. This was the ‘deep’ side of National Socialism. It understood that Western art and beauty didn’t just spring from culture but from biology. This powerful link between inner-reality and outer-reality is the Jewishy side of Nazism. Anyway, given the gay side of Nazism, it’s ironic that Jews and gays have forged such a close alliance in today’s culture. Perhaps, today’s Jews understand not only the strengths of the Jewish world-view but also its failings, i.e. that Jews, throughout history, had been too anti-beauty and anti-surface. In their over-emphasis on inner-biology and inner-soul, they missed out on too many wonders of surface reality and all the power that could be accrued through them. Thus, by forming an alliance with surface-obsessed gays, Jews have gained an appreciation of and control over the surface world. And gays, in turn, have gained by appropriating the inner-moralism of the Jewish tradition. Gays have traditionally been known for their decadence, oddity, and deviance. Gays were having a grand time, but a near-Biblical plague arrived in the form of AIDS in the 1980s. It forced the gay community to embrace more of a moral lifestyle. Though gay biology still cannot produce life, gay men, by adopting a ‘moralistic’ lifestyle such as ‘gay marriage’, have found a way to temper some of their wild side. Thus, Jews got more gayish in a more sensual sense, and gays got more Jewishy in the traditional moralistic sense.)

Gayness thus remained entirely secretive in most civilizations, and it was manifested mainly through arts, creativity, design, and expression. (To be sure, one could argue that Greek philosophy was rooted in a kind of gay sensibility. One could say Plato’s abstract idealism as inspired gayness. A normal-sexual man is at peace with nature. Nature gave him a pud to be used with a poon. He humps a woman, and they have children. Thus, there is no need for a normal-sexual man to reject nature since it is on his side. But nature is not on the side of gays. Gay sex cannot produce life, and even in relatively tolerant Greece, gay men could be looked upon with derision. Since the natural world didn’t conform to gay desires, the gay mentality might have felt a need to create an ideal world of the mind. Since nature doesn’t favor the gay, the gay creates through ideals what he deems to be ‘perfect’. It could be that Hitler was a closet-gay, and that emotional bedrock is what drove him to such intolerant push for perfection. Since gay ‘nature’ cannot produce life, gays come to invest their mental and creative energies into artifice, of which art and design are a part. However, even if there was a gay psychological underpinning to Plato’s idealistic totalitarianism, he explained it in universal philosophical terms, not in specifically or explicitly gay terms, and in that sense, Platonic Idealism isn’t gay in the way that the Old Testament is obviously Jewish/moral.) The most famous gayish artificial intelligence is HAL computer of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It is different from the wise Jewishy artificial intelligence of Asimov’s ROBOT STORIES. HAL is super-smart but oh-so-fussy-wussy, oh so nervous, oh so whoopsy. Though speaking in a measured monotone manner, there is a certain bitchiness, a quality one finds in Anthony Perkins in Welles’ film version of THE TRIAL. HAL is super-fast but lacks emotional depth, and as such, is a very gayish kind of intelligence. Kubrick had a tremendous admiration for design, and his films are like a deep/wise Jewish mind wandering through the world of goyim constructed by gay designers. Throughout history, Jewishness had great intelligence and wisdom but not the art and design. Throughout history, gayness had great intelligence and design but not the wisdom. And given the pagan aspect of gay culture, traditional Jews felt mostly contempt and loathing toward it. But in late modernity, Jewish depth and gay design came together and formed an alliance, not least due to Nazism’s war on both Jews and gays. (Idiot Hitler should have left the gays alone.)
People with brazen/outward power come to take their power for granted, and as such they become complacent, resting-on-their-laurels, and dim-witted(in their trust and magnanimity toward the less powerful). Having naked power is vulnerable for this reason. Because it’s plainly visible, the ones with the power think they have all the power. Hidden power is invisible and so people don’t see it as power. Originally, invisible power was hidden due to lack of choice, e.g. in the past Jews and gays couldn’t be openly powerful. But invisible or hidden power can also be practiced and accumulated by choice, as with Jews today who still choose to remain in the shadows when it comes to power. (It’s like some people make a lot of money but maintain the facade of modesty while others make less but show off their riches. Those with hidden money may have more money but seem less rich than those who openly show off their riches. Warren Buffett is one of the richest men in the world but doesn’t flaunt his wealth. In contrast, even some jigger-jiver with a few bucks wears a gold-plated bling-bling and acts like he be da richest and biggest dude in the universe. The black style of politics was WE GOT THE POWER. So, black politicians and activists howled and shook their fists, but all that noise-making didn’t lead to much power. In contrast, mulattos like Obama, Holder, and Jarrett maintain a lower profile and played along as Nice Negroes with truly powerful rich Jews and whites, and they ended up gaining a lot more power. Stalin also didn’t say much but came to wield the biggest stick in the USSR. Hitler, on the other hand, began to believe in his own myth of invincibility and took on the whole world as if he could defeat it all on his own. Hide your power, never flaunt it.) Though Jews have great power, they still act like they’re powerless; they are used to hiding their power.
When naked power is respected and admired, it has the advantage over hidden power in hogging the credit for the glory and might of the state or empire. During the heyday of the British Empire, it was great to be nakedly powerful as the glorious British. But when times change and values are reversed, those who once had the naked power are blamed for all the defeats and historical ‘crimes’. Thus, even though many Jews/gays with hidden power accumulated great influence and privileges for themselves in the past, they are officially remembered as victims. Even though Jews played a significant role in the slave trade and pulled all sorts of dirty financial tricks to obtain great wealth, they are only remembered as ‘victim groups’ since their power was hidden than naked; only their victim-hood was naked. Similarly, though many gays enjoyed great privileges by offering up their skills and talents to kings, aristocrats, and bourgeoisie in the past, gays are historically remembered only for their victim-hood since their power wasn’t allowed to be naked or open. So, even though Jews and gays often were secretively allied with ‘exploitative’ elites(who held the naked power) and milked off the toiling masses by aiding and abetting the system of elite privilege, they are remembered only as ‘victims’. Of course, they were victimized to the extent that Jews were discriminated against — and even physically attacked in occasional explosions of violence — and to the extent that homosexuals were marginalized, ostracized, or even thrown in prison. They weren’t allowed to have naked power. But in the form of hidden power, Jews and gays amassed tremendous amount of power and/or privilege due to their possession of skills and abilities so dearly prized by the straight goy elites of Europe. And of course, some of the elites were themselves gay or bi-sexual. Historians think that Frederick the Great may well have been either gay or bi-sexual. And if indeed it is true that Alexander the Great was a homo or bi-sexual, he sure killed and oppressed a lot of people. Perhaps among all the great civilizations, Ancient Greece was the only one where gays could hold and wield great naked power. In contrast, a civilization like Britannia was officially anti-gay — open gays could get in a lot of trouble, and indeed, even up to the 1950s, homosexuality was a crime in the UK — , and yet, gay sensibility hiddenly permeated so far and wide throughout society that even non-gay men put on a certain degree of fruity-tutti, hoity-toity, airy-fairy manners. Though gayness couldn’t ‘come out’ in Old Britannia, it secretively infiltrated and spread throughout the entire culture. So, even decent gentlemen who looked down on gay stuff were talking and acting sort of gayish with all that jolly gooderiness. A society can officially look down on and suppress certain behaviors and tendencies yet subliminally and psycho-culturally be deeply shaped by them.
In America, white people tried to officially keep black folks in their place, but black music and black style of speaking, expression, and sexuality came to influence white society. Today, even white nationalists who rail against ‘niggers’ listen to rock music and even rap music steeped in black roots. Of course, this happens to all groups to some extent. Historically, Jews rejected the filthy world of the goyim, yet goy ideas and values influenced Jewish culture just the same. Even so, there’s a difference between the infiltration of culture and infiltration of power. Western culture infiltrated Japan and Turkey, but Japan is ruled by Japanese and Turkey is ruled by the Turks. So, no matter how Westernized the Japanese or Turks become, they still own their own nations. What’s happened in the West is far more dire because white folks didn’t just come under the influence of Jewish culture, black music, and gay expressions. Instead, their very power structure has been taken over by non-whites — by ‘white’, I mean gentile whites as Jews are, of course, racially Caucasian and many Jews are genuinely European. The Jewish community came under the influence of goy culture, but the power within the Jewish world was always held by Jews themselves. But in America, even the power structures created by goyim have been taken over by Jews. White goyim created the universities, newspapers, industries, law firms, banks, and two major political parties, but most of them are now controlled by Jews. White goyim created the Democratic and the Republican parties, yet, the Democratic Party is owned by liberal Zionists, and the GOP is now controlled by neocon Zionists. Indeed, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to say that, after the Jews, gays are the most powerful components in the Democratic party. And there are lots of powerful gays in the GOP too, especially given cover by the neocons, most of whom support stuff like ‘gay marriage’. How did Jews and gays become so powerful? One reason is genuine ability and intelligence. But another reason is their power was accumulated hiddenly and secretively. If in the past, had both Jews and gays openly tried to gain so much power — when they were eyed with far greater suspicion— , they would have been met with a lot of resistance. And so they had to work secretively, act as though they were part of the mainstream. Indeed, this is why the Western Left has been especially dangerous. Western fascists tended to be loud and brash, blurting out their grand plan and alarming the status quo. And Eastern Leftists — the Bolsheviks and their ilk — were also less dangerous(at least to the West) because they were also brazen in their goals. Lenin made no secret of his plan to overthrow the Old Order and capitalism and kill many folks; he set off alarm bells in the West. But Western leftists tended to be more devious. Alinsky wasn’t really all that original; he only put into words what the Western Left had long practiced in its wolf-in-sheep-clothing program to gradually take over society. A man like Armand Hammer was far more dangerous to America than someone like Lenin or even Stalin. Americans knew what Lenin and Stalin stood for. But Armand Hammer, though from a communist Jewish family, went into business and pretended to be an American patriot, indeed even a Republican. That is the Jewish way. Though Jews and gays resented the need to remain in the dark or the closet, it was this necessity that made them all the more skillful in the game of power, all the more devious, cunning, creative, vengeful, and ruthless in how to obtain, piece by piece, the building blocks of power. In the Joseph Losey film THE SERVANT — Losey was a Marxist homosexual and he collaborated with Harold Pinter, a Marxist Jew — , why is it that the servant gains power over the aristocrat? Partly, it’s because he’s smarter. But it’s also because, being a lowly servant, he’s had to learn to think and look at all the angles of power since naked power is beyond his grasp. He had to play for power, just like the woman in ALL ABOUT EVE. In contrast, the aristocrat played by James Fox was born with privilege, and so he takes it for granted. He doesn’t know how to play for power since he grew up with power. He either knows how to lord over others or be magnanimous. For him, power is either a happy privilege or a moral obligation. Why was George W. Bush so clueless? He was born into power and told from an early age that he had to live up to the noble Wasp ideal and pride. When Wasps had been at the top, it might have been an advantage, but following the radical 60s, Wasps were tagged with all the historical crimes of the past. Thus, the only way one could be a good Wasp was to be magnanimous, apologetic, generous, and compassionate. Thus, Dubya and John McCain played to the same page written by Jews, the new elite. Wasps could not take pride in past Wasp glory and achievement; they had to answer for slavery, ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘xenophobia’, etc. Thus, the only way a Wasp could be good was by sucking up to Jews, blacks, illegal aliens, and gays. Though GOP nominally remained conservative, it does little to resist the big government, illegal immigration — if anything, Bush and McCain aided and abetted it — , ‘affirmative action’, and the gay agenda. Though Bush stood up for traditional marriage, he didn’t do it with moral courage or confidence. If the gay lobby attacks conservatives, conservatives only try to defend themselves but do not go on the counter-attack the gay lobby. It’s like one boxer punches while the other boxer only blocks. Eventually, the side that only does the blocking will get hit over and over and be knocked down. It is no way to fight. To fight means defense AND offense, not just defense. GOP is utterly on the moral defensive when it comes to Jews, blacks, gays, and illegal aliens. Democrats hurl things at Republicans, but Republicans only use shields but never throw anything back. Gays call conservatives ‘sick and demented’, but conservatives don’t call gays ‘perverts’ but instead try to prove that they themselves are not ‘homophobic’. Worse, while the Democratic party has been purged of all ‘racists’ and ‘homophobes’, the GOP has many fifth-columnists — especially the powerful neocons and libertarians — who are eating away at its core foundations from within. If anything, the GOP itself is becoming purged of ‘wrong elements’ in pure Bolshevik style. William Kristol the dirty neocon Jew even brags about it. Why are white conservatives so gutless? It’s because white gentiles had naked power for so long. They took power for granted. They thought their power would be permanent, as if God-given, as if their kind would always automatically be born into power. Thus, they only saw the power out in the light, not the power hidden in the darkness. Yet, just as the skin is only the outside of a man, naked power is only the skin of power. Real power is always dark, as explored by Oliver Stone in NIXON. This is true of everything. Real Hollywood power isn’t with the sign that says H-O-L-LY-W-O-O-D in Los Angeles. It resides in the offices, homes, minds, and hearts of ruthless Jews. Obama doesn’t have real power. He’s the surface of Jewish power, just as Will Smith is the mere surface of Jewish Hollywood power. To be sure, Obama understands power far better than most white folks do. Having been born to a Marxist mother and raised as a minority in Indonesia and America, he saw himself as an outsider. Also, his blackness made him read up on black culture and attitudes. He learned that for an outsider to gain great power, he has to play the game of power. For a ‘field nigger’ to become a ‘house nigger’ — or a ‘white house nigger’ — , he has to know the angles of power. Traditionally, blacks learned a lot about power precisely because they had to shuffle and shuck before the massuh. Blacks had to smile like Louis Armstrong and act like Scatman Crothers in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST. “I’m on my knees, brother, I’m on my knees.” They knew they were disadvantaged and distrusted in white society, and so they had to learn the rules of the game to ‘steal’ that trust. So, they had to put on the Negro act. While dumb Negroes played along because they done figger that’s just how the world done work, smarter Negroes perfected their Negro-as-a-credit-to-his-race act so as to gain greater trust and access from the ‘honkey-ass white motherfuc*er’. He was filled with rage and resentment inside but playing along to toy with the white boy, just like the Dirk Bogarde character in THE SERVANT was playing with the aristocrat. Play the Nice Negro and conceal the Nitro-Nigger. However frustrating this may have been, it was a savvy way to gain power, culminating in Martin “I Have a Dream” King. But blacks were also good at this due to their nature. Naturally slickity and slackity, jazzy and snazzy, it came naturally to the Negro to toy with the white boy. Thus, Negro power too gained a certain skillfulness in its hidden form. But something happened in the 60s that overturned the lessons blacks had learned over the past century. With the rise of Muhammad Ali and Black Rage politics — and due to the unleastheir naturally aggressive temperament — , once blacks could exercise their power openly, they just couldn’t hep theyselves. If Joe Louis played the Nice Negro, Ali was screaming, “I’m the Greatest”, and this attitude came to define black politics, culture, and society. While exciting to mainstream society on some level — especially in sports and pop music obsessed America — , it also began to scare the wits out of white folks. Black politicians were howling like thugs, black hoodlums were openly wreaking havoc in the streets, black leaders were brazenly corrupt and aggressive, and etc. If Jews and gays, even as they ‘came out’ and became influential, were careful to maintain the hiddenness of their power, blacks were going around acting like they could whup anyone’s ass. Thus, it became more difficult to sympathize with blacks bitching about their victim-hood. Blacks acted like such open-sewage thugs and louts that they often came across as more powerful than they were. Black leaders howled and threatened riots unless they get things their way; and black rappers babbled endlessly on about how they’s gonna whup everyone’s ass. Indeed, if many white folks still have faith in the myth of the Nice Negro, it’s thanks to Jewish/gay media’s propping up figures like Oprah and Morgan Freeman. If all of black culture were left up to blacks, it’d be one endless punkass jigger-jiver savage gorilla-fest. Obama understood this. He realized that black politics messed up when loud and brash guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton threw the stink-bombs of aggressive black power everywhere. Jewish power and gay power had come out and gained control of society, but Jews and gays — especially because so many maverick gays were wiped out by AIDS epidemic — were careful to play it cool than play the fool. Jews and gays wanted acceptance from the mainstream but also fool the mainstream that they had no real power, that they were just helpless victims asking for justice and fairness. Thus, many white people see Jews as eternal saints and see gays as the nicest people around — when, in fact, Jews and gays are utterly cunning and ruthless — and don’t feel threatened by Jewish/gay power. In contrast, many whites feel threatened by black power since its face is Al Sharpton and other jigger-jiver-ish loons. Indeed, notice that Sharpton has undergone a make-over only with the advice and help of Jews and gays at MSNBC. If left to his own jigger-jiver devices, he’s just be street trash. Similarly, Oprah was once just some fat trash mama ho, but Jews worked her over into the Progressive Mammy. And MLK was originally just an alcoholic, ho-humping, lying, and cheating vulgar mofo, but Jews remade him into an heir of Jesus and Gandhi. Without the coaching, financing, and massaging by Jews and gays, black America would be one big Detroit. Many successful Negroes have actually been ‘charter-citied’ by Jews, gays, and white liberals. Anyway, Obama’s ‘genius’ was he understood where black folks had failed. That black people had openly demanded equal status for themselves in a new America was all very good in the 50s and early 60s. What black people failed to understand was that they would have to play the game for a lot longer to make the social climb. In order to make the climb, they needed the trust and support of white society that held most of the power and wealth. And to gain the trust and support, they needed to earn the generosity of white folks; and to earn the generosity, blacks had to hide than flaunt their power. In the past, ‘good’ whites — gullible suckers really — felt sorry and even guilty for the Negro, and it was this conscience that made white folks fall for MLK’s Trojan Horse trick. But as blacks got loud, aggressive, wild, and enraged, white folks ended up feeling lots of fear. There wasn’t much to be gained by rioting and looting, cheering for O.J., howling like Farrakhan, and acting like wild gorillas. Instead, blacks, even as they stepped into the limelight, should ‘hide’ their power, if only to fool whitey. (On the other hand, as a mulatto supremacist, Obama is fooling both the white and black community to serve the interests of light-skinned mulattos mostly.) Paradoxically, blacks have less power than Jews and gays precisely because they are so wild and impatient about power. Even some highschool dropout in the black community thinks he be da greatest simply cuz he done have a bling bling around his neck and be yapping some dumbass rap song. Blacks think power and riches are something they’re entitled to, as if they can get it by howling, threatening, and demanding. But this only leads to failure since real success is built on diligence, dedication, and work ethic, not holler-ethic or butt-kickic. Black loudness has, at best, gained welfare and other handouts for the black community, but a community that relies on welfare and handouts cannot be said to be self-sufficiently powerful. Thus, Obama has forged very close ties with the Jewish community and has done everything to bridge the gay community with the black community. Through gay influence, Obama and his ilk are trying to ‘tame’ blacks so that blacks will once again learn the advantage of hidden power. If blacks are to use victimology as a tool, they must act like victims than like crazy thugs. If black political style and street behavior are thug-like, then even a city as liberal as NY will elect a Law-and-Order guy like Rudy Giuliani who threw a lot of Negroes in jail.
Obama may be sleazy and cunning, but he understands the nature of power, which cannot be said of most white conservatives who still think they have the power(in their utter blindness to the fact of Jewish dominance over America and Jewish hostility to Western Civilization, but then, white conservative idea of Western Civilization is Creationism, country music, Nascar, and being Pro-Life to save black babies). To be sure, this is somewhat relative. Clinton understood power because he was a smart kid born into a lowly family. He wanted to make the climb, but he was on the bottom. He knew he had to struggle and play for power, and he reached the top. In contrast, Gore, Bush, and McCain were far less good at politics since they were born into power and privilege. They could lie, cheat, and be aggressive at times, but they lacked the subtlety of Clinton. Clinton, like a good poker player, could read the ‘tell’ of politics. And Reagan was also a master because he too had made the climb from the bottom. He was also a bright kid with ambition born to a lowly family. But, the understanding of power isn’t merely a matter of being born high or low. One could be born high and still understand the game. Many Jews are born into great power and privilege, but they are as sharp, cunning, and devious as their forebears. Why? Jews have a powerful sense of history and never take anything for granted, especially since they are still vastly outnumbered by goyim. Complacency simply doesn’t exist in the Jewish vocabulary, and besides, the Jewish personality is, by its very nature, restless and wily. But one could be born rich and white gentile yet still know the game of power. Take John F. Kennedy. He was born into a rich family, but he was a savvy politician. Sure, his father’s money helped, but he was no dummy like George W. Bush. Perhaps, his Catholicism in a Protestant-dominated America gave him the extra push. But more likely, his rags-to-riches father inculcated him with the instincts one needs to make it in this world.
If one could be born white/rich and still understand the game/rules of power, one could be born white/poor and know nothing about it. This is indeed the problem among the white conservative masses. Most of them are born as ‘little people’, and therefore, as ‘little people’ they should be thinking and working extra hard to rise in the world, but many of them seem to think either that they have the power(by the simple fact of being white) or that they’re entitled to power(by the simple virtue that they’re white). It is for this reason that the rise of Obama has been like a deer-in-the-headlights for so many white conservatives. They got so used to thinking that WHITE AMERICA had the power that they couldn’t make heads or tails out of what happened in 2008, thereby giving the rise of the Tea Party. In fact, Jews had gained elite power in America at least since the 1980s, during the era of Reagan no less — though Jews were already co-elites by the 60s. Jews, along with gays, had been working overtime to re-order and remake America from within, including the GOP. But much of this happened hiddenly while the naked or outward manifestations of White Power still seemed to be intact through the visibility of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Stallone and Schwarzenegger movies, Jay Leno, Rush Limbaugh, etc. And there was Dan Quayle and Dubya too. And there was McCain and Palin in 2008. They all made white people feel as if they were in power when, in fact, most prominent white people are all controlled and bought/sold by Jews. Quayle and Bush II were, if anything, harmful to white power since they were talking-walking self-parodies of white dimness. And Sarah Palin the bimbo porn whore of AIPAC was just downright embarrassing — and it should come as no surprise that in college, she was a major mudshark who her spread to legs to innumerable Negro basketball players. Like the hare taking the nap, White America thought it was far ahead and couldn’t be surpassed by any other power. Yet, just as the hare lost to the tortoise, White America awoke in 2008 to find that their nation was no more. In fact, it hadn’t been theirs for some time, but they’d been fooled during all those years because the public face of power in media and politics still seemed to be largely white — and besides, the public face of Jewish power was also seen as white(though Jewish power was utterly anti-white). Also, white conservatives thought that despite some ideological differences, most white conservatives and white liberals shared the same values. Recall that prior to the rise of stuff like ‘gay marriage’, both Democrats and Republicans believed in family and tradition. FDR and Truman were not cultural radicals. Culturally, Kennedy and Nixon had much in common; both would have mocked something as ridiculous as ‘gay marriage’. And in 1972, even many white liberals rejected the radical platform of McGovern. And, Reagan and Tip O’Neill, despite their political differences, culturally had much in common. So, even as white America was divided politically, it seemed to be culturally united in many ways. But this commonality had eroded to the point where half the white population now really thinks ‘gay marriage’ is a moral issue of paramount importance, to the point where many whites welcome the demographic demise of their own people, to the point where white girls wanna have babies with Negroes and cuckolded white boys wanna masturbate to blacks humping their wives and girlfriends(and even suck the Negro’s cock; Chris Matthew’s leg turns into a giant clitoris when he listens to Obama). Thus, today’s division in White America is far more profound than in the past when the division had been political but not necessarily cultural and moral. Now, White America is divided into two cultural nations. It’s made all the worse by the fact that White Conservative America has become stupid and ridiculous in its own way, therefore turning off increasing numbers of intelligent and educated whites who might be won over by sound rational arguments. GOP is the party of shameless libertarianism, materialistic crony-capitalism, and worst of all, super-dumb Creation-believing Southern hillbillies. Its official spokesman is fatso infant Rush Limbaugh, its intellectuals are gutless Rich Lowry and shallow Jonah Goldberg, and its journalists are Sean Hannity and bimbos like S.E. Cupp. And its artists are the drunken Mel Gibson and the brainless idiots who made the movie version of ATLAS SHRUGGED, a movie so horrible that I barely managed 15 minutes. Its politicians are all shameless whores of AIPAC. Newt Gingrich is just a gigolo of some Las Vegas Jewish gambling tycoon. Michelle Bachmann is deranged. And Rand Paul says he weeps when he listens to the phony speeches of jigger-jiver MLK. The whole thing’s just a big farce. (Incidentally, could it be that the reason why past presidents were so eager to broker a deal between Israel and Palestinians was because, on some subconscious level, they resented the fact that they were controlled by Jewish power? While serving the interests of Zionism, they could gain elbow space to exert some pressure on Israel/Jews in their attempt to broker a deal. Playing peace-broker always comes with an element of risk, and within that risk is a measure of independent power. Thus, in pushing for a peace between Israel and Egypt, Carter could exert a degree of pressure on Jews that he otherwise wouldn’t have been able to. And George H.W. Bush, after defeating Iraq in the Gulf War, sought to pressure Israel to accept a new deal in regards to Palestinians. Bush knew Jewish power was immense, and there wasn’t much he could do about it. But if he opened negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, he would gain a degree of power over Jews for the duration of the peace talks. Jews would have to rely and hang their hopes on him. And if he succeeded, Jews would have to credit him. And Clinton also tried in the late 90s to bring about peace between Jews and Palestinians. He was, at once, acting at the behest and in the interest of Jews AND acting as lone sheriff with momentary power over not only Palestinians but over Jews as well. Though acting in the interests of Jews and Israel, Carter, Bush, and Clinton gained degree of independence to maneuver through the negotiations. It’s like a doctor doing surgery on a rich and powerful person has, at least during the procedure and recovery, power over his patient. Resenting the fact that they, as Wasps, were losing their power to Jews, perhaps Carter, Bush I, and Clinton sought to subconsciously assert their power over Jews, if only momentarily, by tackling the Israel-Palestinian issue. In contrast, Reagan, Bush II, and Obama have decided to steer clear of matters pertaining to Israel. Reagan preferred Big themes like defeating communism and free enterprise; he didn’t wanna get embroiled in headache inducing Middle East affairs, especially after the Lebanon fiasco. Bush II learned from his father’s one term presidency that he shouldn’t do anything to upset Jews; he was happily the running dog bitch of neocon Zionists — by invading Iraq and doing absolutely nothing about Israel’s actions in the Occupied territories and in Lebanon — , but ironically, he came to be hated by Jews even more than his father because, again ironically, his utter slavishness to Zionism gave the impression that Jews do indeed control America and, by extension, the world. As for Obama, he’s a jazzy boxer than a brawler. He prefers to jab than get entangled in something that can turn into a long drawn-out brawl, what the Israel-Palestinian peace process turned out to be for Clinton and what the Iraq War turned out to be for Bush. Also, Jews around Obama have been extra careful not to get their boy hurt. If Jews saw Clinton and Bush II as toy soldiers for Zionist foreign policy, the main significance of Obama for Jews is domestic. Jews hope for his success so that White America will come to associate race-mixing with greatness and glory. Obama is the son of a Negro humping a white woman. He’s also for the gay agenda. If white Americans come to respect him in the way FDR and Reagan came to be respected, then the NEW face of American Glory will be interracism, which essentially means white female betrayal of her own race and white male acceptance of utter defeat in the struggle for racial power. White men will be white boys sucking on Jewish cock while whanking off to black men humping white women. At this point, the white race is such a disgrace that even if Obama’s presidency is deemed a failure, it may only be a matter of time before White America is a total slave-bitch to Jewish power. As of now, it’s a NEAR-total slave-bitch, but total slave-bitch-ness could be just around the corner in a decade or two. Now we know how a great people and civilization can come to ruins as we are witnessing the rapid decline of a people that once seemed invincible. If any lesson is to be learned, it is BEWARE OF JEWS.)
