As more and more people are beginning to notice, leftism today is associated essentially with the attitudes, values, biases, and taboos of the upper crust of society and its affluent circle of urban dwellers. Today’s ‘leftism’ has about as much to do with classical leftism as today’s ‘liberalism’ has to do with classical liberalism(of the 19th century). If classical liberalism was about expansion of free enterprise, individualism, and civil liberties, today’s Liberalism is statist, corporate/collective, and coercively dogmatic. Libertarianism, derived from the principles of classical liberalism, is generally associated with the ‘right’, at least in America. (To be sure, there are two strains of libertarianism: the ideological and the strategic. Ideological libertarians are sincerely and radically committed to the ideals of ultra-individualism, minimally regulated liberty, and cosmopolitanism, whereas strategic libertarianism is used by some white rightists as a proxy for white power. Principled libertarians are messianic and want the entire world to be converted to the primacy of the individual who is free to do anything and go/live/work anywhere — as long as his or her actions don’t cause direct harm to others. They oppose not only the big government that taxes and regulates but local communities that erect borders and social/moral norms. Ideological libertarians tend to overlook indirect harms and mal-effects caused by activities like gambling, narcotics, and open borders. Strategic libertarians fear the state — especially the federal/central government — that is perceived to be controlled by the ‘left’, so they wave the banner of libertarianism to stave off government intrusion. But, they are not libertarians of the heart but essentially conservative tribalists who are fearful of the impositions of ‘leftist’ government. At least up until the Clinton 90s, there was hope among strategic libertarians that the business class would be pro-rightist since the left had long been associated with Marxism, communism, anti-Americanism, and big government that was for raising taxes and enforcing more regulations. Therefore, the thinking was that if American conservatives support libertarian policies favored by Wall Street Journal and Milton Friedman, the powerful business class would triumph over federal government and side with the American Right. And such a hope was especially alive in the 80s, as many boomers and affluent urban people drifted toward Reaganism if not exactly to American conservatism. But the Clinton 90s witnessed a major shift whereby the boomers who made the most money in the 80s made a ‘leftward’ shift. Therefore, what today goes by libertarianism is a rather empty shell. Ideological libertarians keep attacking big government policy of high taxes and regulations in the name of defending free enterprise, but the biggest winners of economic pie in the US are Democrats and firmly Liberal or even ‘leftist’; furthermore, they fund organizations that attack libertarians of all stripes as childish, juvenile, stupid, unreal, and/or ‘racist’. As for strategic libertarianism, it was doomed for the simple reason that libertarianism is essentially an individualist ideology than a local or communal one. Strategic libertarians are not really anti-statist but anti-statist against the state that happens to be hostile toward them. So, if their local community/government enforces laws and regulations that trample on the rights of certain minorities, outsiders, or deviants, then strategic rightists either turn a blind eye or justify local controls as ‘freedom from big government’, even if big government is trying to ensure individual rights for everyone in that local community. So, the strategic local libertarian argument — as opposed to the ideological universal libertarian position — was bound to be exposed for its muddled hypocrisy, intellectual confusion, and moral pretensions when those in the Deep South invoked "states’ rights" to defend racial segregation that clearly violated individual rights. To be sure, most whites in the South didn’t have ‘libertarianism’ on their minds — or even knew what it meant — when they cast their votes for candidates like Barry Goldwater or George Wallace, but the libertarianism bug eventually wormed itself into Southern Neo-Confederate-ism, especially as libertarianism came to be associated with the image of the Texas cowboy grabbing his gun and riding his horse wild and free.) Given the heavily statist and regulatory character of Liberalism, why did it come to be embraced by the upper business class? There were several reasons. One was obviously due to the war of culture and court. While leftist types preferred to work in journalism, academia, arts, and think-tanks than enter into business, their control of key institutions and sectors gave them the means to control the minds of the children of the elites. If a rich conservative father sends his children to an elite college, they are going to turn into drones of political correctness. Since ideological leftists rely on the power of ideas than direct control of money, they’ve used political correctness to infiltrate and permeate every aspect of American business. So, advertising will feature images and sounds that disseminate certain ‘culture war’ tropes. And workplaces will be pressured to celebrate ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’ in not only policy but displays.. And even non-political institutions like Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts will be used to promote certain images, sounds, and ideas amenable to political correctness. Just as there are purist Christians and cultural Christians, there are true leftists and cultural leftists. Throughout most of Western history since the Middle Ages, most Europeans were Christians, but relatively few were purist Christians who were committed to Christ. Most people were Christian because they were culturally raised that way and because they had conform to the prevailing spiritual order to be respectable and allowed to do business and rise socially; some Jews converted to Christianity for such reasons. While most Cultural Christians were sincere in their faith, their religiosity was secondary to mercenary considerations of survival, competition, wealth, and/or power. Even so, as respectable members of society, they had to attend weekly services, pay lip-service to Christian values, and donate to the Church.
Similarly, the main focus of cultural leftists is to make money, gain power, out-compete others, and come out ahead. As they grew up with MLK worship and ‘white guilt’ tropes, they may sincerely believe in PC orthodoxy, but ideological purity or saving-the-world is far from their priority in life. A cultural leftist could be a cutthroat capitalist or an egomaniacal individualist — like so many Hollywood stars — , but he or she still needs to feel morally justified and approved by others, not least for status reasons. Similarly, a cultural Christian could be a millionaire enterpriser or an ardent militarist for whom no amount of national defense spending is enough. In contrast, purist leftists and purist Christians take their credos seriously, and in the past, there were even attempts by leftist radicals and religious fanatics to transform society according to, respectively, communism and theocraticism. But, we now live in a post-revolutionary age, and even purists of all stripes have found ways to compromise with the prized goose of capitalism, globalism, pluralism, and individualism that lay the eggs. When Deng Xiaoping said, "what does it matter if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice?", he didn’t mean he was okay with any ideology or any political party ruling China ‘as long as it catches mice’. He meant the Chinese Communist Party must retain control at all costs but make room for free enterprise to grow the economy: make capitalism serve the Chinese Communist Party than the CCP stepping aside to let other groups take power. Though leftists in America never gained the kind of power that Chinese communists did in 1949, they too came around to accepting a compromise that could be to their advantage. Why try to destroy capitalism when (1) it can’t be destroyed — if anything, it was communism that faded as the end of the 20th century drew near (2) it can well be made to serve forces on the left? If the Chinese Communist Party could make room for capitalists, American capitalists could make room for leftists. After all, nature abhors a vacuum, and paradoxically, the very success of capitalism was bound to produce disaffection with its ‘shallow and crass’ materialism. Therefore, capitalists and consumers will crave spiritual meaning, and it just so happened that the Old Time Religion and populist Evangelicalism were too crusty or dumb for modernized and urbanized people of the post-modern era. (In Italy and France, many people who would never have wanted to live under a communist system nevertheless espoused and spouted Marxist theory as a kind of substitute religion to add meaning to their lives that might otherwise have felt empty, shallow, and materialistic. Leftist tracts were like sacred texts with its own canon of prophets, saints, and martyrs. With the fading of religion, late modern man could be a total materialist or a materialist who lived the consumer life but found ‘spiritual’ meaning in radical messianic ideology. Indeed, one of the appeals of Marxism to intellectuals in the West was its very impossibility. Dreams are more alluring if one never has to deal with them as reality. The appeal of Marxism wasn’t different from the sentiments of Scarlett O’Hara at the end of GONE WITH THE WIND: "Tomorrow will be another day." Marxist ideally lived in the state of Procrasti-Nation. Thus, when communists really came to power around the world, it was a mixed blessing. A victory to be sure, but one that dragged down the dream to the dreary necessity of having to make it work in the real world.) Therefore, the American and European leftists could fashion a kind of cultural leftism with ‘spiritual’ appeal for the new capitalists and consumers. That way, the privileged could be ‘greedy and crass’ as before, but since new capitalism has been christened with the ‘spiritual’ uplift of new ‘leftism’, they needn’t feel so ‘guilty’ and/or ‘trashy’ about their wantonness. (As long as Bill Gates and Hollywood moguls are good ‘leftists’, no one’s paying much attention to their hoggish lifestyles.) Of course, this was nothing new but just the latest manifestation and twist of a process that had defined the relationship between economics and moralism since the beginning of time. Through most of Christian history, for example, the rich could indulge in their privilege as long as their luxuries were gilded with a bit of spiritual correctness. So, while showing off golden jewelry might seem vain and haughty, it wasn’t so bad if the jewelry embodied religious themes. And while lavishing money on a painter might seem luxuriously outlandish, what if the painter threw some religious imagery onto the canvas? That way, one could show off one’s wealth and status while, at the same time, highlighting one’s sanctimony. And of course, if you were rich enough to provide the Church with generous donations, maybe your sins and transgressions could be washed away via special pleading by priests with the Lord. It’s like the ‘leftists’ at ThinkProgress never dare to speak truth to the power of George Soros since he generously pays their salaries and provides funds. And RT or Russia TV that bleats endlessly about abuses and violations of the US tends not to be muted about the abuses of Vladimir Putin.
After a century of bitter ideological warfare in the 20th century, it’s as if people of all stripes sort of wised up in the 21st century. Indeed, this development may signal a kind of cyclical return to the dynamics of an earlier time. In many ways, the socialist left and the privileged classes weren’t necessarily antagonistic through much of the 19th century, especially after the failure of the French Revolution. Though the defeat of Napoleon brought back the reactionaries, most elites of Europe were committed to change and progress in various fields. And in America, progress and elitism had been welded into the founding principles of the nation. Despite the defeat of the revolutions of 1848, Europe — even Russia — kept changing at an ever faster pace, and even authoritarian right-wingers like Otto von Bismarck found ways to compromise with the elements of the left. The symbiotic relationship between the elites and the left was destroyed with the catastrophe of WWI. At the eve of the war, most leftists chose nationalism over internationalism. German socialists sided with German elites, French socialists sided with French elites, Russian leftists — though not the radical Bolsheviks — sided with Russian elites. Italian socialists opposed the war, but Benito Mussolini, perhaps the most famous and popular leftist in Italy, took up the banner of nationalism, and many Italian leftists followed him to join the war on the side of the Allies. Thus, on the eve of WWI, when push came to shove, the leftists of most nations chose national unity(and allegiance to national elites) over ideological internationalism. But WWI bled Russia dry and led to the fall of the Tsar. The government fell into the hands of moderate nationalist leftists led by the socialist Kerensky, but as they couldn’t bring the war to closure either, Bolsheviks eventually took power in 1917, and the first communist nation was born. Unlike most leftist parties that had sought some kind of accommodation and compromise with the ruling elites of aristocrats and/or bourgeoisie, the Russian Revolution pushed radical socialism and sought to stamp out all class enemies, even if it meant the destruction of millions of lives and violent uprooting of tradition and culture. Meanwhile, in other parts of Europe, WWI brought down the traditional ruling castes and radicalized the leftists who regretted that they’d chosen fatherland over brotherhood. Therefore, a communist putsch was attempted in Germany soon after the war. Hungary was ruled by ruthless communists for a spell. Things got very tense as the game of politics turned into winner-takes-all than working-together. Thus, the radical policies of the Spanish Republic led to a bloody civil war. The Spanish Right, rightly or wrongly, sensed that the Spanish left was committed to socializing(even communizing) and secularizing the entire country. (The new Spain of today has been able to push a regimen of capitalism and ‘leftism’ since the cultural forces of the Right has been weakened and destroyed by the preponderance of popular culture and fashions that has no use for deep/sacred values, loyalties, or trusts. Though it’s often been said that consumerism and popular culture did much to undermine communism, conservatism was no less its victim. In some ways, communism and conservatism turned out to have something in common in their preference of ‘timeless’ and ‘static’ cultural values over fashions and trends in everything. The recent homo agenda is entirely the product of late capitalist decadence.) In Italy, the Fascists under Mussolini took over. In France, the leftist government under the Jewish Leon Blum was so reviled by French conservatives that France, as a house divided unto itself, was in no mood to fight Germany in WWII, and when Germans marched into Paris, many French rightists even welcomed the invasion as a kind of liberation from Jewish leftist occupation. In Germany, the Weimar Republic, in the spirit of compromise prior to the war, tried to work with conservative forces to plant the seeds of democracy and revive the economy, but the Versailles Treaty all but ensured the demise of the German economy, which was then made worse by worldwide Depression of 1929, after which, German politics increasingly became a tug-of-war between the National Socialists and the Communists. Given such a choice, it’s understandable that many rich Germans sided with the former as the Nazis were willing to compromise with property-owners whereas communists planned to wipe them out. The political ‘genius’ of Hitler was he figured out how to win over both the rich and the masses. He disassociated socialism from internationalism and branded it onto nationalism, and he offered security and prosperity for the German elites as long as they played ball with his regime.