In a way, the rise of gay power is like the rise of eunuch power in some past societies. Though eunuchs were supposed to be lowly servants with bowed heads serving the powerful, they gradually gained great power in some places because they remained so hidden. (There’s an intimation of this in J. EDGAR by Clint Eastwood. Though Edgar — played by Leonardo Di Caprio — is uncomfortable with his homosexuality and represses it, it’s as if his hiddenness pushed him to be even harder-working in the fussy world of investigation. Having to hide his homosexuality, he feels safer in the dark world of secretive agencies, and from the inside he’s able to amass dirty secrets on a whole cast of characters. If you hide in the closet, you can peek through the holes and see the dirty goings on in the bedrooms of others. Edgar, hiding his homosexuality in the hidden closet of the F.B.I., was able to peek through the holes on American power as one big bedroom in both the metaphorical and real sense. He was able to record power as a wedding of various forces and power as who-gets-to-sleep-with-whom. Though Edgar remained anti-gay all his life, his power derived from his eunuch-like and closeted mastery of power — or at least according to the film as I don’t know the real story. The recent film version of TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY also seems like the secret world of gay men, and the ending with the French song makes it seem even gayer, indeed almost like a fashion show of hidden gay power.) Unable to breed and lead normal lives and without the means to openly exert or express themselves, eunuchs clung like barnacles to the source of power. And the powers-that-be found eunuchs useful precisely because the latter appeared to be so thoroughly devoted to their masters. Unlike regular men whose loyalties were to family and relatives as well as to the Kingdom, eunuchs(having no wives and children of their own) totally gave themselves to the state, powers-that-be, or institutions. There was an element of eunuch-ery in the celibacy of the Catholic priests, but the difference was the Christian clergymen were openly respected and openly exerted their influence. Thus, despite the corruption and intrigue within the Catholic Church hierarchy, it had to be somewhat accountable to the public. Eunuchs, in contrast, were, in most cases, only supposed to be lowly servants of the state, but some of them got so close to powerful people in the inner-sanctum that they began to develop and exert their own influence, albeit in a more secretive and devious way. This was only natural since eunuchs were generally looked down upon, even despised; they were men without honor. Some had even entered their stations in life through slavery. But working as servants of powerful men, the more intelligent and sharper among them could gain the trust and the ears of powerful men; they would also work together since they all belonged to the club of ball-lessness. Though they lost their real balls, they developed hidden balls of powerlust. They could even secretly gain power over powerful men. Since power in the past was generally passed down through generations, the son could be a lot dumber and lazier than the father. Such heircould be worked on by eunuchs who, while pretending to serve him, could run circles around him and lead him by the nose. Neocons treated Dan Quayle this way. They knew how dumb he was, but he was nominally an ‘important’ wasp, a Senator from Indiana, an heir to Anglo-American power. Quayle the dimwit had inherited his station in life and was utterly without individual talent and intelligence. But deep down inside, he must have sensed that he was becoming just a toyboy to the neocons who publicly praised him while cracking jokes about him behind his back. Since so many smart Jews were laughing at him, he felt so grateful to Jews who backed him, but the price for that support was to kiss Zionist ass. He had the right image that jibed with the traditional image of Wasp-dominated America but hadn’t the brains to do it any honor. He was useful to neocon Jews in two ways. Being dumb, he was their running dog(while being allowed to act like the master; we’ve heard of ‘wag the dog’; well, this was a case of ‘teach the master to sit, stay, roll over, and fetch’). Quayle knew that he was lost on his own since he didn’t have two brain cells between his ears — like Bush II, even with the aid from smart Jews, he tended to make a total fool out of himself, and so it was natural that he would be a hapless and sappy running dog of Jewish power. American elite was like a mansion owned by Wasp aristocrats who hired a bunch of Jewish servants. Over time, Jewish servants managed the business operations of the house and gradually gained ownership of the house. Jews could have totally pushed out the Wasps, but then Jews would be seen as the new masters of the house. So, Jews decided to keep some Wasps around and allow them to still play ‘master of the house’ even though they were now essentially defacto servants of Jews. This was the bargain struck between Jews and Wasps. Jews took over the house, BUT wasps who did the bidding of Jews would not be evicted from the house. There were two ways of doing the bidding of Jews: (1) embrace deracination and push for the racial suicide of one’s people and for agendas like ‘gay marriage’ or (2) if one wishes to remain conservative — within politically correct bounds, e.g. worshiping MLK and not opposing ‘affirmative action’ — , wave the Israeli flag and support Zionism more loudly and hysterically than even Jews do. Thus, if a conservative hopes for any prominent role in media or government, he has to be the biggest ass-kisser of Israel. Look at Bush II, McCain, Palin, Bachmann, Romney, and etc. In a way, what Jews have done with the traditional Wasp elite is akin to what the bourgeois elites of Britain did to the monarchy. The British royalty was not abolished and its members were not exiled or shot. Kings, queens, princes, and princesses were allowed to remain in ‘power’ but without the power. They were to become symbols, but they had to conform to changing fashions. And so, when the trashy Princess Di died, the queen was expected to pay tribute to a woman she loathed utterly. In some ways, the abolishment of the Royalty might have been better. A quick dramatic death would have been more dignified than what the queen has to put up with now. The Russian monarch and his family were brutally killed by Jewish communists, but they are now revered by Russian people as martyrs. But just look at the British Royalty. It carries on as tabloid material; there’s no respect, no power, no dignity. Similarly, the current spectacle of Wasps-as-new-servants-pretending-to-still-be-masters is pitiful to behold. White American elites now bend over not only to Jews but to gays. (One crucial difference between Jews and gays is that the former is self-perpetuating while the latter is not. Thus, one can speak of a unique Jewish history of cultural and spiritual continuity. Generations of Jewish men and Jewish women begat Jewish sons and daughters who begat more generations and so on. Thus, Jews could maintain a distinct Jewish community and continuity all on their own by adhering to the values of Judaism or Jewishness. This the gays cannot do. Homo-‘sexuality’ cannot begat life no matter how many times gay men bugger one another or how many times lesbians poon-swiggle each other. Thus, the gay community is not self-perpetuating but must rely on the world of real sexuality. Gays are the product of Real or ‘hetero’-sex. True, a gay guy might hold his nose and have sex with a lesbian, and they might have a kid together, but again, the child has been created by real sex, not by homo-‘sex’. Also, just because a gay guy and a lesbian has a kid together doesn’t mean the kid will be gay; indeed, he or she will likely be straight EVEN IF both his or her parents are gay. And indeed, most gays come from straight couples. So, gays are accidents of nature. Though liberals today may show off that one of their kids is gay and flatter themselves about how ‘loving’ and ‘tolerant’ they are, deep down inside, parents don’t want their sons and daughters to be fecal penetrators or poon-swiggling-freakesses. People can be brainwashed in all sorts of ways, which is why Catholics foolishly think it’s a good idea for priests to have their scrotums packed with stale sperm, why some Muslims think women should have their clitorises lopped off, and why Japanese used to think the epitome of female beauty was achieved by shaving off eyebrows, smudging dark spots on the forehead, and painting the teeth black with lead. So, it’s hardly surprising that liberal idiots now think it’s some family honor to have one of the kids turn out to be a bunghole porker with shit-stained penis or some silly lesbian whose idea of sex is swiggling her hole with another hole. I guess it never occurs to lesbians that vaginal holes are sexual organs to be FILLED with the male sexual organ. Since all gays are biological accidents created from real sex from mostly straight couples, there cannot be an independent self-perpetuating gay community. A community made up only of Jews can survive forever by producing future generations of Jewish kids. But a community made up only of gay men will not last; nor will a community made up of only lesbians. If the gay community and the lesbian community were to join up and reluctantly have real sex with one another in order to produce children, there will still be more straight children than gay children. So, this is the great disadvantage of the gay community. There is something fundamentally true at the core of the Jewish community. It is a viable, self-contained, self-sufficient, and self-perpetuating community. Also, Jewish religion and values are steeped in true biology and real sex. Many Jewish laws pertain to proper sexual behavior, relations between parents and children, between husband and wife, between brother and brothers, and brothers and sisters, and etc. All these laws revolve on real sexuality that creates life. This is why there is a powerful moral component to Judaism — despite the fact that modern Jews, in all their deviousness, would now have us believe that ‘gay rights’ is what the Jewish tradition is all about. Though Judaism was too extreme and unforgiving in its moralism, it is a religion seeking to establish the fundamental truths about God, man, and the world. The two big themes of the Bible are creation and survival. There is Creation by God, and there is creation by man and woman; according to the Bible, the meat must meet under the rules of nature and sacred morality handed down by God. God made nature so that man and woman could create life together. And God handed down laws that said man and woman must work together to raise their kids in the proper manner. Man and woman create life, and this ability to create life through perpetuity is what allows mankind to survive through the ages. In the story of Noah’s Ark, God reminds man of the basic truths of nature and morality. Nature lives on through the sex of male and female. And morality governs nature because without morality, man would be no more than an animal. In contrast, there can be no core morality in ‘gay morality’. ‘Gay male sex’ is downright putrid, with guys practicing foul fecal penetration. If you think that stuff is healthy or wonderful, stick a finger in your ass and then look at it and smell it. As for lesbian sex, it’s physically clean — indeed less risky in terms of disease than even real sex — , but it can hardly be called sex since there’s nothing really going on. Sex is in-and-out, not out-and-out. Real sex negative charge and positive charge causing a spark, but that cannot be said for ‘gay sex’. Since ‘gay sex’ is weird and even disgusting — and biologically useless except for a pain in the ass for masochists — , it cannot serve as the basis of any morality. This isn’t to say gay people cannot be moral. Some are very moral in the non-sexual aspects of life: good neighbors, honest workers, sympathetic professionals, and etc. But their goodness cannot be said to be the product of their gayness. The problem with the gay community is it tries to make everything revolve around gayness. So, if there’s a wonderful gay doctor or soldier, it’s as if gayness is to be credited for his being a good doctor or soldier. But there are bad gay doctors and bad gay soldiers too. So, should gayness be blamed for bad gay doctors and bad gay soldiers? Gayness is amoral at best, or it could be inherently immoral since it goes against the obvious truths of nature. The whole idea of ‘gay pride’ is ridiculous. Some gays will say it’s not about pride over ‘anal sex’ but the fact that some gays are artists, doctors, lawyers, accountants, businessmen, etc. Okay, but then, why not Medical Pride day? Or Legal Pride day? Or Accounting Pride day? Why not celebrate all good doctors, all good lawyers, or all good accountants? What does being gay have to do with being a good doctor? There could be a good gay doctor and a bad gay doctor. There could be talented gays and untalented gays. Gayness alone really amounts to two men sticking their sexual organs into fecal holes. It’s about guys kissing guys and sucking each other’s penis. That stuff is so gay. It’s ‘faggoty’-maggoty. What pride is there to be found in such behavior? Or in a guy wearing a woman’s dress? Or a man having his penis cut off and replaced by a fake vagina? It’s as disgusting as anorexia nervosa. If some women cannot stand any fat on their bodies and starve themselves into freaks, some people mutilate their bodies and remold them into the semblance of the opposite sex. It’s life as a freak show. So, the whole gay pride stuff is a lot of crock. If gays just demanded tolerance and minded their own business, we could call homo-‘sexuality’ amoral and leave it at that. But gay culture and politics are now immoral because they try to force all of us to accept and celebrate gayness as something wonderful, nice, beautiful, and etc. Anne Hathaway said when her family found out that her brother is gay, they all hugged him, and that it was ‘no big deal’. Personally, I’m fine with her family acknowledging the gayness of her brother and making peace with that. But Hathaway is really being disingenuous. Her liberal family was not just hugging her gay brother but hugging themselves in a festival of moral narcissism. They were in love with the fact that they are such good people for having NO TROUBLE AT ALL with her brother being a fecal penetrator. So, it WAS a Big Deal. If it was no big deal, why doesn’t she keep it to herself? Why is she showing off to the world how wonderful she and her family are by embracing the butt-buggering brother? Indeed, look at our culture, and the message isn’t merely “we should leave gays alone since their being gay is no big deal.” Personally, I’m cool with that. If some people were born gay and meet up with other gays and suck each other’s peters and bugger each other’s butts, I don’t give a shit. I don’t even wanna know about that stuff. But the media, schools, and governments don’t stop there. We are told that gays are holy, saintly, noble, and even spiritual. For endorsing ‘gay marriage’, Obama was even awarded with gay halo over his head by Jewsweek magazine. It’s as if there’s no such thing as a bad gay person, as if every gay person is some natural born angel, indeed, even a kind of god. Gay promotion is not about gays as ‘no big deal’ but as a very big deal, indeed the biggest deal in town next to Jews. The problem is not that we won’t leave gays alone but that gays won’t leave us alone. They keep waving their rainbow flag they stole from Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow
Coal-ition at us. With the backing of powerful Jews, they witch-hunt or bitch-hunt everyone who won’t bend over for the gay agenda. Scum like Perez Hilton ostracized a beauty contestant for not endorsing ‘gay marriage’, and then the entire Jew-scum media dug up every detail about her private life to smear her in public. This is how gays play the game, and they learned a lot of it from hideous Jews. Gayness is, at best, amoral, but turning amorality into morality is immoral, and that is what’s happening to our society. The scummy Jewish elite, with their control of the media, is promoting gayness not merely as something to tolerate but something to embrace, celebrate, and honor as the highest kind of morality — next to worshiping Jews and the Holocaust. The more Jews act this way, the more I’m beginning to understand why the Holocaust happened. Too many Jews are foul a**hole filth. When amorality is promoted and elevated as morality, all sorts of immoral nonsense results from the process. We end up with moronic notions such as ‘gay parents’, ‘gay marriage’, and ‘gay family’. How can gays be parents when gayness cannot produce life? Sure, gays can play at being parents, but shouldn’t we uphold the bio-moral ideal of the real parents raising their own children? And if children are abandoned, shouldn’t we place them in homes that best resemble a real family, with father figure and mother figure? This is just common sense, but gay agenda would have us believe that it’s wonderful, natural, and healthy for Heather to have ‘two mommies’. And what if Heather asks where her daddy is? Ironically, gay culture is a new kind of whacky puritanism. Telling a kid that he or she has two mommies is like saying storks bring babies. It’s a fantasy, a fairy tale. Worst of all, the gay agenda elevates a sexuality that is, at best, amoral to the level of something that is both naturally/biologically sound and morally necessary. It is a mindless form of decadence, and the fact that so many people — from super-educated to super-dumb — have fallen for the BS establishes that utter stupidity is one of the main features of humanity. Since gayness is neither biologically nor morally sound, it cannot serve as the basis of true morality. This is why gay morality is not about core values but peripheral inanities like ‘tolerance’. But since real tolerance connotes the allowance of something inferior to exist, gays have turned tolerance into the Cult of Tolerance, whereby we must be forced to accept a deviant peripheral sexuality as being of equal or even higher value as real sexuality. As with Jews, gays first played on our sympathies like a string, but then wrapped the string around our necks like a hangman’s noose. Jews and gays are like pythons twirling around the body and soul of America. If Americans wanna feel real pride, it should be about STANDING-UP-TO-JEWISH-AND-GAY-BULLSHIT-AND-SPEAKING-TRUTH-TO-POWER, but most Americans are shameless sheep like ditzy Anne Hathaway. What does liberal Anne and so-called conservative Sarah Palin have in common? They are both unwitting whores for Jewish power. Though Palin stands for traditional marriage, her stance is purely defensive; she hasn’t the guts to speak the truth about how the Jew-Gay Axis is out to destroy white conservative America. Gays should be on the periphery revolving around the core bio-social morality of real sexuality, but ours is a Ptolemaic or Homolaic order. Thanks to Jewish elite manipulation, straight society must now revolve around the periphery of gay culture as if gayness, along with liberal Jewish decadent tribalism, is the center of the social and moral universe. Paradoxically, the gay community went from amorality to immorality by trying to moralize itself. If the world had any sense, we would not give into gay demands. We would not have let them burrow into the core of society that determines what is true and what is false. HIV used to plague gays, but now gay community itself is an HIV to all of society. Gay cultural virus has infiltrated into the social core and is undermining all our immunities against falsehood and dangers to Western civilization. And the people who cleared the way for the gay virus were the Jews. Jews and gays work within the very core of power, and they’ve undermined everything that’s necessary for the perpetual creation, preservation, and survival of the white race. Whites have been morally bullied into embracing interracism, illegal invasion that now goes by the name of ‘undocumented immigration’, anti-white discrimination called ‘affirmative action’ & ‘disparate impact’, ‘gay marriage’, and ‘ownership society’ predicated on the notion that every loser in America is deserving of a home in the name of ‘equality’. Incredibly, though Jews have done this to white people, most white people think the most important thing in life is supporting Israel, a nation with the biggest economy in the Middle East, the most powerful military, and over 100 illegal — or is it ‘undocumented’ — nuclear warheads. That the most moralistic of peoples through history are now pushing the most immoral kinds of social values should wake us up to the nature of modern Jewish culture. Jews are not doing all this because most of them are truly crazy and decadent. They are doing it because they seek to weaken, degrade, and demoralize goy society. If a truly moral order were to form within the white community, it could stand up to the hideous Jews. So, Jews wanna make us dumb, decadent, trashy, and moronic. But too much trashiness and dumbness among goyim could lead to the rise of out-of-control barbarism, and so Jewish decadent-ism is balanced by the politically correct thought police and the nudgology of Cass the Ass Sunstein. Also, the gay-ization of masculinity will have a castrating impact on the neo-barbarism. In a sane world, gays would have a positive role to play in society. Though most gays are without talent, a higher proportion of gays seem to have natural knack for design, artistic, and intellectual stuff. Also, there is value to be found in different perspectives, and gays, being different, have been able to see society from curiously different angles. Thus, gayness has been valuable for its creativity as substitute for creation. Gayness cannot create/produce life, but it can envision and fashion an image of life via imaginative idealization. Gayness cannot create and form the heart, lungs, stomach, and backbone of life, but it can groom the feather, fur, and hair; it can design the clothes. It’s no accident that Yukio Mishima was so obsessed with surface reality. Since gayness is divorced from the very stuff that creates life, it fixates on the LOOK of life from the outside, and then idealizes this form into ‘perfection’. Though Mishima married and had kids to keep things respectable, he had a very gay fascist ‘soul’, which wasn’t really a soul. He spoke of the samurai spirit, but it was an idea without depth or much meaning. It was about the warrior-poet’s will and passion to be perfect and die a beautiful death at the height of beauty, in the fullness of bloom. Anyway, there is one way in which gays have one advantage over all other groups. Though gayness cannot create life and perpetuate itself, it’s impossible to wipe gays off the face of the earth. In contrast, Jews can be wiped off the face of the Earth. If we round up all Jews and kill them, there are no more Jews. Or, if we kill all East Asians, there are no more East Asians. And if we kill all whites, there are no more whites. Or, if we kill all blacks, there are no more blacks. But even if we kill all gays, there will always be gays. Gays will be continue to be born from straight parents all around the world. Africans will produce gay kids, Muslims will produce gay kids, Asians will produce gay kids, Jews will produce gay kids, whites will produce gay kids, etc. In this sense, gays are both the most fragile and the most resilient of peoples. No matter how big a gay community, gayness cannot produce life. But even if all gays are wiped out, new gays will arise from biological accidents of straight people. From this angle, gayness is a very fascinating phenomenon.) Rich wasps are still elites in the sense that they are allowed to rub shoulders with Jews and gays at the top, but they are not elites in the sense of controlling policy and the direction in which this country is headed. Indeed, we have a habit of using the term ‘elites’ too democratically. Sometimes, we include entire classes of successful people, even upper middle class folks. But the true elites are those with the power to make a difference, to control people’s lives, and to decide the future destiny of a nation. Even within elite circles, there are leaders and followers. Jews lead whereas men like Bush/Obama/McCain just follow. Jews, being clever, have learned much from the Anglos. For example, Great Britain, being both apart from and a part of Europe, always played the game of ‘balance of powers’ over continental Europe. Britain always feared the rise of one dominant power on ‘mainland Europe’ that might come to challenge British independence and power. Thus, when revolutionary France was on the rise, Brits sided with the old aristocrats, even with arch-reactionaries of Russia. Europe might have ended up better if Britain hadn’t stood in the way of Napoleon — just like Europe of the 20th century would have been better if UK hadn’t entered WWI, thus allowing Germany to win a relatively quick victory. But, Britain was so dogmatically devoted to the doctrine of ‘balance of powers’ that it kept creating new situations that led to more trouble. The failure of French power in the 19th century led to the rise of German power. The failure of German power in WWI led to WWII. ‘Balance of powers’ sometimes served its purpose, but it also had the effect of creating a tense situation among several great powers on the continent. Anyway, Jews now act toward goyim in the way that UK acted toward continental Europe. Just as Brits were committed to there being no dominant power in Europe, Jews have been working to ensure that there shall be no dominant goy group in EU and US, two places where Jews have gained the greatest amount of wealth and power. Why are Jews so paranoid about white goyim, especially when non-white goyim tend to be more anti-Jewish? It’s because even if blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, and Africans may be more anti-Jewish, Jews are more alarmed by whites for the simple fact that whites are smarter and more talented — and more numerous in the West where Jewish power is based. No matter how anti-Jewish Negroes or Mexicans may be, they will never gain much wealth and power. Suppose some Mexican-American believes every word of Mein Kampf. What’s he gonna do? He and his children will always be lawn cutters or fruit pickers. Whites, in contrast, are capable of gaining great power, and the nature of power can change. Today, whites may be pro-Jewish, but there’s no guarantee that this will last forever. A hundred years ago, the great majority of white Europeans were Christians. Today, small percentage of Europeans are religious. If people can change so drastically in so short a time, where is it engraved in stone that Jews will forever be liked? It was only 75 yrs ago when antisemitism was rife in Europe and when many Europeans collaborated with Nazis to kill Jews. Another reason why Jews fear white power is, paradoxically, due to the rise of Jewish power. Unlike all other immigrant groups, the modus operandi of Jews hasn’t been assimilation — in the conventional sense — but something that might be called ‘acquisitionation’. Jews don’t want to melt into white goy society but take it over, dominate, and set the agenda. If assimilation is to happen in the Jew-controlled order, it must be majority to minority, not minority to majority, i.e. if whites want entry into the Jewish-controlled Power Elite and positions of privilege, they must pass the litmus test Jews that says (1) Never criticize Jews (2) Worship Jews (3) Love and Honor Jews (4) Hate all enemies of Jews (5) Go along with whatever Jews demand, such as ‘gay marriage’ and ‘open borders’. Though it may seem as though Jews assimilated into Anglo-American society — in speaking English, dressing like Americans, eating American food, enjoying Western movies, embracing democratic values, etc. — , what really happened wasn’t assimilation. Assimilation connotes a profound change of heart, a kind of secular conversion experience: the former core identity being abandoned in favor of a newer one in the new nation. This never happened with Jews, a proud people with a historical, moral, and intellectual identity/roots deeper and older than those of the West. So, what Jews did was acquire certain outer manifestations of Anglo-Americanism while keeping their inner soul essentially Jewish. It was a change of dress than a change of heart. Jews came to speak English and act American, but they continued to feel and think Jewish. Our intuitive sense tells us — if we wanna be honest — that Jewish-Americans are different. Alan Dershowitz, Woody Allen, Noam Chomsky, Sarah Silverman, Bill Maher, Larry Summers, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin, Sacha Cohen, and etc. are not American-Americans in the generic sense. They are very Jewish; there is a sense of cunning viciousness and deviousness about them. Even when they are nice to us, it’s more like a person petting a dog than dealing with equals. Michael Medved and David Mamet are supposed to be ‘conservative’ Jews, but they are too smart to believe the shit they spout for dimwit goy ears. One senses, on some level, that they are trying to hoodwink us in order to win our support for Israel. Yet, so many white goyim fall for this. Liberal white goyim worship Jews and the Holocaust, but so do conservative white goyim(despite the fact that most Jews hate white conservatives). Suppose if 80% of Asian-Indian-Americans expressed non-stop hostility toward white conservative Americans. Would white conservatives worship Asian-Indian-Americans? Of course not. So, why is there such non-stop and all-around worship of Jews among white Americans, both liberal and conservative? Though white liberals tend to be secular and white conservatives tend to be Christian, the reason could be essentially spiritual in both cases, i.e. liberal whites worship Jews in the absence of God while white conservatives worship Jews in association with God. This need to worship may actually be a universal emotion present in all higher life forms. Of course, animals cannot conceptually understand the definition or meaning of god(s), but in purely emotional terms, higher animals can feel the ‘presence’ of godliness. Animals sense this especially — or perhaps only — when they’re around us humans. The distance in intelligence and emotional complexity is so great between man and animal that animals worship humans as god-like beings. When a dog meets another dog, a cat, or other animals, it senses right away that it’s all about survival instinct and tooth-and-claw struggle for power. Animal-to-animal emotions and modes of communication are simple, crude, and elemental. It’s about fight-or-flight. Even when dogs becomes friendly with other dogs or with cats, the emotions involved are elemental. It’s all about fun, play, and affection. A small animal may fear a much stronger or bigger animal, but the emotions are rooted in physicality. The smaller animal senses that the bigger/stronger animal is superior in strength but only in strength. There’s fear but no great respect. But when a dog is with a person, it feels a sense of fascination, wonderment, respect, and awe. Human emotions seem beyond the reach of a dog’s elementary emotions. While certain human emotions can be understood by dogs, there is much about human emotions that leave dogs in a state of wonderment. And even though dogs cannot understand human language, dogs sense intuitively that humans communicate on a much higher, deeper, and richer level. Unlike other dogs that only bark or cats that go meow, humans make all sorts of strange sounds that convey an array of unfathomable meanings. Dogs feel about us how David Bowman felt about the extraterrestrials in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Thus, dogs feel in the presence of man something they don’t around other animals. Dogs sense that humans are indeed superior beings, and this superiority isn’t only physical — as many dogs are indeed tougher than humans — but ‘spiritual’. Though dogs cannot understand spirituality, they can feel its essence when humans are around. Dogs and even cats act in a way that approaches worshipfulness when they’re around us. They sense something emanating from us that is endlessly magical, fascinating, tantalizing, strange, and mysterious. A cat approaches a person like people used to approach and kneel before altars of gods. Even giant beasts like elephants and dolphins have this feeling for humans. And this is also true of hawks and eagles. Even though they could just fly away, they return and land on man’s arm as if it’s the arm of Odin. Though animals can be chummy and close with other animals — even across species — , this sense of great wonderment is felt by animals only when they’re with humans. They intuit something that is more than fight-and-flight OR fun-and-play when they’re with us. Of course, we aren’t talking of everyone. I doubt if pitbulls abused by disgusting Negroes feel anything positive about the jigger-jivers. I doubt if dogs and cats in cages in China, Korea, or Vietnam feel anything special about those vile and cruel Asians. But when a person forms a special bond with certain higher animals like cats and dogs, the latter do indeed sense a kind of ‘sacredness’, a kind of higher goodness and wisdom emanating from the human. A dog separated from its dog friend, cat friend, and human friend will, upon, rejoining with them, be happiest and most blissful with the human. But even without the bond of familiarity, some higher animals sense something special about humans they encounter. Even killer whales, among the most ruthless beasts of the sea, have been known to approach humans with great gentleness and something approaching reverence. Even just by instinct, higher animals sense something different, higher, and mysterious about us.

For man, his curse as well as blessing is there is no higher being/creature above him. There is no creature that could be to us what we are to dogs and cats. This means we rule Earth, but it also means we are spiritually lonely. Primitive man may actually have seen certain animals as higher than humans due to their great size and power, and indeed, even some advanced religions worshiped certain animals as manifestations of the divine. But all of this was on the symbolic level. In reality, humans could not really relate to animals as higher beings. Hindus are said to see the cow as sacred, but there is no special emotional rapport between man and cow in India as there is between man and dog in America. Dogs revere us, and we know that they do. We are moved by their devotion, and good decent humans try to play the role of good gods to dogs. Cats are said to be less devoted, but in their own way, they are no less worshipful of us. There are times in the day when a cat just has to mosey up to a person and gracefully rub its body as if at a divine altar. Some may say cats are only mistaking us for scratching or pissing posts, but this is not true. When a cat sits on our laps and quietly stares into our eyes and wants to be hugged, there is something ‘spiritual’ going on in the mind of the cat. Some will say that it’s just a residual desire for maternal affection, but such explanation is too reductive. While it is true that a dog or cat does see humans as sort of substitute-parents — especially as dogs and cats have been taken from their actual parents at an early age — , the fact is they see and get from humans what they could never get from their real parents. Even when a puppy is not separated from its mother, it will often develop a closer bond with the human in the house than with its own mother — despite the fact that the mother is always present to show it affection. The growing puppy senses something about the human that is emotionally far richer, more fascinating, and more moving that it can get from its real mother. Dogs thus feel a kind of proto-spirituality in relation to man. This is both a blessing and curse to dogs. Fortunate dogs are loved by humans and enjoy happier lives than all other organisms, including humans. Such dogs indeed lead Edenic existence in a paradise overseen by the human god. This is true of fortunate cats too. But for dogs and cats who end up with rotten people, it’s like living in the pits of hell controlled by the devils. Disgusting Negroes use pitbulls for gladiator fights, and Chinese and other Asians torture dogs in the most heinous ways, even skinning them alive.

Since there are no beings more intelligent than humans on Earth, humans need not fear being oppressed or abused by a higher species. Though advanced civilizations or well-organized barbarians have gained power over less advanced peoples, one people have never gained permanent supremacy over another. Also, even if one group of people rule another group of people, it’s still humans ruling over humans. Furthermore, all people can share in the collective pride of man’s achievements. Though white Americans built the technology that sent men to the moon, all of mankind has been given credit. Since all people are human, they are roughly comparable in the game of power. And even if some races are less intelligent than others, not all people of one race are more intelligent than all the members of another race. Virtually all humans are smarter than dogs, but not all whites are smarter than all blacks. Also, races or peoples that may be disadvantaged may use hidden or subtle means to gain power. For example, when Negroes had to be a ‘credit to their race’, they knew how to huck, shuck, and shuffle to fool the white man. They acted like they be all nice and shit when, in fact, they were looking to fool the white boy. MLK used his soulful Negro charisma — something white folks don’t possess — and masterfully pushed emotional buttons to gain emotional and moral power over whites. There is no permanent rule of one race or people. Romans were once mighty over Germanic barbarians, but later Rome fell while Northern Europe rose to great prominence. Japan invaded China in the 1930s, but today China is the more formidable power. Arabs once invaded huge areas of Europe, but in the past century, the West has dominated over the Middle East. But then, immigration trends in Europe suggest that Arabs and Africans may well overtake Europe. The rise and fall of powers was something all tribes and civilizations instinctively or philosophically understood. Most cultures saw history as cyclical, like the coming and going of seasons, like life itself in the way it’s born-live-and-die. And some myths even prophesied the fall of the gods, as in Germanic mythology’s Gotterdammerung. For some reason, the longest surviving spiritual tradition is Judaism — though one could make a case for Hinduism, but it’s difficult to say what Hinduism is exactly. And it was the spread of variations/offshoots of Judaism — Christianity and Islam — that led to the rise of long-lasting civilizations in Europe and the Middle East. Some historians say that with Judaism/Christianity came the idea of linear time, but it may be more accurate to say it was a kind of Transcendent Time. There is a feeling of permanence in Christianity due not so much to a sense of history as a long straight line but to a sense of time being impervious to the world of man. It’s if God owns the clock of the universe, and this sacred time is always timeless. There was the time of nature, time of man, and the Time of God. The Time of nature came and went with the seasons. The Time of man could be marked by the calender. But the Time of God was always the same — eternal and sacred. So, even though the world of man changed with passing of man’s time, God’s Time was one and the same all the time. Thus, Christians in 500 A.D., 1000 A.D. 1500 A.D. and 2000 A.D. lived in very different worlds in terms of man’s time, but they were all part of God’s eternal Sacred Time, forever the same. All high cultures had a sense of sacred time, but the sense of timelessness was really perfected by the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Hindus had a very profound sense of time, but one could argue that Hindu time was greater than the gods since gods were born, ever-changing, dying, and reborn through time. In contrast, God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam never changes. Our perception of Him may change, but He Himself is supposed to the one and only God in the one and only sacred Time. So, if you believe in this God, there is always a sanctum within one’s soul in tune with sacred eternal timeless time. No matter how you may change in a lifetime or the world through millennia of history, that sacred Time remains the same for all true believers. This sense of sacred Time was perfected more by Christians than by the Jews, and this owed to the nature of the Christ narrative. Though Jews seek the advice, guidance, and protection of the one and only God of sacred Time, all Jewish prophets are men of history, which is ever-changing. Great men like Moses and David were figures of the ancient past. In contrast, though Jesus died two thousand years ago, it’s almost as if He’s still with us. And the world in which He lived and died come alive in our imagination as if it happened only yesterday. It’s as if the thirty three years during which Jesus walked the earth entered into some kind of time warp and defied & defined all of history. When we see a film about Abraham, Moses, and David, it feels like a story taking place long ago. But a movie about Jesus seems both timeless and immediate. It feels like it’s both happening ‘right now’ and ‘forever’. Kubrick picked up on this theme in THE SHINING, diabolical variation of Christian Time where the Nicholson character turns out to ALWAYS have been part of the Overlook Hotel — just like the gate in the story told by the priest in Kafka’s THE TRIAL had always been meant for that one seeker of the Law. Both NOW and FOREVER, both UNIVERSAL and ONLY FOR YOU. This may be why Christmas is a prominent feature of EYES WIDE SHUT. Christmas comes again and again and again, like the Nicholson character’s eternal return to the Overlook Hotel. Since Christmas comes again every year, is it cyclical? Yes and No. In holiday terms, yes. But in psycho-spiritual sense, No. Cyclical-ism implies that something is born/lives/dies/reborn; New Year is cyclical, with the symbols of old man and new baby. But the meaning of Christmas isn’t only that Jesus was born on that day but that through Him was born the everlasting truth. Thus, Christmas is a reminder of Jesus’s ever-present permanence; it doesn’t imply that Jesus will keep being born, live, die, and reborn. Rather, He was born, He lived, He died, and was resurrected 2000 yrs ago, and in doing so, He overcame death forever. He broke the cycle for good. Thus, with Jesus there is no past, no present, no future. He is always there, always with us. But He did more than defeat cyclical time(familiar to the pagans). He also transcended linear historical time, through which Jews threaded their ancestry and origins in terms of “from whom, what, and where.” Since Jesus’s father was God Himself, He defied patriarchal linear history on earth. And since Jesus had no children, there was no need to trace His sacred legacy through a progression of historical heirs. Rather, all of humanity was seen as His spiritual children or sheep. There is something spiritual-like and transcendent in the look of the sheep. Due to their woozy fur, it’s more difficult to tell one sheep from another. Thus, all sheep look like they’re part of some whole and unity. And bunched together, they look like heavenly clouds, which is why Robert Bresson ends AU HASARD BALTHASAR with the image of the dead donkey being surrounded by a herd of heavenly sheep. Christmas is the birthday of eternal life. When we commemorate the birthdays of great men, we know they were born, lived, and died. But Christians don’t believe that Jesus ever died after He arrived on earth. His flesh may have died for a while after the Crucifixion, but His soul was alive and rejuvenated the body and made it forever sacred too, which is why Catholics eat crackers and gulp wine.