As America lacked the deep roots of reactionary hierarchy that existed in Europe and as it had been founded on principles that combined elitism with populism, it was better able to weather the Great Depression. Also, as American culture had developed along pragmatic than ideological lines, political battles didn’t become as poisonous as in many European nations where political philosophy — increasingly radicalized — came to matter a lot more. Also, paradoxically enough, in some ways America was more united because it was more divided. On European soil, identities tended to be very particularist and tribalist — German, Polish, Hungarian, Russian, Jewish, Croatian, Italian, Spanish, and etc. — , and therefore, powerful ideologies were needed to overcome tribal loyalties. But such anti-tribalist radicalization had the effect of radicalizing tribalism, as every action causes a reaction. So, threat of universalist communist ideology was met with more radicalized version of reactionism and nationalism, and that, in turn, radicalized universalist ideologies even more, and so on, back and forth.. In America, the various ethnic groups had been Anglo-Americanized in a general way. In order to bring together various ethnic communities, the meaning of what it meant to be American couldn’t be too particularist and specific. And yet, there was a general narrative and trajectory of American culture and history that made ‘being American’ appealing to newcomers. Thus, nationalism became a kind of ersatz universalism in the US. Different people from all over the world could become ‘American’ in the way that they couldn’t easily become ‘German’, ‘Polish’, ‘Hungarian’, ‘Croatian’, ‘Greek’, and etc. Rising diversity necessitated the watering down American national identity into something more adaptable and ‘inclusive’, and that, in effect, led to a creation of a nationalism that could accommodate universalism to a degree while, at the same time, retaining its uniquely powerful narrative of Anglo-American founding, settlement, development, values, habits, and attitudes. The genius of the American formula was that nationalism need not be wiped out to make way for universalism; nationalism itself could be a kind of universalism.
In contrast, the Bolsheviks in Russia initially waged war on Russian culture and nationality to create a new Soviet identity and loyalty. Given that so many Bolshevik leaders were Jewish, Latvian, Polish, and non-Russian, the destruction of Russian identity and culture was deemed necessary to create a new Soviet identity. Trotsky was a Jew, and Stalin was a Georgian. Even so, Russian people were too many, Russian land was too vast, and Russian culture was too old to uproot, and so eventually Russian nationalism made a comeback with a vengeance, and it was what Stalin relied on — the defense of the Motherland — when the Nazis came invading. It was to defend the motherland than to serve a communist ideology that made Russians willing to make huge sacrifices to roll back the German tide. Soviet communism became a kind of Russian nationalism. In contrast, American history didn’t have deep roots. Look back into Russian history, and the people who eventually became ‘Russians’ had inhabited that territory even before recorded/conscious history. Thus, Russian history on Russian land has the element of myth, just like Japanese connection to their island nation. But America, like Athena born from the head of Zeus, was founded with fullness and completeness. Highly civilized Europeans — by far the most advanced peoples on Earth — arrived in North America with a ready blueprint and material knowledge for creating a new civilization. Though we’re all familiar with the narrative of ‘humble beginnings’ of America with the Pilgrims, Jamestown, and sharing turkey with the Indians, the rise of America was essentially an importation of fully developed European ideas, models, and investment in the New World. Also, America’s ersatz universalist nationalism was less threatening that the radical communism of the USSR. If communist ideology heralded a future in which communism would spread like wildfire and conquer every corner of the globe, Americanism was about waiting for people to come to America. "Come to us" than "We will come to you". Even leftist Jews in Western/Eastern Europe preferred to emigrate to the US than to the USSR in the 20th century. Americans brilliantly welded elements of moderate universalism with elements of moderate nationalism — just like Americans balanced free enterprise with civil society and balanced tradition with progress — , whereas politics in Europe tended to pit one group/idea against the other in a zero sum game of ‘winner takes all’. Of course, this contrast owed to the fact that in the late 19th and early 20th century, there were many more Jews in Europe than in America. Whereas many European cities had a powerful Jewish presence in arts, culture, finance, and etc. — and Russia came under the rule of Jewish communists — , America, up to the first two thirds of the 20th century, was largely Wasp dominated in most elite fields. Massive immigration of the early 20th century and emigration of Jews after WWII had the effect of reversing the political dynamics of America and Europe. As Europe pretty much emptied of Jews after WWII, the ideological battles decreased there — notwithstanding the ruckus of the May 68 Movement — , whereas it heated up in the US as Jewish intellectuals radicalized American life and letters. Jewish leftists filled up the academia, and on the ‘right’, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman pushed ultra-libertarian economics. Thus, political and ideological divisions in America would become more charged than in increasingly consensus-oriented Europe, the opposite of how things had been in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. To be sure, Europe could have avoided the dangers of ideological extremes if Hitler had stuck to true proto-fascist principles of balancing the pluralist dimensions of society. After all, fascism developed in the spirit of compromise, co-existence, and coordination of leftism and rightism, traditionalism and modernism, ‘creative irrationalism’ and scientific rationalism, spiritualism and secularism, and etc. In a world where too many sides were drawing rigid ideological lines, fascists promised to find a common ground for everyone in the national community. Thus, Mussolini’s Italian Fascism initially appealed to lots of people: Catholics, atheists, Jews, workers, farmers, the bourgeoisie, the aristocracy, and etc. And prior to the disaster setting in with the looming defeat in WWII, Hitler won over many sectors of Germany, even German workers who’d once been members of the Communist Party. If Hitler had been more like Mussolini on the Jewish question and not invaded Russia, he could have done much good for Europe, but there was something sick and loathsome at the core of his being, and his degenerate gambling with history paved the way for the Fall of the West. Granted, proto-fascism had already been corrupted by Mussolini’s Italian Fascism that ranted against individualism. While individualism on its own is mindless libertarianism, social philosophy should balance common interests with individual freedom. Unfortunately, the corporate Fascism of Mussolini put too much stress on unity and obedience, thus robbing Italian Fascism of its vitality(except for Mussolini’s charisma and showmanship). Had Italian and German fascisms been tempered by individualism, they may have been spared the mass hysteria that unthinkingly went along with the grand designs of Il Duce and Der Fuhrer. Israel is a successful quasi-fascist society because a powerful sense of national unity and common purpose/destiny is balanced with individual freedom and dissent.