Anyway, it’s been nearly impossible for any people to gain and maintain permanent power and supremacy, especially over the entire world. Darius’s empire, Alexander’s empire, Roman empire, Mongol empire, Russian empire, British empire, French empire, and etc. are all no more. Some empires have faded while some peoples went from top to bottom. Greeks today are indeed a sorry lot. And whatever happened to the Ottomans? And Mongols today number maybe two million in a desert nation. Individuals throughout history have sought to do whatever necessary to gain and maintain total supremacy ‘forever’. There was an element of this in communism. Marx identified class conflict as the mover of history, dialectically leading to a point in history when the final battle between the classes would be fought — one between the super-bourgeoisie and the pauperized proletariat — , resulting in the over-class being overthrown by the underclass and finally paving the way for a classless society. Without classes, there can be no class conflict. Thus, history would have come to a permanent and harmonious end. It would be a secular attainment of eternal sacred time. Hitler, more brutally perceptive than Marx, saw the main mover of history to be biology — though, to be sure, this idea was not original with Hitler. More than class, it was race and culture that were the core drivers of human conflict. If Marx saw history in terms of the workers exploited and oppressed by the rich/privileged/greedy/cunning, Hitler saw history in terms of the pure and glorious ‘Aryan’ race being contaminated, defiled, and degraded by lower races and elements. (Hitler, for all his hard biological view, was eventually undone by an almost mystical sense of himself as an invincible god-man.) Both Marx and Hitler were overly simplistic(and even insane)with their theories, but as we look around the world, it’s obvious that race/culture is more important than class. Class comes into play in a homogeneous setting. In an all-white society, there can be lots of rich vs middle vs poor tensions. But in a world of ‘tribal’ conflict, people put class differences aside and root for the tribe. Thus, rich Jews, middle class Jews, poor Jews, religious Jews, secular Jews, liberal Jews, and conservative Jews all bunch together against Palestinian ‘barbarians’ in the Middle East. Despite all their yammering about ‘equality’ and ‘universality’, Jews of all stripes in America work for Jewish power. Despite the vast problems of caste and class in China and India, if they were attacked, all Chinese and all Indians will come together to fight the external enemy. When Japan attacked the US, even ‘isolationist’ Americans joined with FDR to go smash the ‘Japs’. Black America has rich, middle class, and poor folks, but they all unite politically to fight the ‘honkey’ man. Indeed, the only people foolish enough to actually embrace ideology over tribalogy are white folks in the democratic West, but then Jews have worked on their psychology. White people are under a kind of hypnosis, like with the guy in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.

Both communism and Nazism failed to achieve permanence. Classes will always exist, and besides, class consciousness isn’t as powerful as other kinds of consciousness. Nazism had a better chance of success since its core ideology was rooted in tribal community, but it failed when it expanded into foreign territories at the expense of other tribes. In a way, Hitler’s utter ruthlessness and bloodiness had an underlying rationale. For an empire to remain permanent, it must organically be held together by one people. A homogeneous empire is more likely to survive than a diverse one. In a diverse empire, one group may rule over others, but how long can the status quo last? Once the determination and ruthless will of the ruling group begins to decline — almost inevitable since power leads to privilege, hedonism, and decadence — , the ruled or oppressed populace begins to smell the blood and begins to rebel. Hitler correctly understood that all past empires were doomed to failure because of their vast diversities. Even worse, Hitler thought, was the danger of the ruling groups mixing their blood with inferior ruled groups. Thus, Egyptian elites became mixed with Negroes. Thus, the purity of the creative ‘Aryan’ blood came to be lost for good. Hitler understood the decline of the great ancient empires to have been the result of blood-mixing following the Aryan rule over non-Aryan people. Though Hitler loathed Jews, he thought Jews had survived for so long because of their Ideology of Sacred Blood. (Christianity, though not an ethno-blood religion, was still a credo-blood religion. By the blood of Christ, it was thought all the faithful were made part of the Christian family. Thus, there is a kind of subconscious tribalism in the iconography of Christianity. Jesus bled horribly as He was whipped and nailed to the Cross. But as His blood soaked the earth, it was as if His sacred blood-seed was planted in the world of man, and it was up to every man and woman to accept this sacrificial blood-seed of Christ and let it grow in their hearts. And so, Catholics eat crackers and gulp wine, considered to be the blood of Jesus. Since Christians must reject ethno-blood-ism, it’s been psychologically replaced with credo-blood-ism. There is also the ritual of baptism, which, with all the wateriness, is not only like cleansing but like being reborn from a womb. Thus, conversion isn’t just a matter of the mind and heart but a physical experience. Being baptized, one feels reborn with new flesh; one feels a member of the Christian family from the same womb. On the other hand, credo-blood-ism goes so far. Though powerful as a psychological tool, it has its limits, which is why a lot of white conservative Christians don’t like ‘niggers’ and why black Christians don’t like ‘honkey-ass motherfuc*ers’.) Hitler also noted that the racially more homogeneous United States was more powerful and prosperous than racially mixed Latin America. He also noticed that the racially more intolerant Brits were more formidable rulers of the world than the race-mixing French. Hitler admired United States as a kind of homogeneous empire. It was huge in territory but made up mostly of one race — white folks, with Negroes being put in their place and kept away from white women(and with even most white men choosing not to mate with Negresses). But he thought — again correctly — that the Anglo-Americans in the US would eventually lose out to Jewish influence and become a bunch of ‘nigger-lovers’(even literally). Hitler thought there was something dangerous in Anglo-American individualism. It emphasized individual interest over sacred group unity. Also, the cult of individual merit might eventually work AGAINST whites. Thus, in time, stronger Negro individuals would kick weaker white individuals — like Joe Louis whupped Max Schmeling and Jesse Owens outran German sprinters — , and cleverer Jewish individuals out-thought and outmaneuvered Anglo-American individuals. In time, Anglo-Americans would come to cheer for the enemy, and indeed that too has come to pass. Wussyboys like Ken Burns worship at the feet of Jack Johnson, basically saying, ‘thank you for kicking our whitey ass and teaching us evil whites a lesson we deserved’. And the brains of white Americans are now pretty much putty in the hands of Jews. For white power to survive, Hitler believed community should trump individuality and homogeneity must be maintained at all cost. So, Hitler’s formula for the 1000 Yr Reich and Empire was to create a vast homogeneous empire. If most of Eastern Europe were sparsely populated, Hitler would indeed have succeeded and created the greatest, stablest, and longest-lasting empire history would even know. He would have created something like Russia or America made up of 99% Germans. Imagine that. It would have been unshakeable. Even if Nazi ideology might eventually fell by the wayside in such an empire, a conservative patriotic nation the size of America that is 99% German is gonna be a great world power(and maybe for 1000 yrs or more). But Eastern Europe already had lots of people, and most Eastern Europeans didn’t qualify as ‘Aryan’ in Hitler’s eyes, and so WWII turned into one bloody mess. Anglo-Americans had a relatively easy time conquering and settling the New World continent against a bunch of Indian tribes and in a war with backward and lazy Mexico in sparsely populated SW territories. Anglo-Americans much took possession of a mostly empty continent. Nazis, in contrast, sought to create a German/‘Aryan’ empire out of Eastern Europe populated with hundreds of millions of people. Hitler would have had to commit super-mass-murder to succeed, and so it wasn’t worth the cost. But Hitler was crazy and psychotic enough to try. His theories on race-and-empire were essentially true. (He was wrong about the superiority of the ‘Aryan’ race, but he was correct that not all races were the same — some races were indeed naturally more talented in certain areas — , and he was right about the relative advantages and disadvantages of homogeneity and diversity in relation to empire building. While Hitler excessively distrusted diversity and over-emphasized purity/homogeneity, he was correct that for any civilization/empire to last ‘forever’, it needed to be based on homogeneity and inculcate a sense of a nation as not just a polity but a family with deep sacred roots in the soil. He was essentially correct in theory, but he failed to understand that theory should only be practiced under proper conditions. Similarly, capitalism is a great economic theory, but it makes no sense trying it on black Africans who are too crazy and dumb to make use of such a complex economic system. Just because something is true doesn’t mean it should be applied or could work anywhere. Letting cats run free reduces the rat population, but that doesn’t mean cats should be released everywhere, especially where they, as an invasive species, could wipe out entire native species of beauty and wonder. Anglo-Americans succeeded in the New World because they didn’t have to kill too many people. Though the story of North American Indians is a tragic one, we’re talking of a few million lives. But if Hitler had succeeded in the East, he would have killed hundreds of millions. Thus, his theory, even if true, was too brutally frightening to be practiced in Eastern Europe. Ironically, Jews practiced something similar against Palestinians though, to be sure, Jews used what goes by the name of ‘ethnic cleansing’ than outright genocide. At any rate, it was more doable for Jews since Jews had designs on only a limited piece of territory in the Middle East, their ancient homeland of Israel. If Zionists had truly decided to be like the Nazis, they would have launched war on the entire Middle East with the express purpose of enslaving/exterminating most Arabs and setting up a vast homogenous Jewish empire over the whole region. In this sense, Zionists have been, more or less, sane nationalists than reckless imperialists. Israel may be the biggest power in the region, but its geographical and political ambitions are limited. If Nazi Germany had thought in similar terms, WWII could have been avoided. The problem of Nazism wasn’t ruling over Germany but attempting to rule over the vast lands of Eastern Europe.)

Anyway, the eventual fall of the British, French, and Russian empires proved that a diverse empire is doomed. People don’t like to be ruled by a foreign people, and when the time is ripe, they rise up and overthrow the colonizers. Alexandrian empire didn’t last long either. Britain is now just a small island nation and nothing special. France too is no longer a great power. Russia is somewhat different. Even after the fall of the Soviet Empire, Russia remains huge and it still has the potential to be a great power, a homogeneous empire-nation that United States once used to be but is no longer due to the machinations of Jews who opened the gates to overwhelm white folks with non-white folks. It remains to be seen if Russians will play their cards right, but I wouldn’t count on it since most Russians are vodka-swilling barbarians. Of course, homogeneity doesn’t necessarily ensure unity-of-the-empire if the empire happens to be geographically divided. Thus, Anglo-Americans rebelled against Anglo Brits. And Canada and Australia also eventually broke off from UK. Maybe the problem with the British Empire was that a midget gave birth to giants. If UK had been the size of Australia or America and if the colonies were tiny(the size of Great Britain), maybe there would have been no Revolutionary War. But when the Founding Fathers looked at their huge territories — and the even greater potential expansion westward — , they must have wondered, “why should we take orders from that tiny midget nation across the Atlantic?” It’s like if a chihuahua gives birth to a great dane, the latter(as it grows larger)is not gonna wanna be ordered about by the little dog. Even so, one could argue that there is a special bond among Anglos, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and Anglo-Americans, a kind of Anglophone empire of the heart and mind. But then, with pop music being the new lingo of late modernity, it seems all Anglophone folks everywhere have been colonized by Negro-ish-ness. People don’t really converse anymore. They sing, rap, yap, or jive. So, we’ve gone from Anglo-phonic to Anglo-Ebonic.

Today, it seems as if only two ‘races’ have survived for a very long time and will continue to do for ages to come: Jews and Chinese. Russia might join this club, but it’s impossible to tell for the time being. EU will likely be African-ized and Arab-ized in the next decades. US will become Africanized and Mexicanized. Canada will follow. And Australia might become taken over by the Asiatic hordes. China, on the hand, will remain China, as it’s always been. Even the minorities of China are essentially part of the yellow breed. It may be counter-intuitive to think that Jews will survive into the distant future as they’ve done for past millennia. Some say, philosemitism is a bigger threat to Jewish survival than antisemitism. If the latter forced and forged Jews into one tight group, the former is leading many Jews to marry goyim, thereby watering down Jewishness. But Jews don’t see it this way. While the ‘purity’ of Jewish blood may be diluted, in some ways the Jewish community will have much to gain. Jews are NOT marrying into goy society but picking the best of the goy society to marry into the Jewish community. Thus, Jews are ‘stealing’ high intelligence among goyim. If a rare super-smart goy person marries a Jew, the kids will be grow up Jewish; meanwhile goy society has lost one of its bright lights to the Jews. Rich Jews marry two kinds of goyim: highly intelligent or very beautiful. Either way, Jews win. If Jewishness is biological, and if biology is about genetics, and if intelligence is genetic, then Jewishness can be defined as ‘high intelligence’. Thus, high intelligence doesn’t have to be Jewish to be valued by Jews as Jewishy. When a Jew meets a very smart goy, he or she thinks, “this goy is Jewishy.” Thus, if the smart goy marries a Jew or Jewess, Jews are bringing in MORE Jewishy high IQ genes into their community. Though Jews pretend not to care about genetics and IQ — and repeat the PC mantra about ‘equality’ — what Jews really believe and what Jews publicly say are two different things. Jews know that their advantage comes from higher IQ, and so if smart whites or Asians(or even blacks) marry into the Jewish community, Jews see it as Jews becoming ‘more Jewish’. In a way, Jews see themselves as the ‘smart race’. Just as Jewish goldsmiths valued all kinds of gold no matter where it came from, Jews value all kinds of intelligence wherever it comes from. Since Jewish personality is stronger than white or Asian personality and because there’s great advantage to identifying as Jewish(especially with the rise of Holocaustianity), children of Jewish/gentile parentage will identify as Jewish or at least Jewishy. Paul Newman felt more Jewishy than non-Jewishy. Same with Sacha Baron Cohen. And though the half-Jewish Bill Maher claims to be without religion and cultural identity, he’s a total Jew. And Howard Stern, though half-Jewish, is about as Jewish as anyone can get. And I’ll bet Kubrick’s daughters see themselves as more Jewish than German. What about when Jews marry good-looking goyim without too much brains? This is especially true with Jewish men marrying blonde bimbos. But even this is approved by the Jewish community because the biggest neurosis among Jews is ugliness. Though there are lots of beautiful Jews, there are also many eye-sores like Barbra Streisand, Woody Allen, Bette Midler, Peter Beinart, and a whole bunch of others. There are lots of ugly goyim — even among whites — , but certain ugly Jews have a hideousness that is truly unique. Jews were proud of many things in their culture, but they were never proud of people who looked like Woody Allen, Mort Zuckerman, or Alan Dershowitz. And so, if the introduction of some pretty goy genes could improve Jewish looks, Jews figure they can save some money on nose-jobs. Joe Lieberman is all Jewish and looks like a goat. So does Rahm Emanuel. But Paul Newman was half-Jewish and one of the most beautiful men who ever lived. Would a Jew prefer to look like Newman or Lieberman? Even so, one might wonder how Jews could survive as a ‘great nation’ when they’ll always be surrounded by goyim in EU and US? Won’t they finally be brought down? No. Even as Jews maintain their Tribalism of Quality, they’ll increase the Diversity of Mediocrity among the goyim. Thus, as US and EU fills up with more Third World people, white genes will become Guatemalan-ized, Mulatto-ized and Arab-ized. While Jews carefully pick and choose to mate with the best(of intelligence and looks)among themselves and with quality goyim, most white goyim will become mudshark-ized, turban-ized, and tortilla-ized. As if dumb white trash of the ass-tattoo-and-meth phenomenon weren’t enough of a problem, white folks will be mixing with a whole bunch of non-white knuckleheads. And with globalism, the white middle class will keep shrinking while things will be ever rosier for the ‘creative’ urban elites.

Anyway, we were saying something about how we are like gods to dogs but how we ourselves don’t have any god-like beings above us since we are the most intelligent species on Earth. Indeed, think of how things would be different if we weren’t the most intelligent/powerful beings on Earth. Suppose there was another species with an IQ of 1000. Suppose they were so great — and their greatness was beyond our power of reasoning — that they had great power over us as we do over dogs and cats. Suppose much of their power is beyond our imagination and understanding, yet there is something about them that endlessly enchants, fascinates, and inspires us. We are moved to revere them almost on faith — even if we don’t really understand them — because they are so much greater than us. And instead of using our own brains to find our own truths, we rely on them to give us the truth since we figure they know so much more than we do. Similarly, dogs prefer to put their trust in man and take orders from man than ‘think’ and act on their own. Just as dogs don’t understand us but are drawn to our rich and complex emotional vibes and voices(and authority), we would feel the same way toward the super-beings. We would be as perplexed, fascinated, and awed as David Bowman was with the extraterrestrials in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. With such superior beings over us, would we need religion? Would we need to invent God or gods? Or, would we revere and worship the super-beings and find spiritual happiness just as dogs find immeasurable happiness in revering, loving, and trusting humans? In a way, maybe there is a desire in all higher organisms not only to gain power but to submit to power. This begins early because higher mammals and birds are raised by their parents. As young ones, they are helpless and dependent. Children look up to their parents. There is pleasure in this powerlessness since there’s so much love involved. Italian mama’s boys still feel this way. They’d rather forgo independence and power because they love being dependent on the loving Mamma Mia. Similarly, even as a dog or cat sometimes wants to run wild and free, it wants to come back home and be dependent on the master — and not just for food and shelter but for love and caring from a higher all-knowing being. Paradoxically, there is a sense of certainty in the uncertainty of submitting to a higher authority. A child doesn’t know or understand how his or her parents run things, but there is comfort in not knowing and believing in faith that the parents know what they’re doing. We don’t know how a nuclear plant is run; instead, we trust the scientists and engineers as all-knowing experts of that stuff and leave it up to them. And dogs and cats don’t ask how dog-food or cat-food is made or where it comes from. They wanna trust in man’s seemingly magical power to procure that stuff. In nature, there is no magic but only struggle; in nature, dogs and cats know they must hunt or fight for food; there is no manna from heaven. But with man, dogs and cats can have manna from heaven. Similarly, God makes us feel certain because He’s so uncertain. Since He’s beyond our comprehension, we accept our ignorance blissfully and put our faith in Him as a child does with his or her parent. Mankind may have felt a need to create God or gods since there’s no higher creature above us on Earth to guide us, help us, comfort us, and etc. When wolves met humans, it was like they met god. And so they chose to go with humans and leave their wolf-kind behind. And wolves became dogs and never looked back. And when cats settled in human habitats and became loved by humans, they too never looked back. Though most animals are not fit to be raised as ‘pets’, most higher animals do feel the ‘divine’ grace of man when they’re near us, a feeling they can’t find with any other creature. Even a big bear, if raised from a cub by a human, can be filled with great reverence for its master even though it can kill him with one blow. The only way humans — who are also animals — could feel such holy reverential powerlessness before a higher power was by creating God or gods. And by creating science and technology too — or the higher caste of scientists. Though one side of science is to understand facts and the deeper truth, another side of science is to create higher technology that is worthy of worship. Much has been said about the Will to Power but not enough about the Will to Powerlessness. The will to powerlessness doesn’t mean we wanna be oppressed or abused. Rather, it means we want to be powerless before a great, higher, superior, and/or divine power. Part of us wanna be god-like but another part of us wanna kneel before god-like powers. There’s pleasure in power but also pleasure/comfort in powerlessness. (Though Nietzsche attributed the ‘slave mentality/morality’ to Christianity, it is an innate part of the human/animal psyche. We can see it in dogs. We may argue that dogs are submissive because they’ve been tamed to be that way, i.e. dogs have been turned into animal slaves from their original wolf form/soul that was full of warrior-hunter vigor. But even among wolves, there is not only the struggle for domination but also the will to submit to stronger members. Why does the Stockholm Syndrome exist and not just among Christian Westerners. Why do children like to be tucked into bed by their parents? In surrendering to the authority of others, there is a sense of comfort and less of a need to worry and think. That is also the appeal of Socialism, a kind of secular spirituality: ‘divine’ rights ensured by the all-powerful and ‘wise’ state. Worrying and thinking are taxing and stressful, but they’re necessary in order for us to be free adult individuals. Thus, even though people uphold ideals of freedom and liberty, they are really afraid of them in practice because it means they must think and make tough decisions/risks for themselves. Why is it that people actually feel most free in high school and college? It’s because they’re moving into adult freedom without adult responsibilities. Though allowed to be freer, they are still dependent on their parents and schools to take care of them. Would we rather deal with criminals on our own, or do we wanna rely on cops? Why has there been such a massive expansion of government? Even conservatives want security and protection, and to have them, freedom and liberty must be sacrificed. Why do conservatives go to Churches for answers, and why do liberals rely on Political Correctness for answers? Because they wanna be told what to think and what to do since thinking-and-acting for themselves is mentally stressful. Also, if one follows orders and something goes wrong, one can just innocently say, “but I was only following orders”, as Adolf Eichmann did. Anyway, Nietzscheanism would essentially amount to a slave ideology for 99% of humanity. While it offers power and glory to the rare Over Man, it’s predicated on the conviction that most people are dumb sheep who would gladly welcome and worship the Over Man. Thus, Nietzsche’s objection to Christianity was only that it required the ELITES to be slaves of mass morality, i.e. the problem was Christianity psychologically and soulfully enslaved the elites. The problem was not that Christianity enslaved the masses, whom Nietzsche thought deserved to be slaves. Christian civilization’s actual history of favoring the rich and powerful over the toiling masses didn’t bother Nietzsche. His ideology wasn’t to liberate the masses but to turn them into slaves of elites liberated from moral hypocrisy. Christian elites oppressed and exploited the masses but pretended not to. The problem was with the pretense, not with the actual fact of oppression, as far as Nietzsche was concerned. Nietzsche wasn’t for the end of oppression but for an honest oppression.) Why do women like to be conquered by masterful men? Why do men cheer like girls when they see great athletes. Why do SWPL males hire black guys to hump their girlfriends while they, as pussified white boys, pull on their puds? It’s because male psychology has the alpha principle and beta principle. The alpha principle takes pleasure from ruling over inferior males, but the beta-principle takes its pleasure from submitting to superior males. Thus, white liberal boys get their jollies by submitting to the bigger-muscled, thicker-voiced, and bigger-pudded Negroes. They find bliss in being humiliated, just like dogs love to wag their tails and submit to humans. To be sure, the racial Will to Powerlessness of SWPL in relation to blacks is physical than spiritual, but there is no clear dividing line between physicality and spirituality in religion. God is revered not only for His great wisdom but for His great power. Indeed, spirituality arose from man’s worship of powerful phenomenon and animals on earth. Just as primitive man spiritualized powerful animals into nature gods, white liberals have spiritualized powerful, muscled, and big-whankered Negroes into demigods. White boys have goose pimples and feel shivers up their legs when they hear the masterful voices of blacks, when they see the confident swagger of Negro alpha males. Rand Paul and Rich Lowry weep to MLK’s booming-voiced speeches. Dweeby white boy Rock critics slobber all over and wet their pants as they praise the likes of Kanye West the megalomaniac fool to high heaven.

Science Fiction is ‘spiritual’ in its vision of the future as Heaven and/or Hell created by man’s duality of Will to Power and Will to Powerlessnes: Man creates greater technology to gain more power and control over things. But he also wants from technology something that is greater than man. We are tantalized by the idea of computers that can out-think man, be wiser than man. We think of using bio-engineering to create new species of beings that may be far greater than man. Greeks understood this through their myths of Prometheus and Pandora. Man wants to steal fire from the gods, but man still wants gods to control the world and to have power over man. Man doesn’t trust man, just like dogs don’t trust other dogs. Dogs trust and revere man, and man trusts and reveres God or gods. It’s like athletes look to referees for fairness, and litigants look to judges(higher authority)for justice. Man wants fire from the gods, but doesn’t want to destroy the gods. Indeed, the gods weren’t killed by man’s will. Mankind loved and revered gods even as it feared them, just like dogs love and revere man just as it fears man. The (pagan)gods were not killed by man but by the coming of the one and only God of Christianity and Islam. Finally, God was killed in the modern West not because man wanted to kill Him but because man’s discoveries in his attempt to understand God’s greatness ‘accidentally’ came to prove His non-existence. The killing of God was an accident. Kepler didn’t want to kill God. Galileo didn’t want to kill God. And biologists who paved the way for the theory of evolution didn’t want to kill God. They all wanted to understand how the world of God worked. But staring closely at the workings of the world, they stumbled on matters that suggested there may be no God. Man. Having accidentally killed God, mankind found itself ill-equipped to deal with the world, just like a dog suddenly without a master doesn’t know what to do. So, secular man without God sought to invent new gods through in the cult of art, cult of ideology, cult of celebrity, cult of pop culture, etc. But it is through technology that we may be able to create something so greater than us — something so intelligent, wise, knowledgeable, powerful, awesome — that we’ll again have something like the gods or God over us to worship. This is something we both dread and look forward to, and the tension between our Will to Power and Will to Powerlessness is evident in BLADE RUNNER. In a way, replicants are extensions of us but shorn of our imperfections and superior to us in intellect and power. There are ‘more human than human’, or more perfectly human than human. But perfection is not of this world nor of humanity. “Perfect human” or “human perfection” is an oxymoron. Human perfection is impossible and dangerous for the individual and for society. So many girls hate their faces and bodies because they fall short of ‘perfect beauty’ pushed by the fashion industry dominated by gaytriarchs of the gay boys’ network, who’ve conspired to keep women out of elite positions in the fashion industry. Some boys and girls who feel inferior will do just about anything — act like sluts or thugs — to win approval so as to live up the pop ideal of womanhood or manhood. Since most girls lack beauty and poise, they try to prove their female worth with tits and ass. And since most guys lack the ability to excel as athletes, they put on the street thug act. Paradoxically, in their desperate attempt to be more perfectly womanlike or manlike, they become even less perfect. A slut is a caricature of womanhood and a thug of manhood. And yet, the ideal of perfection tempts and tantalizes us. Oddly enough, though ‘perfection’ connotes objectivity, it is a deeply emotional and passionate ideal. It is related to but different from precision and accuracy. One can objectively say that a certain measurement is more precise than another or that a certain estimation is more accurate than another in purely numerical terms. Whatever one’s ideology, one would agree that it’s more precise to measure the height or length of something with a ruler than with rule-of-thumb. But ‘perfection’ is essentially an aesthetic or sensual response, and thus, it is emotional. We speak of perfect beauty, but beauty is not objective, and one’s idea of beauty differs from person to person. To be sure, there are general agreements on beauty among most people. 99% of people will say Greta Garbo was more beautiful than Shelly Winters, or that Pierce Brosnan is more handsome than Robert Blake. Even so, there is no objective measure for beauty. Besides, there’s more to human worth than looks. Sainthood is about soulful beauty, and even an ugly person can be beautiful inside, while a beautiful person can be vile, vapid, and shallow inside. Nazism’s concept of the spirit was ultimately meaningless because it was almost entirely tied to ‘Aryan beauty’. Since ‘Aryans’ supposedly were more perfectly beautiful than other races, ‘Aryans’ could just do as they please without any moral compunction. Such mania gave beauty a bad name. On the other hand, the totalitarian-ization of the soul can also be dangerous. Communism, though irreligious, was essentially moral-spiritual in claiming that every worker had a human soul of equal worth regardless of whether he was good-looking or intelligent. Thus, all workers were deserving of justice. But communism’s radical insistence on soulful beauty made it blind to other kinds of beauty. Thus, communists smashed great churches and shut down entire endeavors/industries as promoting ‘vanity’ and ‘narcissism’. Worst of all, it felt morally so justified in its soulful beauty that it thought it had the historical right to kill as many class enemies as possible; Christians and Muslims had done the same thing with similar justifications. Ironically, the people who suffered most under communism were the workers and especially the peasants. For every member of the aristocracy or bourgeoisie killed by communists, tens of thousands of little people perished in Russia and China. Both ‘radical beauty’ and ‘radical soul’ are dangerous, but radical beauty seems worse to us because beauty seems shallow and vapid compared to the soul, which at least has a measure of depth. It’s also because most people are not beautiful and, therefore, resentful of beautiful people. Everyone has a soul, but not everyone has beauty. Thus, everyone can identify with and claim ownership of the soul but not of beauty. Also, our preference of soul over beauty has to do with how we’ve been raised. Most parents are ordinary folks, not fashion models or good-looking celebrity-types. Yet, there’s a deep bond between children and parents. For most children, to reject the soul in favor of beauty would be rejecting one’s own family. And even beautiful parents can give birth to ugly kids, but the love and affection for the ugly kids are still there. And even ugly dogs and cats can be wonderful animal friends. Even so, it is misleading to say the beauty is shallow or ‘skin-deep’. Appreciation of beauty is also a deep emotion. Take Alfred Hitchcock’s VERTIGO. Scotty(James Stewart) falls in love with ‘Madeline’ because she’s beautiful; and later he tries to recreate her as “‘Madeline’”, but is it correct to say his emotional responses are vapid and shallow? No, there is something sublime about beauty and the way it affect us. Beauty is an aphrodisiac that makes people feel the greatest kind of passion. It may not be deep in the religious sense, but there is a mythological spiritualism to beauty. Think of all the poets inspired by the silver moon. Thus, there is something sacred about beauty. Why do we protect certain areas of nature but not others? Because it has greater beauty. In objective terms, they all have rocks, water, trees, and etc. But the different arrangements of those elements make some places more beautiful than others, and we choose to preserve beautiful areas over ‘plain’ ones. In WICKER PARK, one of the characters says, “Love makes you do crazy things”, but how and why did she fall in love with a certain guy? Because he, Josh Hartnett, is a really good-looking guy. Even before she spoke to him, she was totally in love with him. Were her emotions shallow and vapid because she loved him for his beauty? Her love for him may not have been spiritually ‘deep’ but it was inspired and imaginative. Many of the greatest art works have been inspired by beauty — of nature, women, children, animals, heroes, etc. Even Jesus, the Savior of all mankind, has often been portrayed in a sublimely beautiful way. Even His suffering has been aestheticized, made ‘morally beautiful’. Would Christianity have been as appealing if Jesus had been portrayed as someone who looks like Joe Pesci, Perez Hilton, or Danny Devito? This is why Jews find so much value in Hollywood, through which their agendas, ideas, and values can be presented ‘beautifully’. Though Jews bitch and whine about the ‘irrational’ beauty cult of Nazism, Jews use the same dynamic to push their own agenda: They make their side LOOK good while making the other side LOOK bad. The movie THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT had the good-looking Michael Douglas playing a liberal president while the Republican Senator was played by the grotesque-looking Gary Oldman. And how can anyone disagree with the sentiments of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD when the good-looking and noble-sounding Gregory Peck makes a grand speech about ‘racial justice’? (Jews also push the beautification of Jewish ugliness and the uglification of ‘Aryan’ beauty. Some movies will show an ugly Jewish character in a glowing and positive light, e.g. MONEYBALL that presented a fat ugly Jew as a genius-angel; while other movies will show good-looking ‘Aryan’ types as a bunch of low-down jerks, as in REVENGE OF THE NERD. In some cases, Jews use all their media hype to convince us that Jewish ugliness is actually good-looking, as in the cult of Barbra Streisand, Billy Crystal as romantic lead, and Sarah Jessica Parker as a sex symbol. Just as Jews would have us believe that ‘gay marriage’ is normal and real marriage is abnormal and phobic, they would have us believe that Jewish ugliness is beautiful and ‘Aryan’ beauty is ugly.) In PLATOON, the Dafoe character dies a beautiful death, which is why it was so moving to audiences. Thus, the look, design, expression, and/or style are not merely shallow. This doesn’t mean that good looks necessarily amount to much. Sports Illustrated photos of models in swimsuits are pretty lifeless and plastic. And excessive airbrushing and other techniques used by popular magazines have rendered beauty inorganic and plastic. There is something so very artificial about the gay aesthetic that is both an advantage and disadvantage. To the extent that all art is artifice, the gay penchant for artificiality makes the gay sensibility ‘naturally’ artistic. But art devoid of organicism is dead art. The great gay artists of the Renaissance expressed a sublime blend of artificiality and naturalism, but of late, gay aesthetics have become increasingly plastic and lifeless. It’s somewhat fitting that the artificial being in PROMETHEUS by Ridley Scott is gayish. Why are gays this way? Why this tendency toward or even obsession with artificiality? Could it be because they are naturally dysfunctional? Since a gay artist is often a man with feminine feelings, he must feel unnatural with nature, which rolled a strange pair of genetic dice in his case. Unable to accept his contradictory nature — female soul in man’s body — , the gay artist may prefer the world of artifice where he, Plato-like, can deal with abstract ideals than organic reals. Thus, the gay ideal of female beauty has less to do with real women. It’s like Plato’s concept of ‘perfect forms’. But gay aesthetic may have wide appeal because artificiality simplifies things, especially for people who seek perfection over imperfection. Most Japanese are not gay, but much of their kawaii culture is gayish. The sheer artificiality and sterility of Japanese pop culture is almost mind-numbing, but this may have roots in traditional Japanese culture, much of which was formed and shaped by closeted gays — or maybe not so closet-ness since homosexuality, though looked down upon, was never considered a mortal since in Japan as it had been in the Christian West or Islamic Middle East. In Japan, certain people, especially in the arts but even among the samurai, could be gay as long as they were discreet about it; but then, all Japanese were supposed to keep their heads bowed at all time, even when they were doing normal stuff. Maybe the feminine geeky nature of most Japanese men also have something to do with the sickening rise of kawaii culture with its ultra-artificial idols. And to the extent that gayness is often associated with pederasty, there seems to be a lot of that in Japan too, not only in cartoons and schoolgirl fantasies but in massive tourism to Southeast Asian nations that offer child-sex to sickos from the First World. While the emotions triggered by beauty are not necessarily shallow and indeed can be sublime, inspirational, and poetic, it would seem that most of what passes for the cult of beauty is pretty shallow, trashy, and/or meaningless. Beauty has been plasticized and commodified, sterilized and perfectionized, so much so that even when Lady Gaga or Mudonna do sexy things, it’s more like campy parodies than genuine sexuality. It’s sexuality turned into laboratory porn. There’s nothing human, romantic, or poetic in much of pop culture. It’s not even sensual given its cellophane/styrofoam packaging. Sexuality used to be a part of a person — think of Joan Crawford or Jeanne Moreau. But over time, sexuality has become laboratory-purified and sold as soda-pop and candy. It’s like artificial sweetners. (Morality and spirituality too have become commodified, with the rise of mega-snake-oil peddlers like Oprah, Dr. Phil, and Rick Warren. Worse, immorality has been commodified into New Morality, as with ‘gay marriage’ mania. Nowadays, an idiot like Sandra Fluke can demand free money for her pussy and be hailed as a great moral crusader. Just push the button on the right tropes. The Modern West will give its enemies enough tropes to bang them with. And ‘patriotism’ too is a matter of buying into some mass crap peddled by Fox News or MSBNC.) Beauty has become such a commodity that one doesn’t even have to be beautiful to sell it. One just need to employ and market the correctly formulated tropes of beauty. Thus, Lady Gaga is a plain-faced and gangly-bodied freak, but she’s supposed to be some great sexy star because... she puts on all the right movements and makes all the right noises. ‘Genius’ too has been turned into a marketing gimmick, and even intelligent people are fooled or want to be fooled, what with the New Republic calling Kanye West “America’s Mozart”. It’s as if intellectuals distilled a certain aspect of Mozart’s genius — one among many and far from the most important — , then identified similar attributes in other ‘artists’, and finally concluded that since Mozart and the other ‘artists’ have something in common, the latter must be ‘geniuses’ too. Similarly, Robert Crumb has been hailed by some art critics as one of the great giants of all time. And some think Tarantino is up there with Welles, Leone, and Kubrick.

The personalism of beauty has been lost. VERTIGO is less about beauty but what it inspires in the heart of one who is spellbound by it. It is also about the various facets of the relation between beauty and tragedy: Beauty can belong to another, beauty can be soul-sick, beauty can be fragile, beauty can fade, beauty can be the face revealing soul, beauty can be a mask hiding the soul, beauty can betray, beauty can be too good to be true. ‘Madeline’ turns out to be a mask who fooled Scotty, but to the extent that she fell in love with him — and with his love for her or what she was pretending to be — , ‘Madeline’ was the real face of her soul. And though Scotty’s poetic imaginations about ‘Madeline’ are ‘disproved’, to the extent that his passion for her was real his love was also real; God doesn’t have to really exist for man to worship and commune with Him, and romantic love isn’t only about the real object of love but the imagination that is projected onto the object of love; thus, love has a ‘spiritual’ angle. In WICKER PARK, Alex(Rose Byrne) imagines things that, whether true or untrue, carries a personal truth. Thus, it’s not about mass commodified beauty but personal beauty. In JULES AND JIM, Jules acknowledges there are plenty of women prettier than Catherine(Jeanne Moreau), but she is the one who inspires and enslaves his love. Again, the worship of beauty is personalized. Beauty tended to be more personalized in Old Hollywood than in New Hollywood. Think of Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Lauren Bacall, Barbara Stanwyck, Bette Davis, Ingrid Bergman, and especially the incomparable Joan Crawford. Both maleness and femaleness have become utterly plastic in recent cinema, not least due to the rise of CGI and superhero movies. Indeed, the G in CGI might as well stand for ‘gay’. Though capable of creating some outstanding images, CGI has, more often than not, been a boon for the kind of gay artificiality and sterile ‘perfectionism’ that has come to dominate blockbuster movie-making. James Cameron of AVATAR fame isn’t gay but might as well be since even nature doesn’t feel natural in his movies.

The power of beauty can run deep. Consider a man who falls in love with a beautiful woman and is inspired to fight/kill/die to defend her honor. Suppose in an alternative universe, the very same man came upon an ugly woman, didn’t fall in love with her, and didn’t fight/kill/die to defend her honor. If beauty is shallow, then we should condemn the guy for not equally falling in love with the ugly woman and defending her honor. But, we totally understand why a man would go to hell and back for a beautiful woman while he’d just walk away from an ugly hag. Even an African tribal warrior wouldn’t give his life for Whoopie Goldberg. When a man gives his life for a beautiful woman, we don’t call that shallow and vapid. We call it romantic and tragic. (Consider the great final scene of Michael Mann’s THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS where the good-looking Indian warrior tries to save the beautiful white woman from the ugly Indian fittingly named Mogwart. Would he have gone to such length if the woman were Rosanne Barr? Should he have?) Thus, looks are more than looks. They trigger emotional responses that inspire people to feel love, poetry, bliss, sadness, and etc. Saying that beauty is only skin-deep is like saying a masterpiece painting is only cloth-deep. It’s like saying the lovableness of a dog or cat is only fur-deep. Consider the scene in TESS(directed by Roman Polanski)where the guy falls madly in love with Tess but not with the plain or ugly girls. Indeed, he carries the ugly girls over the water only so he could have the opportunity to carry Tess. He feels the way he does because Tess is beautiful, and we don’t fault him for his feelings. Some may say this is unfair, but beauty-blindness would also be unfair. Loving the ugly as much as the beautiful is like handing out A’s to dummies and smarties alike. Is it fair to a smart kid to be given the same grade as a dummy? Some people are simply more deserving of love, just like some people are more deserving of A’s in schools or gold medals in the Olympics. Also, beauty isn’t just about the look but how the look inspires imagination of the soul; people can imagine falsely, as they often do in film noir, mistaking some no-good dame for a damsel simply because of her looks, but the look of a person does say something about that person. If Woody Allen had been born looking like Robert Redford, his very personality would have been different, and it would have been the same if Robert Redford had been born looking like Woody Allen. If from a young age, Woody Allen looked in the mirror and saw ‘Robert Redford’, many of his complexes and resentments would never have developed. When we look at certain photos and paintings, we study faces as expressions of the inner soul. Also, there is a mirror dynamic in beauty, which can be moral or immoral. The mirror doesn’t necessarily have to reflect oneself. It can be offered as a generous fantasy mirror to others, as if the beauty of one can be shared by others. Thus, there is both a selfish and selfless side to beauty. A person of beauty feels “this is my beauty and mine alone” but also feels “this beauty of mine shall inspire others to feel beautiful too.” This sentiment is beautifully expressed in the Velvet Underground song “I’ll Be Your Mirror”.

In the case of the SNOW WHITE story, the mirror dynamic becomes immoral, what with the Queen becoming narcissistic and forbidding anyone to be more beautiful than she is. Beauty makes her greedy and vain. But the recognition and appreciation of one’s own beauty can also inspire one to be good. If a woman sees her beautiful self every day, she will feel good about herself, and she’ll want to be soulfully good-feeling as she’s physically good-looking. She’ll want her physical beauty to be a reflection of soulful beauty, and vice versa. Of course, not all good-looking women feel this way, but some do. This is generally a good thing, but not in our currently PC order where goodness is associated with ‘gay marriage’ and interracism. Most good-looking women may be well-meaning and wanna-be-good-ish, but they aren’t the brightest people in the world. So, their sense of goodness is absorbed from the powers-that-be in popular culture and schooling. Since political correctness and gay culture dominate much of culture and/or education, most good-looking girls who wanna be good-hearted just end up agreeing with Perez Hilton and Ellen Degenerate. They mean well but are moral sheep. During the Nazi era, most good-looking German girls wanted to be ‘good’ by obeying Hitler. Today, it’s by obeying Oprah and Obama. Thus, the desire to be good can actually lead to badness depending on who has the power to define what is ‘good’ since most people aren’t capable of thinking on their own what is good and what is bad; they must be told and indeed they wanna be told. Why else would Sandra Bullock have adopted some Jafro-baby from Africa? She’s trying to do something good but unwittingly doing something really bad as the Africanization of the West will be 1000x worse than even Nazi victory would have been. Though Jewish-Hollywood often features ugly Jews as hapless saints and blonde goyim as bullying assholes, the fact is ugliness is a double-edged sword like beauty. Ugliness can make a person more moral. Seeing one’s ugliness in the mirror every day, a person may feel a need to develop intellectually and morally since he or she cannot rely on looks. Being disadvantaged in looks, one may compensate in other ways. One may also, by contemplating one’s own ugliness, feel sympathy for other unfortunate people. Thus, ugliness can inspire goodness in a person. But ugliness can also make a person feel resentful, angry, nasty, and vicious. If the wicked queen in SNOW WHITE is made evil by vain beauty, the ugly mother and her uglier daughters in CINDERELLA owe their nastiness to their ugliness. They hate Cinderella because she’s beautiful while they’re not. And so, the mother and her daughters, just like ugly Jewish feminists, try to tear Cinderella down. Indeed, much of Jewish vileness and viciousness derives from their Cult of Resentful Ugliness.