Anyway, World War II and the fall of Fascism and Nazism threatened to intensify ideological battles once again. There were plenty of Europeans who wanted revenge against former Fascist and Nazi rulers(and their collaborators), and there was a period of bloodbath all over Europe. But Europeans were too exhausted after two great world wars and too desperate to rebuild ruined Europe to squabble endlessly about ideology. (Therefore, it was the children of the WWII generation who caused some ruckus in the 60s when Europe had been rebuilt. Young people in the immediate after WWII had expended most of their energies in scrounging for enough to eat and finding shelter, but their children had time and money for other things, and radical politics went well with Rock music and youth rebellion for awhile.) But once the 60s waned, ideological battles became increasingly passe as Europe had lost its dominance, as most European nations were homogeneously stable, and as most Europeans had arrived at a consensus along the lines of ‘social democracy’.) Also, the looming threat of Soviet Union dampened the mood of the Western left and led to partial revival of the moderate Right under the umbrella of Americans. While defeat of Germany and Italy was a huge boon to the European Left, the Soviet Union was as much a liability as benefit. On the one hand, USSR was the great heroic nation that had defeated Nazi Germany. USSR also provided generous funds to European leftist organizations. Also, USSR was seen by some Europeans as the bulwark against American ‘neo-imperialist’ domination of Europe. But it became increasingly difficult to praise a totalitarian social system that forbade most freedoms, crushed all opposition — not least because Soviet Communism was generally harsher on leftist dissent/deviance than on rightist sentiments — , and when the USSR invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia, European leftists had eggs on their faces. Just as WWII and the Holocaust fairly or unfairly smeared the entire spectrum of the Right, Soviet/communist totalitarianism and the Cold War smeared much of the Left(though owing to leftist domination of media and academia — and the right’s perpetual lack of talent in those fields as even the best anti-communist thinkers such as George Orwell, Arthur Koestler, Albert Camus, and Raymond Aron were on the left — , association with the far left wasn’t as damaging as association with the far right. Also, while the radical left had its share of first rank artists and intellectuals, the far right after WWII was almost entirely made up of cranks, morons, and psychopaths). In the long run, with the reversal of America’s misfortunes(from the hangover of the radical 60s and confused 70s) and the downward spiral of the Soviet system in the 80s, the radical left lost its luster. No one was talking about overthrowing the system anymore. The Right naturally stood for order and stability, and the Left, especially with the maturation of the boomer generation, sought to find their place within the existing system, which in time became dear to the Left as liberal boomers(especially Jews) far outshone conservative boomers(especially Wasps) in all elite fields of media, academia, culture, politics, intellectualism(even if not honest intellectualism), science, technology, and government. Why rock the boat when the likes of Clinton and Obama took the highest office in the land? The system was bad when controlled by ‘the Man’ but not-so-bad(or even great) when spearheaded by ‘the One’. And though there’s a rift between have-more elite boomers and have-less mass boomers and their Liberal children, they tend to stick together during election time since the alternative is the much loathed GOP that is culturally tainted with ‘war on women’, ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, religious bigotry, and culture of ‘greed’ — while Liberals are no less ‘greedy’, they’ve perfected the art of compassion-exhibitionism. By the 21st century, the ideological battles of the 20th century seem so extreme, and fittingly enough, Eric Hobsbawm’s survey of the 20th century was called THE AGE OF EXTREMES when the diametrically opposed forces of traditionalism and modernity, of the West and non-West, of capitalism and socialism, of gentiles and Jews, of nationalism and nationalism, of old and young, and of religion and atheism clashed for high stakes. As the entire world has been modernized, the battle between tradition and transformation is far less extreme today(at least in the West as it’s still raging in places in Egypt, Pakistan, and India). And as the people who grew up with youth culture in the 50s and 60s are today’s old folks, the old vs young divide is almost passe; the Rolling Stones still carry on as if they’re 20 yr olds, and aging boomers still think they are groovy and hip. Globalism that MTV-ized, Hollywood-ized, and McDonaldized much of the non-West — and considering that the West has been influenced by Afro-Pop and Japanese anime — , there are fewer differences between the white world and non-white world. Massive non-white immigration into white worlds have also undermined the power of nationalism, at least for white nations. Victory of Pax Americana in WWII and in the Cold War ended the great ideological battles of the 20th century. With the elevation of Holocaust as a world religion and Jewish domination of US and EU — the most powerful and prosperous parts of the world — , most gentiles would rather obey and worship than question and oppose Jewish power. The professionalization of journalism that replaced apprenticed journalists of various backgrounds(often working class) with the carefully groomed and indoctrinated college graduates led to consensus-thinking in the media. (In the past, people with real-life experiences brought their world-views to journalism; today, privileged kids drummed with PC ideology in elite universities project and impose their dogmas onto the real world. So, if they want to see ‘teens’ and ‘white Hispanic’ than black thugs and mestizo, that’s what they’ll see and try to force us to see as well. Liberals are no longer interested only in action and behavior. So, even if you are a perfect worker at the job place, if you’re discovered to have politically incorrect views away from work, you can be fired and blacklisted. Even in the realm of thought, most Americans are no longer free. Someone who is reported to have a low opinion of homosexuality will be fired or banned from work even if he works well with homosexuals at work. Liberals aren’t content to control the deeds but also the creeds. Harvard University even praised the Stasi-like ratting of someone when a jealous Jewish girl outed Stephanie Grace as a ‘racist’ because the latter expressed belief in racial differences in a private email. Needless to say, bot the rat and the Harvard dean were Jews. And yet, these same Liberals say Joe McCarthy was wrong to remove Stalinists from US government, Hollywood, and mass media. Principle and consistency aren’t in the Liberal Jewish vocabulary. Many Jews are foul creatures indeed.) With the ebbing away of great ideological battles — in many ways a good thing — , the new ‘right’ and the new ‘left’, in order to say in business to rally the troops, have felt compelled to draw new ideological battle lines that are parodies of earlier ones. So, the ‘right’ tried to convince the world that Islamic terrorism is the new Axis of Evil. And neocons and Liberal Jews want a neo-cold-war with Russia as the Evil Empire because... it doesn’t allow ‘gay pride parades’ and homo propaganda in the classroom. In America, the main ideological battle seems to be about which side is more enthusiastic about an openly homosexual football player in the NFL. With Conservatives being so afraid of Jews(who are, after all, the main instigators and funders of the homo agenda), it’s only a matter of time before Conservatives will also bend over to ‘gay marriage’. If both sides are agreed on ideological principles, then the only political game left is a matter of which side is more hysterically ‘enthusiastic’ about something. Indeed, this was the case under communism under Stalin and Mao. As communism was the only game in town, good vs bad came to be determined by who which side was MORE hysterical about the Supreme Leader or the Great Helmsman. So, we seem to be moving away from ideological gaps towards enthusiasm gaps. Since both the ‘left’ and ‘right’ are crazy about idolizing Jews and MLK(and increasingly homos as well), the good guys will be determined by who happens to be more knee-jerkedly slobbering and enthusiastic in worshiping and hailing the sacred cows(promoted by Jews). All one needs to do is look at the political circus of AIPAC conferences where both Democrats and Republicans go out of their way to enthuse ever more hysterically about Israel and Jews. Due to the fading of ideological, national, and cultural battles of the past, one might assume, as did Francis Fukuyama, that we are approaching the End of History where most people are good and prosperous and agreed upon fundamental principles of what makes a good society. (Perhaps, Fukuyama’s theory was a projection of his Japanese personality and cultural ideal onto the world.