Modern mass society is one of the most schizoid psycho-social realities created by man. Not only are the hypocrisies and inconsistencies raging to the nth degree but go unseen even or especially by well-educated people(but then, ‘well-educated’ nowadays is synonymous with well-indoctrinated). In the past, the masses of illiterates were fooled by the state and church because they didn’t know any better. And under dictatorships, the masses were fooled because information was tightly controlled. And even in our so-called free society, the lower classes fall for stupid stuff because they’re dumb and uneducated. But depressingly, some of the most delusional and deranged people in the West are well-educated. But then, considering that well-educated Germans fell for Nazism and well-educated Jews fell for communism in the first half of the 20th century, maybe this shouldn’t be very surprising. After all, what is education really? It can be used to teach people how to think but, more often than not, it teaches people what to think. Also, many well-educated people tend to come from cocooned and privileged backgrounds, which means they tend to be naive about the true nature of power, especially as wielded and abused by jigger-jiving Negroes. Thus protected in their social bubble, they’re blind to all the horrible reality associated with Negroes. Now, education can be used to teach privileged white people about the danger of Negro power, but education in the West does the very opposite. Mass media and academia have privileged white people believe that angelic Negro children “armed with only Skittles” are routinely hunted down and murdered by ‘racist’ WHITE Hispanics.

White kids are told that MLK was some perfect saint, that ‘racist’ white America owes something to the wonderful Negroes. Given the state of our education and the nature of the prevailing ideology, to be ‘well-educated’ often means to be a dupe of political correctness that doesn’t encourage people to think, at least on issues such as race, sex, and culture. Even so, America is not a totalitarian society. And despite media and academic efforts to mold a certain mind-set among the educated, there’s too much available evidence out there that upsets the liberal PC narrative. So, why are educated people so blind to the real reality? For one thing, most people are not passionate about political, moral, intellectual, or ideological issues. They wanna succeed, be liked, and get along. So, most educated people seek just enough education to ‘fit into better society’ and no more. So, most of them just absorb the basic narratives taught in schools and don’t go looking for alternative, counter, or revisionist views that might reveal the deeper truth. They prefer slogans and cliches to real thought. The reason could be also emotional than intellectual. From a young age, they were drummed with the ‘original sin of racism’. But there’s another factor: Fear and denial. Even if privileged whites are drummed with all the PC stuff about racial equality, they must surely know from sports and crime reports that the Negro can whup the whitey’s ass. So, most whites don’t wanna do anything that might upset Negroes and lead to a shouting match, whereby the Negro will kick the whitey’s ass. But there are other factors too. But since admitting this fear would be shameful, educated whites live in therapeutic denial. Consider how crime reports are shown on TV. Though the perpetrators are usually blacks, they are often described as ‘teens’ or ‘youths’. Also, the reporter is often a Nice Negro, as if to remind TV viewers that the ‘teens’ who cause trouble are only a few bad apples in an otherwise decent barrel of Negro apples; viewer is subliminally made to think that your average Negro — like the Nice Negro TV reporter — is as American as Apple Pie when, in truth, the Negro is as African as Exploding Watermelon. Through all these kinds of trickery, the viewer is emotionally manipulated. And it’s not just about Negroes.

Consider the whole gay business. There are all sorts of gays, from extreme wild gays to quiet ones. But the media suppress crazy wild gays and emphasize gays who seem very normal, indeed ‘more normal than normal’. But when it comes to reporting on people who stand up to the demented gay agenda, the media emphasize the most insanely anti-gay lunatics who have nothing better to do than hold up ‘God Hates Fags’ placards at military funerals.

Thus, homosexuality, which is abnormal, is made to look normal, whereas the anti-gay-agenda stance, which is normal, is made to look abnormal. The Jew-run media selectively associates homosexuality with images of normality while selectively associating the anti-gay-agenda stance with images of extreme lunacy as represented by the Westboro Church.
Even so, one wonders how and why well-educated white liberals can go on fooling themselves that their view of reality makes any sense. Consider how they tolerate Sarah Silverman and Howard Stern but flipped out over Don Imus. Consider how foul and filthy rap music(despite its stuff about ‘faggots’ and ‘hos’) is lauded by liberals at war with ‘homophobia’ and ‘misogyny’, but liberals were SO SHOCKED by Don Rickle’s run-of-the-mill racial cracks about Obama. Consider how liberals say they’re for the ‘little guy’ but turn a blind eye to the plight of Palestinians. Consider how Jewish liberals say Jewish culture and liberalism are all about ‘speaking truth to power’, but no one can say anything about the great Jewish power. And so on and so forth. How could educated and knowledgeable white liberals go on with such outrageous hypocrisies? They are not dirt-poor illiterate peasants of long ago. They graduated from colleges, they’ve read books, they traveled the world. Maybe what the kid said about ghosts in THE SIXTH SENSE applies to us too. He said ghosts see only what they want to see despite all the evidence to the contrary. It seems we are that way too, and I say ‘we’ because conservatives — well-educated ones — have their own blinders. It’s amazing that some highly educated conservatives think George W. Bush was a good president. (I suppose the meaning of THE SIXTH SENSE is that both ghosts and people have their blinders on. Bruce Willis’s character — the ghost — chooses to believe he’s still alive and married to his wife; and living people, wrapped up in their daily realities, choose to be blind to the spirits all around them. Just as Bruce Willis character pretended he was still alive, the kid’s mother held onto the conviction that her own mother didn’t really love her. It is the kid who serves as a bridge to both worlds. He can see the living from the world of the dead and sees the dead from the world of the living. He serves as eyes and ears to both realms. Maybe M. Night Shyamalan identified with the kid because he’s of two worlds: Asian-Indian and American. Thus, he identifies with both worlds.)

It could be Jews very well understand both the Will to Power and Will to Powerlessness. Jews, as the controlling elites of America, wonder how to steer and harness the goy’s Will to Power. If it’s totally repressed, it might explode. So, Jews have to let the goyim indulge in some degree of Will to Power as a safety-valve. If goy Will to Power blows up and gets out of hand, the worst case scenario for Jews could be something like Nazism, but even Putinism is bad enough. For Negro goys, there is mindless rap to suck up their energies. Negroes are too busying hollering rap to one another to do anything constructive. As for white trash, there is professional wrestling and the military. And for everyone, there’s all these dumb superhero Hollywood blockbusters. Jews even employ fascist expression in mass entertainment but defanged of the anti-Jewish element. Thus, Arnold Schwarzenegger was Jewish Hollywood’s pet Aryan running dog. He looked like a Nazi super-race-warrior but sided with ‘diversity’. And there is sports, a national obsession with Americans. If white America once resisted the rise of the Negroes in sports, now white boys and girls go nuts cheering for Negroes. Thus, goy Will to Power is channeled to neutralize goy Will to Power. White people watch sports to wallow in the Power, but white goyim are essentially submitting to black power.

What about the goy Will to Powerlessness? If dogs find great meaning and comfort in loving, revering, and near-worshiping humans, whom should goyim(especially white goyim) love, revere, and worship as superior-higher beings? Jews have come up with the unholy Trinity of Jews-Gays-Negroes. Of course, ordinary Jews, gays, and Negroes aren’t anything special in reality. If you meet some Jew, he or she’s just some Jew. A Jew is a Jew. If you meet a gay, he’s a gay. He may be nice and all, but his penis is stained with feces. And Negroes may be good at sports and all, but most Negroes you see on the street are just a bunch of jigger-jivers. So, how did Jews manage to turn themselves, gays, and Negroes into higher beings to be worshiped by white goyim? Through the mass media(which has the power to exaggerate, expand, glorify, romanticize, spiritualize, gargantuanize, mythify, and fascist-ize things of reality), Jews have turned Jews into Holy Jews, gays into Saintly Gays, and Negroes into Magic Negroes. Since the beginning of history, the powers-that-be used monumental-ism to make themselves appear god-like. Think of the giant sculptures of Egyptian Pharaohs. Think of palaces and the ceremonies of the French court. Think of the Forbidden City in China and the cult of the Divine Right to Rule. But prior to mass media, the only reality known and accessible to most people was soil and toil of their immediate environment. But, this didn’t really matter since the dirt poor masses weren’t gonna upset the social order. They were too ignorant, too tired, and too unorganized to do anything to challenge the political status quo. Indeed, most revolutions and great transformations were the result of one elite pushing out another elite. In the 50s and 60s, it seemed like masses of Americans were rising up against the unjust ‘racist’ order, but in fact, it was Jewish and liberal elites using the media and politics to steer the masses in that direction. Or take ‘gay marriage’. It didn’t develop as a mass thing. The masses would never, on their own, come up with such nutty idea. Rather, Jewish and gay elites used their great media powers to steer the masses to be pro-queer. Masses are like cattle. They go where they are prodded. Jews and gays saying that Americans are moving toward ‘gay marriage’ by free will is like saying that cattle are heading in a particular direction all on their own. This is really Cattle Drive Politics, but people as cattle think they are leading the rancher-elites. It’s amazing how many people are fooled by devious Jews. Jews see us as cattle and are using the cattle prod. Cass the Ass Sunstein calls it ‘nudging’. We are ‘nudged’ by Jews, but we think we did it on our own. Jews are masters of nudgology, but then this trick can’t be too difficult since white people are SO EASY. Why so easy? White people have just the right balance of individual defiance and communal good will to fall for the dirty Jewish trick. Jews manipulate and turn white goy’s individual defiance against his own kind. Thus, a white liberal takes pride in the fact that, instead of mindlessly conforming to white tribalism, he or she rises above atavistic prejudices. But the other side of white goy personality is communal good-will, and Jews exploit this well-meaning/cooperative side among whites toward serving the Jew, gay, and Negro. Take Ken Burns. He’s individually defiant of Wasp power from which he arose, and he takes pride in this and flatters himself as a free thinker. But the other side of Burns that wants to be a good communal member of society is recruited and molded by Jews to sheepishly serve Jews, Negroes, and gays. Ken Burns will NEVER be individually defiant against Jews/gays/Negroes, only against his own kind. Asians — at least ones in Asia — are harder to break by Jews since they have less of an individually defiant personality. Thus, most Asians will conform to the social-political-and-social order established by their own elites. Also, while the Asian personality is eager to be well-liked, it is not necessarily well-meaning. An Asian wants to fit into society because he wants to belong, not out of any higher civic sense of doing good. It is thus less moralistic(at least in the higher sense) and therefore less likely to fall for guilt-baiting by Jews. Japanese, for example, make all the right noises about WWII due to international pressure but don’t really give a shit about collective-historical guilt crap(and why should they?) As for blacks, they are almost impossible to handle. They’re too wild. If blacks had killed millions of Jews, they would not be apologizing to Jews. They’d be loudly yapping, “Jewboy mothafuc*a, you had it comin’ cuz you be a bunch of diamond merchants who done rip us off.” Negroes are both individually and collectively defiant, indeed to the point where they are hardly distinguishable from gorillas. But because blacks are so wild, they won’t — at least on their own — achieve much. Why is South Africa the best hope for black Africa? Because WHITES built up its economy and institutions. And who organized the ANC against Apartheid? Jews. And who created NAACP? Jews. And who paid for Obama? Jews. Who runs Hollywood and sports by which so many blacks became famous? Jews. So, Jews know that blacks are their bitches when it comes to power. And who are building all the factories and mining operations in places like Angola and Mozambique? Chinese. Without non-blacks, blacks would just revert to the voodoo-jivery one sees in Haiti. So, Jews don’t fear blacks. As far as Jews are concerned, the only real possible threat to Jewish power can come from white goyim. Jews are not worried about rise of China and India either. Asian power is OVER THERE. Jewish power is OVER HERE in the West. Indeed, the Chinese/Indian economy could be destroyed overnight by Jewish trickery on Wall Street. The only reason for all the alarms in the Jewish-controlled mass media about Rising Superpower China is to distract white goyim from Jewish power. Recently, Chinese bought up some theater chains in America, and Jews love this fact because white goyim can be fooled into thinking that Chinese now control Hollywood and media — and white goyim are indeed stupid enough to fall for such nonsense.
Jews figured that the best way to control white goyim is to play on their Will to Powerlessness. In the past, white Will to Powerlessness worshiped the Christian God, Jesus in His Westernized ‘Aryan’ incarnation, great white artists like Beethoven and Wagner, white giants like Napoleon and the Founding Fathers, the Western gunman, white sports heroes, and white giants like Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers. Masses of white people used to revere and look up to white heroes like Charles Lindbergh. And fatally and tragically in Germany, white people submitted to god-like Hitler. Today, Putin is the only one who uses white Will to Powerlessness for the sake of patriotism. Many Russians are willing to ‘surrender’ their power to the Great White Man Putin for the sake of Mother Russia.
In the West, Jews have changed all that. Jews, by their control of media and academia, have toppled and smashed most white gods, heroes, and giants as false idols. We are told that most great white giants through history were ‘racists’, ‘sexists’, ‘homophobes’, and etc. Jews promote this critical approach as the digging for truth to rid the world of myths and lies. In the past, there was much to be lauded in the Jewish effort to review, revise, and rethink history and morality. But here’s the problem. Jews did it in bad faith. While demythologizing the Western history and white heroes, Jews mythologized themselves, Negroes, and gays. While accusing whites — especially ‘dead white males’ — of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and ‘homophobia’, Jews were blind to the same ‘evils’ in themselves and in non-white cultures. Thus, Americans were reminded endlessly about the EVIL of whites buying slaves from Africa, but little was said about blacks selling slaves to whites. Much has been made of white male ‘oppression’ of white women, but little has been said of Jewish male or African male ‘oppression’ of their women. We’ve been told about how Jews were oppressed for 2000 yrs in Europe, but we don’t hear about how Jews collaborated with Muslim invaders and got rich from the Medieval slave trade through which they sold millions of whites to Arabia and North Africa. We hear about the anti-Jewish Holocaust but nothing about the Jewish-led Bolshocaust. We are told that white history must be revised and that everything held sacred by whites must be overturned, yet if anyone questions certain aspects of the Holocaust, he or she is denounced as a HOLOCAUST DENIER and must be fined, imprisoned, blacklisted, destroyed, and condemned. White people were told by Jews that South Africa under white rule had to be exposed for its unforgivable ‘racism’, but we are to believe that Israel is really the Holy Land of Holy Happy Wonderful Jews. Similarly, white people’s faces are rubbed into history of lynching in the American South; white people are told that there is NOTHING glorious about the Confederacy and its symbols, which are said to be just a lot of mythic hooey that has nothing to do with the true moral monstrosity of what the South had once stood for. But if truth must be favored over myths, this applies only to white gentiles — and whomever Jews don’t like at any particular moment, like Iranians and Arabs — , but it doesn’t apply to blacks. We are told that the plagiarizing, boozing, cussing, and woman-beating scumbag MLK was bigger even than Jesus and God. (If you crack jokes about Jesus or God, you still have a career in Hollywood and TV. Indeed, it might even help. But if you crack a joke about Michael King, aka MLK, you can kiss your career good-bye and even face being physically attacked by blacks who claim to admire MLK’s message of hope and peace.) And though less than 2000 blacks were lynched by white mobs from 1865 to 1965, we are told about the evil of lynching over and over. We are told about saintly Emmit Till killed by white ‘racists’. But, the many more murders, rapes, and beatings carried out by blacks against whites are never remembered and fall by the wayside. They are not commemorated. Even white conservatives are afraid to talk about them. So, many decades after Emmitt Till, there are still shows on PBS about that punkass fool. But when the GOP used the Willie Horton ad in 1988, that was TERRIBLE!! So, stories about white-on-black violence is THE TRUTH and must be told and retold until our ears fall off, but no one is to say anything about whites raped and killed by disgusting Negroes. When Omar Thorton shot white people, Jew York Times’s response was to run articles that defacto asked, “did the white goy racist scum deserve it?”
So, why do whites, even or especially conservative ones, continue to revere and worship Jews and blacks as superior beings. Jews piss on whites and encourage blacks to shit on whites, but whites get on their knees and kiss the Jew’s ass and suck the Negro’s cock. Why is this? Why is it that the relation between Jews and whites is less like one between people and people than one between humans and dogs? When Netanhayu gave the speech in Congress, was the behavior of American politicians that of rational human beings? Or that of dogs? It was like Jewish masters controlling dogs at an obedience school. Jews are so hideous and vile and do so much harm to whites, but white Americans just play sit, roll over, and fetch. Jew says ‘go bite’, and the white goy goes and bites. Jew says ‘get me the slippers’, and the white goy goes to fetch the slippers. Jew kicks the white goy dog, and the white goy dog looks apologetic like it did something wrong, deserved the kick, and must do anything to win back the affection of the master. Even British domination of Indians and the Manchu rule over China weren’t this crazy and embarrassing, all the more so since white people have the means and power to still rise up and give the dirty Jew a hard kick in the ass. Chinese and Hindus, defeated by foreign powers, had no choice. But whites weren’t conquered externally. Rather, Jews used hidden power to rise up from within and take power. There’s a species of birds that lays eggs in the nest of another species of bird. The invasive egg hatches, tosses over the real chicks, and is fed by the hardworking bird-parents who mistake the alien egg/invasive hatchling as their own. Invasive alien Jews secretly laid their eggs within the core institutions created by white people, but white people mistakenly came to think that the aggressive and vile Jewish hatchlings were their own and nurtured them to maturation, whereupon the Jew took over everything.


But it wasn’t enough for Jews to grab the power. To keep the power, Jews knew they had to change the hearts and souls of the goyim. Brits had great power in India, but when Indians eventually saw them as alien rulers, there was a national uprising to overthrow foreign British rule. Brits politically and economically ruled India but didn’t control the hearts and souls of Indians. To gain that kind of power(especially as an alien elite), one must be revered and worshiped. If indeed the Aryan invasion of India really took place, the new elites, though foreign, were able to rule for so long because their power wasn’t merely economic, political, and/or military but spiritual and holy. Brahmin caste was able to rule India for thousands of years because they claimed to be of the holy caste with mystical powers. They were like god-men. They were to the lower castes what humans are to dogs. So, even though the Brahmin caste was relatively small — and possibly largely made up of Aryan invaders — , they were able to wield power over the millennia. Brahmin intuitively understood the Will to Powerlessness. They used their own Will to Power to maintain their status as god-men in order to satisfy the Will-to-Powerlessness of the lower castes that took comfort and found meaning in their holy notion of being ruled and guided by a race of god-men gurus(like the Jedis in STAR WARS). Jews have come to understand this. It is not enough for them to be richer and politically more well-connected than us. Their power mustn’t only be secular and materialistic. It must be spiritual and holy. They must make themselves god-men over the white goyim. If white goyim come to worship Jews, they won’t dare rebel against Jews since even the thought of such thing would feel like blasphemy. (It’s like the Cambodian tribe in APOCALYPSE NOW remains faithful to Colonel Kurtz played by Marlon Brando because they didn’t just see him as a great military commander but as a god-man. And this was why Americans felt it was so necessary to dethrone Hirohito from his status as a living deity. In order the break the soul of the Japanese, they had to break the sacred link between the emperor and the people. It wasn’t really about Hirohito per se but the very spiritual culture of Japan embodied by his throne. This is why some right-wing Japanese wanna restore emperor worship. It might seem silly since Japanese emperors like Hirohito and his son never seemed very impressive to us. We wonder why anyone would wanna worship such geeks. But that’s to miss the point. To far-right Japanese patriots, it’s the whole idea of Japan as a sacred nation. It’s about the sacred bond among the Japanese, their land, and their history. The concept of the holy divine emperor is the glue that holds it all together. It is this kind of sacred bond that Jews wanna impose on goy psychology. Of late, Jewish scholars have been working hard to claim Jesus as a JEWISH prophet rather than an anti-Jewish rebel. Via the Holy Holocaust and a revamped Jesus who is seen as the triumph of Jewish wisdom than as the enemy of Jewish tradition, Jews seek to become the holy emperor race above us all.) After all, a Christian may show his anger against the rich and the powerful, but he is never supposed to badmouth or rebel against Jesus or God. Similarly, if Jews have only economic and/or political power, white goyim will free to speak truth to Jewish tycoons and Jewish politicians. But if Jews are seen as a holy superior people, white folks will feel a sickness in their souls even to think of having negative feelings about Jews. Thus ‘antisemitism’ is the new blasphemy. When Jews decry ‘antisemitism’, they are not simply saying that anti-Jewish people can be mean or extreme(which is true enough) but that even to harbor any negative feelings about Jews is a terrible SIN, something that must be utterly purged from the wicked white goy soul. In other words, we should worship the Jews.