The Japanese ideal is harmony, trust, cooperation, consensus, and stability. Consider the long reign of the Tokugawa Dynasty and consider the new Japan since economic and political stabilization since the late 70s. Despite advances in technology and its flashy pop culture, Japan seem to be standing still. So, the Japanese mind believes that when the Big Questions have been resolved, an era of everlasting peace should prevail. But the Jewish mind and Protestant mind beg to differ. The Jewish mind seeks new questions and new problems, even if it has to create them out of the air. And the Northern European Protestant mind, still rooted in its puritanical reformation-ism even if in secular form, seeks new evils to exorcize and new vices to expurgate. Japanese can be censorious and repressive, but the purpose is to further social harmony than to morally purify the souls of a nation. Japanese are obsessed about behavior, whereas Northern European Protestant mentality is about the heart and mind as well as proper forms of behavior. Thus, while the Japanese mind longs for an ‘end of history’, the Jewish and the Northern European Protestant minds prefer the beginning of new historical-ideological-spiritual wars. Even so, many white Protestant communities prefer to be left alone and prefer modesty in their ambitions as well as moderation in their views, whereas lots of Jews just love to stir up new manufactured controversies, manias, and hysterias to morally bully gentiles and set one bunch of gentiles against another. If not for Jewish influence, I highly doubt if this ‘gay’ thing would have gotten so out of hand. While much of Northern European Protestant mentality has been won over to the homo agenda, it was because Jewish influence in the media and academia rammed the homo stuff up everyone’s else. Since Jews control the mass media, they control what is deemed to be the pressing moral issue of the day, and the Protestant mind-set is a sucker for such things. So, the mentality that once got behind Prohibition wasn’t all that different from the mentality that now jumps on the bandwagon of the homo agenda. Prohibition was ultra-moral whereas the homo agenda is ultra-immoral, but the mania of moralism is the same. Moralism isn’t the same as morality as even immorality can be moralized and even morality can be demoralized and demonized. Moralization is not about what is or isn’t moral but who has the power to frame and define, shape, and control the moral debate. Under Nazism, those who plotted against Hitler were seen as moral lechers because the Nazi state controlled the power of moralism and moralization. As most people are childlike sheeple incapable of or unwilling to engage in moral reasoning, their idea of right and wrong depends largely on how their moral buttons are pushed by the powers-that-be, and in America, it’s Jews who give us stuff like the mountain-sized Negro who luvs a little white mouse in GREEN MILE. It’s no wonder that so many dumb Americans now think, homos = angels. Immorality has been moralized and true morality has been demoralized.) But unanimity can be deceptive. After all, how stable and long-lasting were Stalinism and Maoism? To be sure, one could argue that unanimity in Stalin’s Russia and Red China was forced whereas it was achieved freely in the West; but a more careful inspection will reveal that what looks like the convergence of unanimity in the US and EU was slyly and deviously achieved through the strong-arm of elite institutions dominated by Jewish elites, their mini-me homo partners, and craven race-traitor Liberal Wasp collaborators. (Liberals say the spread of ‘gay marriage’ means victory in the Culture War, but who controls the culture, especially pop culture? Jewish elites do. Who controls the media that controls the flow of culture? Jews do. Who controls the government and courts that play referee in the Culture War? Jews do. Who controls the corrupted and decayed humanities and social sciences departments in universities? Jews do. So, the so-called Culture War was never fought fairly between masses of Liberals and masses of Conservatives. The powers-that-be that control the rules of the game favored the Liberals. Even when the great majority of people rose up and opposed ‘gay marriage’, the courts dominated by Jews, homos, and their lackeys forced ‘gay marriage’ on state after state. So, saying that Liberals won the Culture War is like saying White Sox fairly won the World Series back in the day when Jews fixed the game. Liberal Jews have done to American conservatives what Zionists did to Palestinians. With rules like that, American conservatives and Palestinians never had a chance. US pretends to be a fair broker between Jews and Palestinians and between Israel and Iran, but who’s kidding whom? The game has been rigged and fixed from day one.) What we call the Mass Media is not owned or controlled by the masses but by a small elite. Of course, it has always been so, but in the past, there was more of a balance among various ethnic groups in the ownership and running of the media. Today, it’s Jew all the way and across the board. Also, even though American media was more censorious when it came to ‘obscenity’ prior to the late 60s, it was less censorious in what topics could be discussed. One could be critical of black demands and Jewish power as well of Wasp privilege and white ‘racism’.
Today, while the notion of obscenity is quaint in the age of internet where even kids have access to images of homo Negro sticking their dongs into the asses of ‘faggoty ass white boys’, there are lots of political, social, cultural, and historical topics that cannot be mentioned. Helen Thomas, perhaps the most respected Washington journalist, was fired when she said European Jewish imperialists should go back home. Rick Sanchez was fired and has been blacklisted ever since he mentioned the topic of Jewish power in the media. Many people who work in the business self-censor themselves out of fear: like Winston Smith came to love Big Brother, they’ve learned to love the Big Jew. When it comes to Jews and MLK, we must speak in hushed tones. We must pretend that black thugs are ‘teens’ or ‘youths’. Anyone who mentions the obviously gross fact of homosexual fecal penetration will be tarred and feathered and destroyed more totally than any communist during the so-called McCarthy Era, which, by the way, lasted only a few yrs. By the way, why isn’t the period when Jewish communists infiltrated the US government and sent secret files to Stalin called the ‘Rosenberg & Sobell Era’? McCarthy erred on the side of patriotism whereas Jews like Julius Rosenberg, Morton Sobell, and their Jewish/leftist apologists conferred on the side of a mass terror ideology. (The left, owning the media and being more creative, always won the War of Metonym, and therefore, just about every bad thing in American history is associated with excesses of the Right. So, ‘Watergate’ is constantly referred to as standard-bearer of government abuse. ‘McCarthy’ is the measure of all things censorious though something like the Hollywood Blacklist was nothing compared to how German-Americans were treated during WWI, how Japanese-Americans were treated in WWII, and how people have been destroyed and/or silenced since the rise of political correctness. And though Emmett Till is used as the symbol of racial violence, there has been far more black-on-white violence in the US. But because of the prevailing references in the media to rare cases of southern white lynching of blacks in the past, even black-on-black violence is covered in the media within such context. So, if a black southerner kills a black homo, it is seen less in terms of black-on-black crime or black-on-homo crime but ‘redneck racist homophobic’ crime against a black homo.)
Much of today’s ideological consensus and political convergence isn’t organic or natural but orchestrated, manipulated, and deceptively coerced. How did so many Americans become duped by ‘gay marriage’? Because they sat down and really thought about it? No, because it was sold like Coca-Cola via mass education, mass media, Hollywood, MTV, and advertising. How did Americans and Europeans become so slavish to Jews? Was it because they really realized on their own that Jews are saints and angels? No, it was because Jews promoted the Holocaust cult to the point where the Jewish race came to be seen as the new Jesus who died for the sins of humanity. Why do so many people respect Abe Foxman? Because he’s a man of integrity? No, because the Jewish-controlled media have pampered and feted him as a heroic champion of justice, even though to anyone with a even a modicum of sense(rare these days), it’d be obvious that Foxman is dirty Jewish fox in the henhouse, indeed not much different from the Newman character in SEINFELD. Granted, such myth-making is nothing new — think of the time when children were taught about George Washington and the cherry tree — , but if popular myths served the majority in the past, today’s Jewish-promoted myths burden the majority with ‘original sin’ while sanctifying certain minorities as the ‘chosen ones’.
So, in a way, the current consensus is deceptive and unstable. Without the bogeyman of the Evil White (straight)Male to unite the ‘colored’ folks, homos, Jews, women(against whom endless wars seem to be waged), blacks, mestizos, and ‘white privilege’-fetishizing white Liberals(who get high off the narcissism of guilt), the ‘progressive’ center cannot hold. Without ruthlessly punishing all those who speak the truth on race, sex, Jews, MLK, black crime, Zionist duplicity, and etc., the entire edifice of 21st century ideology of convergence will crumble. Jews have had an easy time of fooling the masses of whites into building a new Tower of Babel, but it’s really built on sand, which is why the Jewish-controlled media get even more frenzied in whipping up slave mentalities to obey and enthuse about the New World Order — and damn Russia that won’t bend over to the globalist homo ramrod funded and exported by Jews. As recent revelations about Jewish Nuland’s interventions in Ukraine show, what often seems like democratic process is a puppet show pulled by Jewish masters and manipulators. It’s no different in America and EU where so many Nulands are all over the place gaming the system to make things go their way. Russians were able to spy on Nuland’s phone call because she was in Ukrainian territory next to Russia, but in the US and EU, Jews control most of the sources of intelligence and media, so they get to act like Nuland without getting caught, all the while catching anyone who may be plotting against them. This is why Jews hate Russia. Russians act in their own interests independent of the Jewish agenda.
Paradoxically, the end of macro-ideology conflicts that defined the 20th century seems to be paving the way of rise of micro-ideology conflicts, and in some ways, these are more contentious than the macro-ideological ones. During the Cold War, for example, there was a grand sense of us versus them. We were on the side of democracy, free enterprise, and individual liberty, and they were on the side of totalitarianism, command economy, and collective coercion. But with the great enemy or the ‘evil empire’ of the USSR gone and buried — and with China caring more about national power and wealth than ideological issues — , the Western World has no real enemy that threatens it from outside. There is massive immigration, but this is more an internal issue than an external one for it’s been enabled by fifth-columnists inside the West who opened the gates and dehumanized the patriots. (If the globalist elites were removed from power in the West, massive immigration could be ended overnight and unwanted migrants and illegals could be sent back home.) There was Islamic terrorism on 9/11 that some people saw as the end of ‘end of history’ and the beginning of a new civilizational and ideological struggle with the rising tide of Islam, but it turned out to be a fluke, and besides, it was a response to Western intervention in the Middle East/Muslim World. Today, Muslim nations are so deeply embroiled in internecine conflicts that they pose no credible threat to the non-Muslim world. No matter how much the GOP, neo-conservatives, and European neo-right parties tried to drum up fear of the ‘Muzzie’, it proved difficult to persuade most people that the Muslim world posed a threat comparable to Germans and Japanese during WWII and the Soviet Union and Red China during the Cold War. So, 9/11 faded out of memory — especially as the mess that became Iraq that destroyed the illusion of turning the region into a democratic paradise — , and the West was back to bickering about micro-ideologies which may not even be ideologies but more like radical sentimentalities. A true ideology offers a world-view, a set of theories and values, and a vision of the proper life for the larger population. What does the homo agenda have to do with any ideology? One could include ‘gay rights’ under the libertarian principle of freedom to pursue one’s own happiness and liberalism’s principle of tolerance, but what does the homo agenda, in and of itself, offer to the 98% of the population that is NOT homo? Can a ‘gay’ lifestyle be the basis for an ideology? Though there were great homosexual thinkers throughout history(especially in Ancient Greece), they talked about