Thus, Jews now promote themselves as god-men over goyim. We are supposed to feel awe in light of Jewish genius and wisdom. It’s as if the Einstein’s brains were those of God Himself. And for awhile in the 20th century, many Jews spread the gospel of Marx as if it was sacred, and Marx came to be worshiped as god among may goyim who fell under Jewish influence. But if goyim were led to admire certain Jewish INDIVIDUALS in the past — especially those who broke from the faith such as Marx and Freud — , today goyim are led to worship ALL Jews. Thus, even some ragtag Orthodox Jewish settler in the West Bank is worshiped by Americans as part of the sacred race at war with subhuman Palestinian Orcs(like in THE LORD OF THE RINGS). A Jew doesn’t even have to be particularly good at anything to be admired or worshiped in America. The GOP is happy to have Jews, in fact ANY Jew, on their side. It’s as if being accepted by Jews is almost like being accepted by God; having Jews on your side is like having God on your side. Indeed, most Christians would rather vote for a Jew than a Mormon for President. Never mind that Jews rejected Christ while Mormons, as whacky as they are, accept Jesus as the Son of God. Christian Right would rather bow down before Jews. Indeed, even ‘gay marriage’-pushing neocon Jews get more respect from the Christian Right than Mormons do. In Germany, all a Jew has to say is “I’m a Jew” in order for Germans to get on their knees to admire, honor, and worship him — and also feel guilt and apologize profusely, crying and babbling like little children. Jews learned the great lesson from Christianity. Will to Powerlessness is as valuable as Will to Power in the art of worship. There is man’s natural fear/admiration of power and man’s natural compassion/adoration of the powerless. A son grows up to fear/admire his father and love/adore his mother. Hitler grudgingly respected his father out of fear but loved his mother because he felt sorry for her(especially in the way she died). His father ruled him with power while his mother ‘ruled’ him by powerlessness. Sometimes, that which we feel sorry for has greater power over us than what we feel fear of. Thus, we might be awed by a bear, but it’s a stray dog that tugs at our heart and makes us wanna take it home. The genius of Christology was the way it played on this psychology of man. Old Testament gave us God as all-powerful, a Being to fear and respect. He was like Hitler’s father, and Jews shuddered at His feet. Jesus, on the other hand, had something of Hitler’s mother. He was loving, forgiving, and gentle — at least until He found a bunch of money-changers mucking up the Temple. As the Son of God, Jesus was said to be a Man of great power. He could heal the sick and even bring a dead man back to life. But He was also said to be patient and understanding of man’s imperfections and sins. So, when mankind whupped Him real good, He didn’t resist but took all the blows and suffered beautifully. He made humanity feel sorry for Him. He was all-powerful but played all-powerless. Thus, if Jews only felt only fear-and-trembling before their God, Christians felt both fear and compassion for Jesus as Son of God. The story of Jesus came to be one of Powerful Powerfulness, which makes it especially noble. If a powerless person gets whupped, it’s because he had no choice. He could be a good person or a bad person, but the fact is he lost because he was less powerful than the people who whupped him. But when a powerful person intentionally loses to less powerful people out of some higher moral ideal, then it’s a noble defeat. Christianity says that Jesus could have, at any moment, whupped everyone’s ass and destroyed the entire Roman Empire in an instant with His divine power. But He chose to suffer at the hands of mankind because He was so full of love and understanding. He told His Father not to whup mankind since ‘they know not what they do’. This narrative made Christians both intensely sorry/guilty/compassionate towards Jesus and, paradoxically, doubly fearful since mankind hadn’t merely abused a decent helpless man but the Son of God Himself. Imagine a guy beating up someone weaker. Later, the guy might look back and feel sorry about what he did; he might even feel guilt. But he wouldn’t feel fear. But suppose some guy beats up someone who’s stronger but then later finds out that he beat up the guy only because the guy, out of nobility, let him do so. Now, the person who did the beating not only feels bad about what he did but also feels deathly fear in realization that the victim always had and still has the power to whup his ass if he so wishes. So, there’s both a mix of remorse and fear, and this is a potent formula for worship. (Consider the landlord in THE GODFATHER II who first pushes around the young Vito Corleone but then discovers he was able to ONLY BECAUSE Corleone allowed it to happen. When they meet again, the landlord is doubly fearful.) This is why whites are especially worshipful of Jews and blacks. Now that Jews have proven their great genius and amassed so much power, whites now realize that they’ve messed with the wrong people in the past. So, whites not only feel guilty and sorry about ‘antisemitism’ but fear that the almighty Jews will punish whites real bad if whites don’t get on their knees and kiss Jewish toes and ass. Similarly, whites are especially nervous about white oppression of blacks in the past because blacks have proven that they are stronger, tougher, and more badass, i.e. blacks can whup white ass easily. So, white guilt is mixed with white fear. Of course, Jews and blacks historically didn’t choose to be victims out of some Christ-like noble adherence to ‘they know not what they do’ or pacifist ideal, but the narrative has been slanted to sound that way. There was UNCLE TOM’S CABIN where a noble Negro done choose to be beaten to death than fight back cuz he be sooooo noble and shit. And there is the MLK myth that he was all about love and peace and chose death out of his great love for all mankind. And in GREEN MILE, a mountain-sized Negro would rather die for the souls of white folks and for his affection for a wittle bitty mouse than act like Mike Tyson. And the Holocaust narrative would tell us that holy Jews, in their love of decency and peace, didn’t resist the Nazis but marched peacefully to their death, as if to die for the Sin of Goyim. So, the narrative says something like “super-genius Jews and super-tough Negroes always had the natural power to kick white ass but chose to be noble victims out of the goodness of their hearts; since they made such a noble sacrifice, white people better make nice and worship Jews and Negroes... cuz there’s a limit to everything. If whites don’t submit, apologize, and worship Jews and blacks, then Jews will mercilessly punish the white race, and blacks will kick white ass.” The irony is whites who subscribe to such narrative and try to appease Jews and Negroes are getting whupped just the same, but I suppose the consolation is that they are so brainwashed that they think the demise of their own people is some kind of great moral victory for all mankind.

Anyway, Jews understand that it’s not enough for white people to feel awe of Jewish power. Awe can be the basis for submission but also rebellion. In the ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU, the manimals feel awe for the sinister doctor but also resent his power over them. So, if whites only felt awe in regard to the Jew, it can turn to fear and fear can turn to resentment and resentment can turn to hatred and hatred can turn into rebellion. So, Jews want whites to feel eternal compassion for Jewish powerlessness. Thus, Jews rule with real power but portray themselves with the myth of powerlessness. As Jews grow richer and more powerful, they color themselves ever more with the Holocaust paintbrush. The more Jews crush and oppress Palestinians, the more we hear that Israel is about to be attacked by ‘muzzies’ and nuked by Iran(that has no nuclear weapons whereas Israel has over a hundred). Jews want us to feel awe of their great power but also to feel great compassion for their eternal powerlessness. This is most evident in Germany and US. Though Germans cave to Jewish demands out of fear and respect for Jewish power, Germans must also pretend — sincerely as possible to hide their humiliation — that Jews are powerless and deserving of great compassion from Germans. Indeed, pretending that Jews are powerless is therapeutic for the West for doing so allows them to more easily swallow the cum of Jewish power. If you’re forced to blow the Jew and swallow his cum, it feels better to make yourself believe that you’re doing it out of sympathy than out of coercion. It’s the Cockholm Syndrome. Germans have no choice but to follow the dictates of International Jewry, but it’d be humiliating for Germans to admit that they’re a bunch of cowards who now submit to Hebe-ler like they once did to Hitler. So, Germans pretend to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. In America, almost every politician is a puppet-bitch of Jewish power. Especially in elections for major seats, almost no one can win without the approval of Jewish media and support of Jewish money. And even if Jewish money is not on your side, you might still have a chance of winning as long as Jewish money is not AGAINST you. Thus, even if most Jews are not pro-Republican, they might tolerate the election of certain Republican candidates as long as the latter are not seen as hostile to Jewish power. Jews may not be FOR you, but you might have a chance if they’re not AGAINST you. But, if Jews decide to be AGAINST you — pour lots of money into your opponent’s campaign and use the media to bash you — , you are pretty much finished. Besides, you cannot even mention that Jewish power is behind your opponent since such comment would be denounced as ‘antisemitic’ and we know there’s no place for such ‘hate’ in the media(owned and controlled by Jews). Also, your party itself will ‘throw you under the bus’ since the GOP is beholden to Jewish power. Notice how the GOP treated Ron Paul. If a communist runs for the Democratic ticket, the GOP mustn’t complain because that would be ‘McCarthyism’. But if a ‘racist’ or ‘anti-Zionist’ runs for the GOP ticket, Jews will demand that the GOP purge such a person, and the GOP will denounce the candidate EVEN IF he happens to be very popular in his locality. So, Bernie Sanders the socialist can run without hassle. But David Duke, who was very popular among whites in Louisiana, was rejected by his own party. McCain feared to speak the truth about Obama’s ties to the Far Left and Jeremiah Wright, but it was fair game for liberals to howl about Pat Buchanan’s past record when he ran for president. Long ago, when the media and politics weren’t utterly controlled by Jews, there were viable forces that critiqued and challenged Jewish power. But today, no such exists. Indeed, even a Jewish critic of Jewish corruption and abuse like Norman Finkelstein isn’t allowed to teach at even a second-rate university like DePaul. And Peter Beinart is finding himself in hot water for saying ‘insensitive’ things about ‘far right’ Zionists in Israel. It’s a sick disgusting world we are living in due to the rise of Jewish power. Take Ilana Mercer in the book INTO THE CANNIBAL’S POT. Though she’s critical of the rise of black power in South Africa, she refuses to denounce the very Jews who brought upon the end of white rule. And Anne Applebaum, Michael Savage, and Michael Medved are all for Roman Polanski remaining free. Imagine if Mel Gibson had raped a 12 yr old Jewish girl and hid out in France. Jews would be demanding he be returned for justice; Jews would be denouncing all of France and even calling for boycotts. But since Polanski is Jewish, what does it matter? To Jews, goyim are only meat, only lamb for the slaughter. Just think, Michael Medved the so-called friend of Christians, supports Polanski. So, if a dirty Jew drugged your 12 yr old daughter, raped her in the ass, and then fled to France or Israel, Michael Medved wouldn’t side with you or your daughter but with the Jewish rapist. It should be obvious to everyone that Jews are only out for themselves and that Jews are never honest with goyim, or even with gayim for that matter. It’s all a Kissingerian strategy of ‘what alliances should we make to maximize our power vis-a-vis filthy goyim’?

There’s no great secret to creating gods or god-men. Indeed, the story of Jesus tells us ‘anyone’ can be made into God or gods. Jesus was some carpenter but came to be worshiped by billions of people all over the world. If this can be done with some Jewish carpenter, why not with other people or peoples? The secret lies in the spinning, sanctifying, promoting, marketing, and
taboo-izing the person, thing, or group in question. If we consider merely the biographical aspect of Jesus, it was hardly epic. He was some guy with some ideas. He preached those ideas. He was accused as a troublemaker and then killed. End of story. He wasn’t the first nor the last guru or teacher to be persecuted and killed as an heretic. So, how did He become the Son of God? How did the story of His short life become epic? Because Saul/Paul among others gave it a spin. Thus, there was the story of the Resurrection and stuff about Jesus as the Son of God and all that. Thus, in sacro-retrospect, everything that Jesus did or was supposed to have done on Earth seem to glow with holiness. His biography became theography. His every breath and every step became sacred. Even His defeat became victory. And then, the story was promoted and spread all over. And then there were taboos that penalized anyone who dared to question or reject the holy narrative. What could be done with Jesus can be done with ‘anyone’. Take Anne Frank. She was just some Jewish girl who wrote a diary before she died in a Nazi camp. But she came to be spun as a saintly figure, a kind of Virgin Mary of modern Judeography. Thus, some Jewish girl who died a sad death has been made been holy(and via association to her, all Jewish girls, even snot-nosed JAPS who foul up the cultural scene of NY, came to share her holiness). Jews know that they now have the power to create gods. They control the media and think tanks. They have million times the power of Saul/Paul, who actually had to struggle against great odds in the Roman Empire. Jews are now the lords of the American-Roman-Empire. We are now living in the era of Insta-gods. Given the way of human nature, one doesn’t have to literally believe in the divinity of something/someone to FEEL its divinity. Even diehard rap music fans know that Tupac Shakur was not a deity, but he’s worshiped as such by so many. Even leftists committed to ‘scientific materialism’ get weak in the knees about Che Guevara the modern messiah. And look at all the nonsense written about St. John Lennon or Bob Marley. And in the 19th century and first half of 20th century, Wagner was seen by many as something more than a great composer; he was like a god-man. And almost overnight, the tawdry street scum Hitler was elevated to the status of a German god. And short Stalin with black teeth was made the god of the Soviet Union. The Elvis myth became even more bloated than Elvis the fatty in the 70s. In the past, those who were elevated to godliness were expected to have at least a few godly qualities. Thus, even though Wagner the person was actually quite loathsome, he did create works of genius that brought people close to the realm of the divine. Also true of Beethoven. And whatever one thinks of Che Guevara or communism, there was at least the theme of struggling for the progress of mankind and sacrificing one’s life in the struggle. But what are we to make of the deification of Lady Gaga, Mudonna, Kanye West, Oprah, an endless parade of Holy Gays, and the sham huckster Obama? They are so transparently fake, obscene, or phony. It’s as if defecation is the new deification. Camille Paglia would even have us believe that porn whores are goddesses, in which case maybe we should compare inflatable sex dolls to ancient Greek sculptures. As with sex dolls, it’s all hot air. But what it teaches us is that style can imitate substance and fool a lot of people. So, something doesn’t have to be worthy of divinity as long as it is spun, sanctified, promoted, and marketed to be divine(and then protected by taboos). So, if people are told that Mudonna is a great artist and if she’s promoted as a goddess and then protected from sneers with a taboo that says people who find her obscene are ‘square’, ‘patriarchal’, ‘racist’ and ‘repressed’, she can go on safely strutting around as a god-girl-ho. Same goes for Kanye West. He’s just some tawdry punk rapper, but the media tell us that he’s a great artist, a prophet with class, and a timeless genius; and he’s also protected from criticism since maybe it’s ‘racist’ to attack a black guy as a bullshit-peddling jive-ass turkey. So, filth is now faith. Puss and piss are now pious; poo and puke are now pure. It all depends on how something is spun, and indeed, this is nothing new.

The fact that the Aztecs worshiped a bunch of gods that demanded the sacrifice of tens of thousands of people should warn us the darker and crazier side of spirituality. And just look at Hinduism. It spawned sects that worship monkeys as holy or worship rats as the reincarnation of holy men. Hindus also think cows are sacred, which is why cows have been allowed to block traffic for hours on end. And Hindus bathe in the filthy Ganges that’s dirtier than a toilet bowl after taking a dump. At one time, Ganges was clean and life-giving, and back then, it made perfect sense to reverse it as sacred. Today, it’s filthy open sewage carrying the offal from hundreds of millions of people and factories, but Hindus still worship and bathe in it. So, the concept of holiness and divinity can be attached to anything. But if there is at least the long tradition of holiness with Ganges, the new icons of holiness of pop culture have been created out of thin air — though, to be sure, the psychological underpinning involved draws on the eternal need of human nature to seek and embrace the sacred. Since divinity has become a marketing & promoting tool, it can be applied to just about anything. In the past, there was at least the issue of whether something or someone deserved to be recognized and sanctified as holy. Thus, the Church pondered who should or shouldn’t be elevated to sainthood. Art critics argued what should or shouldn’t be canonized with the honorific ‘work of art’. Historians debated who should or shouldn’t be recognized as ‘great men’. Ethicists and philosophers discussed who should or shouldn’t be praised as wise men or truth-tellers. Now, such things don’t matter. The style/label doesn’t have to match the substance. It’s the labeling itself that counts. Take Newsweek’s annual list of America’s top 50 high schools. The standards used are ‘flexible’ to the point of meaninglessness. So, a school could be full of mediocre students, but it qualifies as ‘one of the best’ because of its ‘diversity’ and promotion of ‘creativity’, which usually means it’s pro-gay or something or the other. ‘Inclusiveness’ being the official ideology, traditional standards have been tossed out the window. (There was something bold and refreshing about the rebellion against traditional values and standards in the 50s and 60s. Back then, the violators of ‘good taste’ and the prevailing criteria weren’t motivated by politically correct ‘inclusiveness’ but by individualism. They were rebelling against traditional standards of ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’ because such were thought to suppress the vitality that gave birth to new exciting art. Traditional cultural elitism tended to mummify works of art into museum pieces to honor and respect than keep it alive and vital. Traditional elitists acted as though the great artists in the past were thinking of ‘greatness’, ‘nobility’, and ‘highness’ all the time when, in fact, many of the circumstances surrounding the creation of arts were ‘vulgar’, ‘popular’, and ‘mad’. The New Sensibility also rebelled against the avant-garde-ism of the early 20th century that only valued the sort of art that was so far ahead-of-the-game that only the cultural vanguard could appreciate them. This avant garde school, as embodied by Dwight MacDonald and Clement Greenberg, tended to dismiss anything that the public liked as ‘middle-brow’. The New Sensibility, whether in its ‘erotics of art’ formulation of Sontag or ‘movie love’ passion of Kael, cleared the way for a new kind of cultural experience. Even so, what Sontag and Kael had in mind was something other than iron ideological dictates of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’. They were open to all things, but the thing had to be good, had to pass the test of quality. They were favoring certain movies and works of art out of genuine individual passion, not out of an adherence to any official ideology. In their own idiosyncratic ways, they were looking for what they honestly thought was the best and most exciting things happening in culture. In contrast, the New Ideology is different from New Sensibility in that the quality of something/someone matters less than its/his usefulness to the ideology. Worse, it’s not even honest. Though elites push the cult of equality/diversity onto us, they are increasingly more cocooned, protected, and privileged in their hyper-elevated world. They use the ideology of equality/diversity not to practice it themselves but to blind the rest of us that the powers-that-be are working oh-so-hard to make society fairer and to look out for the ‘little people’ like you and me. It’s like how the European elites had used Christianity to keep the masses down, or how the Soviet elites had used the Cult of the Worker to keep most workers working docilely in factories while they themselves lived on the hog inside the Kremlin. It’s Animal Farm redux in capitalist style. Because the ‘progressives’ made peace with the Greed of capitalism and are making more money than ‘dirty capitalists’ made in the past, they use cultural issues to maintain their aura of ‘radical commitment to equality’. ‘Diversity’ is also useful to the Jewish elites because it can mask the real lack of equality. Thus, though most blacks and Hispanics may be at the bottom, they might feel empowered if they see some of their own kind in elite positions. The superficial mask of ‘diversity’ that pervades our culture blinds us to the lack of genuine diversity in the upper reaches of power, which is dominated by liberal Jewish masters and liberal Wasp running dogs. Nearly all of media are owned by Jews, but the diverse faces who read the news on TV fool viewers into thinking that “we’ve come a long way”. In real terms, Jews have come a long way, not us. The American brain center is now totally owned by Jews, and the various ‘diverse’ masks seen in mass media are just ploys to fool us into believing that news and information of America are truly diverse and equal. I sometimes wonder if low-level journalists dig up stories on ‘unfairness’ and ‘inequality’ because of this hypocrisy. Thus, this cry of ‘inequality’ could be less about right vs left than low-level liberals vs high-level liberals. After all, most of the elite positions in law, culture, academia, media, technology, medicine, and even finance are dominated by liberals than by conservatives who, even in positions of power, keep their heads bowed. So, when low-level liberal journalists cry foul about ‘inequality’, they could be subconsciously expressing their own disenchantment with the status quo where elite liberals hog it all while low-level liberals are given the dirty grunt work for relatively little pay. Imagine if you’re a low-level liberal reporter working in the news media. You realize that the people above you are rich liberals who hog all the power and wealth. You were raised to think in terms of “good fair liberals for equality vs evil privileged conservatives for hierarchy”. But in real life, you realize that the elite positions are nearly dominated by liberals. You see the wanton hypocrisy. But you also know it’s not right to strike out at Jews and liberal power. So, you bring up the issue of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’. Though you speak up in the name of blacks and Hispanics, you are projecting your own low-level white liberal resentment on those ‘minority groups’ and airing your grievances through them.) Or, consider how Obama defied the rules of history to become one of the greatest, wisest, noblest, finest, and most divine man that ever lived because.... the media spun and marketed him that way. Without having done anything, he was gifted with the Nobel prize, as if we must all have FAITH in his greatness. Previous presidents had to pass the test of time before they could be assessed as great. But Obama is insta-great, as if he, the black messiah, is above and beyond time; he was ‘born’ great. And, so many dumb Americans fell for this nonsense. But this crazy form of worship has been applied to the black race as a whole. Most blacks are pretty awful, but movies like GREEN MILE and Jewish media’s promotion of the Holy Negro have fooled a lot of people into thinking there is something naturally sacred about blacks. Whatever one thinks about the real MLK, at least he played the holy man quite effectively in public and led what then seemed like a great moral crusade — and indeed it would have been if the only difference between whites and blacks was skin color. There were still some expectations for the style to match the substance. MLK was said to be a great man because he was — or masterfully played — the great good man. But today, some jive-ass Negro could act like a total punk lout and still be elevated to holy status. It’s an age when a bunch of thugs know as the Jena 6 are elevated into victim-saints. Or a black guy could be just good at playing sports and be treated like the messiah. Take Michael Jordan, a great basketball player to be sure. But the media treated him as more than an athlete; his image was splayed all over like he was holy christ or something. Never mind he was a dumb idiot good for nothing but dunking balls. And there was also the christology of Tiger Woods, at least until things got so out of hand that his wife made a big scene by chasing him around with his own golf clubs. Tiger went after as many holes in his sex life as on the golf course.
Anyway, none of this should be surprising in our Age of Advertising. The trick of modern advertising is not to tell us anything truthful or substantive about the product but to associate the product with images and sounds of allurement. We know using a certain shampoo will not make the hair shimmer like in TV commercials, and it certainly won’t make ugly women pretty. But even fat ugly women watch those commercials and think using the stuff will make them beautiful — or at least FEEL beautiful. Not all advertising or packaging are false, and indeed, in some cases, the advertising or packaging cannot do justice to the product. While movie trailers try to dress up even bad movies as worth seeing, some movies are so great that trailers can hardly convey their true worth. Same with video game packaging. In the past, when video games were primitive, the illustration on the box was more interesting than the actual game. Today, some video games may be so amazing that the cover design on the box pales next to the real thing.
You can’t fool all the people all the time, but you can always fool enough people. The fact is enough Americans have been sold on the bullshit of ‘gay marriage’ and ‘undocumented immigrants’ due to the power of false packaging and advertising controlled by Jews. ‘Gay marriage’ is not real marriage — indeed it is a foul desecration of the biological and moral meaning of real marriage — , but enough dummies have been fooled into thinking it’s as good or even better than real marriage. And there are enough dumb Americans who think ‘undocumented immigrants’ — who are actually illegal aliens or intruders or infiltrators — should be given free everything under government programs and even be allowed to vote and run for office. And many people make up their minds and values via association than by thought. So, once Barack Obama came out openly for ‘gay marriage’, a whole bunch of dumb Negroes decided to jump on the bandwagon. Since Obama done like it, sheeeeeeet, it must be cool! If it be good enough fo’ da black messiah, why it be not good enough fo’ me? But this kind stupidosity is prevalent among conservatives too. Just how did American conservatives become so slavish to Jews and Israel? There was a time when many American conservatives were rightfully wary of Jewish power. But because the much respected leaders and stars of the conservative movement promoted philosemitism as the main value of conservatism, most American conservatives came to care more about Israel than about their own kind.

Our society suffers from spiritual or mythic dissonance. Things and people that should not be sanctified are being sanctified, and this is being done by the power of the modern mass media controlled by Jews. Mythologization is supposed to serve the thing being mythologized, i.e. the thing to be mythologized must be worthy of mythologization. There was a good reason to mythologize men like the Founding Fathers or Abraham Lincoln and artists like Beethoven and Michelangelo. Now, mythologization has been democratized to the point where anyone can qualify. But of course, not everyone makes it. Those who make it are chosen by the Jewish-controlled media. So, the pool has widened but certain qualifications have narrowed. Jews cast a wider net but those allowed on the boat must conform to Jewish biases. Thus, a second-rate thinker like Malcolm Gladwell stays on the boat whereas far more qualified scientists must remain in the ocean bottom because they don’t conform to Jewish pseudo-science of racial equality(which Jews, in the privacy of their hearts and meetings, know is not true). That second-raters were favored over first-raters due to political correctness is nothing new. Nazi Germany favored mediocre artists over great original ones and second-rate scientists over first-rank ones based on who was ‘Aryan’ and who was Jewish. But today, Jews are playing pretty much the same game in America. Just as Nazi Germans promoted fake racially correct genius as real genius, American Jews promote ‘gay marriage’ as real marriage and sell ‘undocumented immigration’(aka illegal invasion) as real immigration. Consider how William Shockley was disgraced and ostracized while a total phony like Stephen Jay Gould was not only praised but lionized into a guru-saint. When certain people are sanctified with holiness, taboos come to surround and protect them. Thus, it became unholy and wicked to even question Saint Gould. This explains why it took so long for someone to finally come forth and expose Gould’s assertions as phony. Even so, the sainthood of Gould is so well-established that his garbage scholarship will continue to be taught to students. Likewise, Howard Zinn’s books have been exposed as a pile of simplifications and falsehoods, but they continued to be used as teaching material in schools all across this country. Once something becomes holy, it’s difficult to break its grip on people. MLK has become so holy that all evidence that exposes him as a fraud is brushed aside. Indeed, people dare not even bring up the topic of the REAL MLK since it would violate the sacred taboo of his holiness.

And no one dares to criticize Jews despite Jewish foulness in finance, law, politics, and media because there is an air of godly holiness that surrounds Jews. Thus, to question Jews is seen as wicked or evil. While Jews freely judge and critique other peoples as aggregates, we cannot do the same about Jews. If there’s a certain evil Jewish individual, we must emphasize his evil as an individual and never ever as a Jew — even if he acted in Jewish interests. We can only speak of Jews as an aggregate when we praise them or sympathize with them as victims. Thus, we cannot say, “Jews did this evil thing”, but we must say “Jews did this wonderful thing” or “This evil thing was done to Jews.” And in the case of Bernie Madoff, he was made out to be an especially evil person because... he ripped off Jews, the holy people.. Never mind how neocons conned American conservatives into fighting Wars for Israel. It’s okay when Jews hoodwink and fool goyim. Jews are only wrong when they do wrong to other Jews. Just get a load of this hysterically rabid and virulent — not to mention odious, noxious, and pathetic — philosemitism from Walter Russell Mead who just can’t get enough of sticking his chubby face into the ass rim of the Jew and licking it clean while the Jew shits and farts in his face.

Anyway, PAT GARRET & BILLY THE KID and BLADE RUNNER are the kind of special films that rarely make it to the silver screen — now and even then — , and whatever their problems(and because of them), they will continue to fascinate, provoke, and beguile anyone who cares about cinema. While our film technology is advancing faster than even, perhaps ‘auteur’ mavericks like Scott and especially Peckinpah are relics of the past. The Facebook, Twitter, and iPad generation is linked all together all the time, with less time for self-discovery and personal development. On the one hand, the internet age is a boon for more views and opinions, but the feeling of being part of the global buzz — and wanting to be part of the buzz 24/7 — has created the conformity of ‘vibes’. Vibes are the secular spirit that unites us all, and if the vibes promote ‘gay marriage’, the vibes themselves will spread the faux-spiritual virus of liberal decadence. In a world humming with the false-Ohm of such vibes, there’s less likely to be individual personalities and voices, the real mavericks. Thus again, Jews own all.


**Extraneous Notes on PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID**

1. In the scene with Garrett and his (Mexican)wife, there’s an irony in her siding Billy against Pat Garrett. She’s understandably upset that her husband doesn’t play the caring and devoted husband. He’s too often away from home doing who knows what. But doesn’t that mean that Garrett, even as sheriff, is still living like an ‘outlaw’, like Billy? So, why would she sympathize with Billy, telling her husband that she wishes Billy would get away? Doesn’t she realize that it’s the Billy-esque outlaw-ness of her husband that prevents him from settling into domesticity? Maybe her problem goes deeper, i.e. she isn’t merely disappointed with her husband’s ‘nomadic’ lifestyle but with the loss of her ‘freedom’. In other words, she doesn’t feel right in the ‘doll house’ role she’s taken on for herself. Once, she felt part of an organic community with her own people, the Mexicans. She may not have been a free individual(in the modern feminist sense) but still felt she belonged to something alive and meaningful. But in her Anglo-ized new role as respectable housewife, she has had to give up her culture and remake herself into a respectable wife. So, having given up something of great meaning to herself, she wants to be compensated(with Garrett’s affection/devotion). But Garrett put her inside the house and threw away the key. He could have her anytime but that’s precisely why her appeal has faded. The whole mentality of the Wild West was to find new land, new adventure, new people, and new experience. That’s why Sheriff Baker wants to sail off to new territories. In contrast, Garrett has a house stuck in Lincoln than a boat that promises a new beginning. Though Garrett is getting older and wants security, the actual reminders of security — his home and wife — are like a noose around his neck. They make him feel trapped, caged, and restless. He needs to be under the open sky or where things are happening. As for his wife, maybe she identifies with Billy on some level — as different as they are — because she mourns the loss of her own ‘freedom’. So, as different as they are, she understands Billy because she feels like a prisoner of Garrett. She was willing to be a prisoner as long as Garrett would love her and be a good husband. But Garrett keeps her as a caged bird. Maybe she feels toward Billy as Dorothy felt toward Toto in THE WIZARD OF OZ. Remember when Dorothy was captured by the witch but was happy at least to see Toto get away and run free.

2. In the scene with the governor(Jason Robards), there’s a certain irony to the vilification of the businessmen Howland and Norris. They seem almost like a couple of Jewish gayboy baddies. They come across as unscrupulous — and physically repulsive — sharks eager to pull any dirty trick to get what they want. AND YET, they speak the truth. The governor begins the talk with some official-sounding BS about the Southwest being a ‘vast and primitive territory’ in need of ‘investment’, but it is Howland who cuts through the bull and speaks the plain truth: Garrett, as a former friend of Billy, may not be trustworthy. To Garrett’s assurance of personal commitment in tracking Billy down because the latter “escaped from my jail”, Howland speaks bluntly points out that Garrett was an outlaw himself but “smart enough to get elected sheriff.” And we know there’s the possibility that Garrett planted the gun that enabled Billy’s escape, as a result, leading to the deaths of Bell and Ollinger. Also, throughout the movie, we know that Garrett would rather have Billy live than die. So, Howland isn’t wrong in his suspicions.
And yet, the scene closes with the governor siding with Garrett — and with the audience siding with Garrett and the governor against Howland and Norris. Even if Howland may be a weasel, he’s a smart truth-telling weasel whereas Garrett and the governor talk bullshit over truth. So, truth-tellers are made to look bad while liars are made to look good or at least better than the truth-tellers. Isn’t this unfair? But then, Peckinpah’s movies were never about fairness.
It may be that the governor sides with Garrett because they are both in the same situation. They are official figures taking orders from the guys with money. If anything, they must spout official BS because that’s what’s expected of them, what they’re paid to do. And who buys and sells politicians and sheriffs? Money men. So, it’s foul and disingenous that guys like Howland pay men like the governor and Garrett to prop up the official lie but then admonish them for doing so. So, Howland is both honest and dishonest. He’s honest in the way he rebuffs the governor and insults Garrett but dishonest in the way he overlooks the reason why men like the governor and Garrett are and must be the way they are: they are bought men, indeed bought by men like Howland. In a way, it’s like the Jewish cabal buying up politicians and making them work at the behest of the Zionist elites WHILE AT THE SAME TIME attacking them for their ‘lies’ and ‘cheating’ ways. Neocons and liberal Jewish media pushed Bush II into the Iraq War but then dumped all the blame on Bush when things went wrong. The Jewish elite forced Obama to fill his administration with Jewish Wall Street sharks, but then, the same Jewish elite — in the media — accused Obama of not having done enough to reform the system. Jews force goys to carry on with BS but then accuse the goys of being full of BS.

Another reason why the governor may have been offended by Howland is his uncouth lack of manners. Though men of the West are supposed to be tough and manly, there are certain do’s and don’ts in their world, a certain set of rules defining a man’s honor and dignity. Chisum, for instance, is a tough talker but always in control of himself. Even when he’s being sardonic, there’s an air of courteousness about him. In his own way, he is a gentleman. So, there is set of manners in the West, no matter how rough and primitive it may be. Pike Bishop is distinguishable from the Gorch Brothers not only for his intelligence but his manners. Billy has some manners too. Even when invading the private spaces of others, he doesn’t act like a lout. For instance, when he walks into Pete Maxwell’s house uninvited, he take a bottle of whiskey and pours Maxwell a drink. Even if the whiskey is Maxwell’s — and Billy takes the rest of the bottle — , there is a kind of mannerliness about the way Billy asks Maxwell for the room.
In contrast, Howland is like an uncouth Hollywood Jew who’s nakedly aggressive, chutzpah-istic, and brings up the issue of money right there at the dinner table. Norris, his partner, even puts the money on the table. Garrett feels insulted, and in a way his outrage is disingenuous. We later find out he took money from Chisum, and indeed, he took the job of sheriff partly for financial reasons. And the governor surely took payoffs himself — as all politicians do. So, the problem isn’t so much offering of the money as the WAY it is offered. What Howland and Norris do is a breach of manners. There’s a scene in NOBLE HOUSE where an uncouth Jewish-American businessman bluntly makes a remark about cheating at the Hong Kong horse tracks. The problem isn’t WHAT he says but HOW and WHERE he says it. NOBLE HOUSE is filled with sharks and cutthroats, and so manners are all-important as the ‘rules’ that prevent competitors from acting like barbarians. Dunross, Gornt, and Bartlett all play to win — and will pull any dirty trick to win — , but they maintain the facade of calm control in the game. They are slick operators, not vulgar rubes(at least not out in the public). The Jewish-American businessman, in contrast, bares his knife(in a social gathering) instead of holding it behind his back and reserving its use only at opportune moments in business. In a world where trust has no value, manners have their price.
Consider rules in the Corleone family of what men are not supposed to do: (1) Talk business at the table, especially when women are around. (2) Speak one’s mind in front of strangers; Vito Corleone admonishes his son Santino for spouting off to Sollozo the Turk. The problem isn’t Santino’s honesty per se but his wrong way of honesty, i.e. you’re not supposed to be personal or forthright with competitors in business.
There are times for guys to be wild and unruly in the Old West, but a real man has to know when and where. The governor appreciates Garrett because the latter showed him the respect due to his office whereas Howland and Norris acted like bigshots who run the whole circus. Maybe guys like Howland and Norris really do run the circus, but they didn’t have to such a**holes about it.
It’s interesting that when Garrett kills Holly, the latter is ‘forced’ to be unmannerly. When a nervous Holly tries to pour himself a glass of whiskey, Garrett says, “Take it from the bottle. There’s no need for manners around here.” It’s almost as if Garrett wants to ‘barbarize’ Holly into a slobby animal before killing him. It might feel most justifiable than killing a sober person with manners. Similarly, Michael Caine’s character takes revenge by forcing his victim to drink whiskey before killing him in GET CARTER.

3. A positive side of Holly(Richard Bright) is revealed in the scene where he, along with Beaver and Alias, enters a saloon and accidentally bumps into Garrett. Holly sizes up the situation and decides to leave and walks towards the exit. Garrett then pulls out his pistol and orders the men to stay. In that instant, there is a wooden beam between Holly and Garrett, and so Garrett wouldn’t have been able to hit Holly. (Earlier, a log protected Garrett from Harris’s gunfire.) Holly could have pulled out his gun and positioned himself behind the beam, thus gaining an advantage over Garrett. So, why does Holly not take advantage of the situation? Because even as he’s protected by the wooden beam, Beaver and Alias aren’t. Even if Garrett can’t hit Holly, he could have easily dropped Beaver and Alias. Indeed, Beaver seems to recognize this and throws a nervous glance at Holly. Beaver knows that his life is up to Holly’s decision. If Holly makes a move against Garrett, Garret will surely drop Beaver and Alias. Now, it could be that Holly decided to go along with Garrett mostly out of fear, but concern for Beaver and Alias could have played a role. Though Holly is a rather cunning character, he decides not to sacrifice his friends to save his own skin. In that sense, he proves that he’s a bigger man than Garrett, who sells out his friends for his own interest. And for that reason, Garrett may have subconsciously felt an even bigger desire to kill Holly.

4. Peckinpah’s self-loathing was dualistic in nature. Self-loathing is a running theme in many of his movies, perhaps because Peckinpah’s own life was wracked by it. It may seem odd that a man of such much pride — and even arrogance — could be so self-loathing, but a closer look at his life explains why. Peckinpah’s personality was a fusion of extreme hardness/toughness and excessive sensitivity/sentimentality. In a way, his hunting of a deer as a young man presaged much of his life. He got caught up in thrill of the hunt but was overcome with remorse when the poor animal lay dying. His marriages turned out to be similar in nature. He would too often act on his emotions — negative and violent than supportive and loving — and drive his wives crazy(and toward divorce), but then, he would hate himself for having been such a lout. Though Peckinpah vilified movie producers and scapegoated them for all the problems, deep inside he knew that he messed up too often due to his outrages and indulgences. BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA is as much self-loathing and self-damning as self-justifying and self-aggrandizing. In one way, it could be read as Peckinpah’s mythic rebellion against the System, but, in another way, the character of the loser Benny — as Peckinpah’s alter ego — is far from a saint. And Pat Garrett is nothing without self-loathing. And Pike Bishop goes off to save Angel not so much because Angel per se means so much to him but because he doesn’t need another burden on his conscience after what he’d done to Deke and Old Man Sykes, which was leaving them behind to be captured or killed. Pike discovers that he cannot drown out his self-loathing with women and wine; and gold is no longer a consolation. But self-loathing doesn’t have to be about betraying others. One can feel self-loathing for having been betrayed. Steve Judd(Joel McCrea) is angry not only with his friend(Randolph Scott)for betraying him but with himself for having trusted his friend, which he why he seems almost deranged in his decision to punish his friend. In THE KILLER ELITE, James Caan’s character hates his friend(Robert Duvall) for the betrayal but also hates himself for having trusted anyone in a business where the rule is anyone-can-be-killed-for-a-price. Trusting people in a world of sinners is to betray oneself. Especially if you’re gonna ply your trade as a mercenary — as a hired killer — , you’d be a fool to believe or trust anyone. Thus, Duvall’s shooting of Caan is not only like Garrett shooting Billy — friend killing friend — but like Poe’s murder of Garrett — professional killer killing a professional killer. Peckinpah knew he was pushed around in the movie industry, and he himself pushed around other people. Everyone was a victim and victimizer. No one was pure, and in the 1970s, even the pure could be deranged. Dennis Hopper compromised nothing when he made THE LAST MOVIE, but it was seen by many as one of the most demented and hateful movies ever made. Hopper was even physically attacked by a woman after the screening.

But there was another side to Peckinpah’s self-loathing. It wasn’t merely individual/personal but social/cultural. Though proud of his Anglo-Western heritage, Peckinpah had serious issues with White America. He thought Anglo order-and-progress had a sterilizing and impersonal-izing effect on the world. In BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA, Mexicans are presented as people of the Real world — of tradition, values, family, and etc. Compare the film’s depiction of Mexico with the American hotel room occupied by the Anglo-Jewish mafia. It’s neat and orderly but lifeless and impersonal. We hear elevator music and the humming of air conditioning, and the men seem to belong to a species called Homo Professional than Homo Sapien. Peckinpah felt that Anglo-American lost its soul somewhere along the way.
But there was a complexity/duality to Peckinpah’s cultural self-loathing. Part of him felt that Anglo-America has become so lifeless and corrupted — not by outlaws but lawyers — that it deserved to lose to other groups. But on the other hand, Peckinpah lamented the decline of Anglo-America for its lack of confidence and ruthless will.
It’s as though Peckinpah was, at once, saying his team should lose AND seething that his side didn’t have the balls to win. After all, there’s two sides to the criticism of Pat Garrett. On the one hand, he’s betraying his friends and joining the System. On the other hand, he doesn’t have the ruthless will to decide which side he’s on and act decisively. So, a part of Peckinpah was saying that his team should lose not so much because he really wanted it to lose but because it no longer had the ruthless will to fight and win. Thus, it was not the kind of liberal self-loathing at the core of political correctness. There was an element of Buchanan-like self-loathing premised on the view that White America has lost its balls to do what was necessary to win.

Peckinpah surely knew that he was up against Jews in Hollywood. He was no anti-Semite and had good Jewish friends. And the producers who came to his rescue and gave him a chance to make movies were also Jews. But the fact remained that Peckinpah’s career depended on the whim of Jewish producers and Jewish media, and this was bound to have fired up some hostility, even if Peckinpah never articulated it in any openly ‘antisemitic’ manner. Maybe there was a reason as to why Peckinpah was drawn to CROSS OF IRON. He would be making a movie in Europe — away from Jewish Hollywood — , and the heroes of the movie would be Germans during World War II. Maybe it was a way for him to stick it to Jews. Though there are Anglo power-elite figures in Peckinpah’s movies, their days seem numbered. Chisum in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID will likely be pushed aside by the likes of Howland and Norris who, though not Jewish, are Jewishy. And the Anglo executive types in THE KILLER ELITE seem tired and lifeless: well-groomed but fading suits who carry out orders but don’t have the ruthless will, vision, and vitality to fight for power to stay on top. Everyone double-crosses everyone, but it’s as if everyone is going through the motions in a game where everyone is destined to take a hit and fall when his time comes; there’s an air of hopeless disillusionment and resignation. So, one could argue that while one side of Peckinpah angrily felt that Anglo-America was deserved to lose and fade away, another side was angry over the fact that Anglo-Americans no longer had the balls to regrow a pair, straighten out their spine, become ruthless once again, and defeat all their enemies.