something other than guys humping each other in the ass. (Libertarianism is also problematic as an ideology for it’s an anti-ideological ideology that says everyone should do his own thing. Thus, if ideologies are supposed to unify a people with a shared world-view, vision of the future, and agreed-upon values, no such can be found in libertarianism that just says own guns if you want to, use drugs if you want to, prostitute yourself if you want to, gamble away your savings if it makes you happy, and etc. One reason libertarianism cannot win is it’s defensively atomizing than offensively unifying. If Liberals tend to come together into a unified force to push their agenda, Conservatives and libertarians tend to retreat and insist on doing their own thing. In general, the left has been more aggressive in trying to conquer and convert the right. Leftists in the 60s went on the attack and called for bringing the system down. In contrast, Rightists tend to retreat into their bunkers or resign themselves to waiting for the ‘collapse’. Leftists actively wanted to force the future, whereas rights passively wait for the roof to finally collapse in Spenglerian fashion. In this regard, rightists ironically have something in common with Karl Marx who said the logic of history will eventually take care of itself. Just like yeasts keep multiplying until they die in their own waste material or alcohol, bourgeoisie will create the new world that will bring upon their demise. In this, Marx was deviating from most leftist views that called for active participation in the NOW to create a better society. Marx tended to see such endeavors as foolhardy and misguided for he was convinced that nothing happened or could happen without the necessary conditions. As Marx saw it, communist revolution was pointless in a society without the bourgeoisie to overthrow and without a proletariat to inherit the wealth that had been hogged by the upper classes. Thus, Marxism provided the left with wings and chained it to an anchor. It soared with a vision of a future when conditions would make revolution unavoidable and the dictatorship of the proletariat would be assured. But to get to that point, leftists needed to be patient and wait for the right conditions to develop under capitalism; they had to resign themselves to being anchored to the unchangeable logic of history. It called for patience even though the activist left was, by its very nature, impatient. And the tension between the need for patience and call for action was plain to see in the Russian Revolution and Chinese Revolution, not least because both came under communist rules without the conditions that were supposed to precede communist victory according to the gospel of Marx. If Marx had merely been a worldly figure, he might have emphasized action in the here-and-now. But he considered himself a prophet of sorts — despite his insistence on deferring to scientific materialism — , and for the words of a prophet to have resonance and lasting value, it had to be about something more than expedience and pragmatism in the here and now. This was difference between Genghis Khan and Muhammad. Genghis conquered much — indeed more than Muhammad before him — , but he was lacking in ideas and future vision. In contrast, Muhammad was not only for victory in the here-and-now but was also a Prophet with a vision of holy life for all places and times. Thus, even as Muhammad won great political victories in his lifetime, he assured his followers that the true triumph of worldwide Islam would be in the future when Islam shall convert and save the entire world. Similarly, even though Marx urged leftists to be active and prepare for the final class war, he also urged them to be patient and allow the bourgeoisie to keep developing capitalism until the time would finally be ripe for revolution. While conditions are not everything, they are important. After all, why did Anglo power remain resilient in Australia, New Zealand, and North America but eventually became hopeless in India, Africa, and Asia? Because the demographic conditions crowded out the British colonialists in places in Zimbabwe and Malaysia. And why are Jews pushing for more immigration to the West? Because ideas and arguments are not enough to guarantee Jewish dominance forever. Conditions must be created via increased diversity and demographic minoritization of the white population in order to ensure permanent Jewish elite control in a socio-political order where the gentiles will be too divided racially and culturally to form into a united bloc. Indeed, the National Socialists would never have come to power in the diverse Austro-Hungarian Empire. However ‘antisemitic’ the Austro-Hungarian Empire may have been, Jews needed not fear the possibility of all the goyim ganging up on Jews, especially as Jews were prized for their skills and talent by the Austrian and Hungarian elites. To the extent that Jews want to safeguard their wealth and power, Jewish anxieties are indeed understandable — and the evils of Nazism cannot be written off as just some accident of history — , but the Jewish power-agenda has to be regarded as an evil when Jews push policies that will destroy the cultural and historical integrity of entire nations just to guarantee their supremacy. Indeed, it’s now more about Jewish supremacy than Jewish survival. There’s almost no one in the West who wants to round up Jews and kill them. There’s almost no one who wants Jews to be treated as second-class citizens. So, Jews no longer worry about survival or equal rights. They have amassed supremacist domination over goy society, and that’s what they want to ensure permanently. Foul Jews know that they cannot help abusing the vast amount of power, money, and influence they have. It’s in their nature to be pushy, devious, cunning, hideous, arrogant, contemptuous, and nasty. So, Jewish power will not be likable and will rub a lot of people the wrong way, and that may lead to rise of genuine and justifiable anti-Jewish sentiments, and those are what Jews dread most. Besides, as evil as Nazism was, it didn’t triumph in Germany simply because a lot of Germans decided to go cuckoo-bananas. Jews, as finance capitalists, communists, and cultural degenerates, had done things that justifiably angered and exasperated many gentiles all across Europe. Just because the Holocaust was vile doesn’t mean that every anti-Jewish sentiment was vile, no more than just because the bombing of Hiroshima and the massive rape of German women were extreme, every anti-Japanese or anti-German feeling was extreme. The lesson of the Holocaust isn’t that it’s wrong to be anti-Jewish. It’s that feelings of anti-ness can go well beyond justifiable rage, action, and payback. It’s like the Columbine killers did something horrible, but that doesn’t mean they were entirely wrong to hate a lot of students who’d either bullied them or tolerated a culture of bullying. The Holocaust teaches not to overreact, but we’ve learned the wrong lesson that would have us not react to Jewish foulness at all. But if we can’t speak truth to Jewish foulness, it just grow more and more foul, and then the foulness will stink so much that it may finally lead to overreaction yet again. But with the rise of diversity that divides the goy community, Jews are banking on the hope that no matter how foul they act in the future, the goyim will never unite to do anything about Jewish power. Jews will be able to always bribe and buy off one side to fight the other side. Jews use mulattos to keep the Negroes calm. Jews fund the homos to undermine majority morality. Jews fund Hispanics to hate whites. Jews fund Muslims to hate Christians, but Jews also fund Christians to hate Muslims. Jews teach Asian students to hate ‘white privilege’ but teach white Americans to fear ‘yellow peril’. Jews teach Americans to hate Russia as the neo-evil empire, and Jews encourage white Europeans to hate American conservatives as neo-Nazi redneck scumbags. This is how Jews play the game.)
Anyway, the so-called the so-called ‘end’ of macro-history has opened up the beginning of micro-histories, often internecine in nature. Though the Liberal Narrative accuses fascists — and communists to a lesser extent — of having fueled the hatred/paranoia toward the Other in order to solidify internal unity, every nation and group have done this. So, American Conservatives used the bogeyman of the communist threat to rally the nation behind Republican leaders. Even as the Cold War was coming to an end, there were people on the American Right who insisted that the Evil Empire was still going strong. And today, it’s the Liberal Jews, their homo allies, and neo-conservative Zionists who are making Russia out to be the Evil Empire again because... it doesn’t allow ‘gay pride’ parades and respects the Orthodox Church as a source of spiritual and moral guidance; of course, those are mere ruses masking the real reason, which is Jews want total control of Russia with its vast resources. Today, the American media are busy with their homogrom(homo-pogrom) against Russia. And American Conservatives still keep yammering about the Islamic threat as if Sharia Law is going to sweep America any time soon. In a nation where ‘gay marriage’ is sweeping the nation, you’d think conservatives would have more sense than to focus on the threat of Sharia and the Koran, but Conservatives haven’t been known for courage, honesty, or sense for some time. To an extent, propping up an external enemy for internal cohesion makes for good political strategy, and indeed, the lack of such an enemy can be as problematic as over-hyping such an enemy. Too much paranoid frenzy about the Other can lead to xenophobia, delirium, and hysteria, and then ultimately weariness and cynicism, as in the Never Cry Wolf story. Indeed, the terrorism threat alerts during the Bush II era increasingly came to be dismissed as a cynical ploy by Dick Cheney and gang. And the pathological lies about Hussein’s WMD led Americans to support an invasion that turned out to be a mess for America and even a bigger one for the Middle East. But lack of an external enemy can lead to either complacency and stasis(followed by stagnation) or, worse, internecine fighting. The great advantage of the Persian invasion was it brought much of Greece together, with Athens and Sparta coordinating their military strategy on land and water to drive back the Persian advances. But once the Persian threat was gone, Athens and Sparta got to fighting one another and led to the decline and ruination of both and other Greek city-states between them. Though Sparta won the war, the costs were high. Also, victory made Spartans both over-ambitious and over-complacent(a deadly mix) in regards to their own affairs and non-Spartan Greeks. As a result, Spartan power dissipated soon after the defeat of Athens. Some alliances are naturally unstable and therefore forged by circumstances, such as the alliance of US and USSR in WWII. Even shared ideology may not be enough if nationalities and/or personalities(of political leadership) are too much at odds. In the case of the Nazi-Soviet Pact from 1939 to 1941, the problem lay in differences in ideology(ultra-right and ultra-left), nationality(Germanic and Slavic), and personality(Hitler and Stalin, though Hitler was, by far, the more problematic personality, just like Mao, much more than Khrushchev, was the main reason for the rift between Soviet Union and Red China). But even in cases where there’s natural unity, divisions can be sowed by cunning and devious manipulators of politics, academia, media, and finance. In America, there really shouldn’t be any kind of poisonous divide between white liberals and white conservatives, and indeed, both sides had much in common in the past, which is why FDR, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan had been able to win landslides. Large numbers of whites(even conservatives)could be persuaded to vote for FDR and Johnson, and large numbers of white liberals could be persuaded to vote for Nixon and Reagan, who won huge landslides in 1972 and 1984. Jews didn’t like this and went about sowing the white liberal mind with all sorts of silly PC nonsense so that a whole bunch of white Liberals came to hate huge numbers of other whites because.... the latter aren’t for ‘gay marriage’. (Also, Neocons cynically emboldened and empowered the Christian Right for its fanatical support of Israel, thereby turning social conservatism into a form of religious zealotry that drove out moderate and secular conservatives from the movement. Today, Neocons continue to encourage the Christian Right to rabidly support Israel while, at the same time, excoriating it for its rejection of ‘gay marriage’. So, Christian zealotry is great as long as it serves Israel, but it’s bad if it stands in the way of something like ‘gay marriage’ — favored by both Liberal and Neocon Jews. But then, even as Neocon Jews lament the Christian Right’s rejection of ‘gay marriage’, they find comfort in the fact that whites shall remain divided on that issue.)
And after the Cold War, white Americans and white Russians should have felt much in common. Jews, of course, wouldn’t have liked that, so they’re making crazy Hollywood movies about Russian Christian Orthodox terrorists and vilifying Russia over the homo issue to persuade Americans that Russia today is worse than under Stalin — and American white folks are so dumb that they are falling for the New Cold War line. (In some ways, this is why it’s only right that Jews should rule over white folks. If whites are really this dumb and easily duped, they deserved to be ruled as sheeple by a smarter, more cunning, and more ruthless people. Dumb idiots don’t deserve to control their own destiny. If you want to be sheep, follow the shepherd, even if he’s leading you to slaughter for that is the purpose of sheep: to be eaten either by wolves or by man.) In A HARD DAY’S NIGHT, Paul McCartney refers to his ‘grandfather’ as a ‘king mixer’ who manipulates even close friends to distrust and hate one another. Jews are the cunning ‘king mixers’ who’ve drummed up stuff like ‘gay rights’ and ‘war against women’ to drive a wedge among various groups of white Americans and between white Americans and white Russians. Jews are a hideous and foul bunch, but maybe we can’t blame them because so many whites are dumb enough for fall for nasty Jewish shticks. It’s like nothing could be done about American Indians who were ‘dumb’ enough to trust the white man, to whom they sold entire territories for blankets, beads, and alcohol. (At the very least, the Chinese resisted the aggressions of the British. Even as they lost the Opium Wars, they knew how shameful it was for the Chinese nation. They knew they had to eventually come together to overthrow the Manchu order and then drive out the imperialists. But white Americans seem to be going out of their way to become addicted to the opiate offered by Jews and to bow down before the new religion of Jew-and-homo worship concocted by hideous Jews. The fall of Anglo-Americans is especially sad, but we’d be fooling ourselves to call it tragic. At least tragic fall — like Japan’s defeat in WWII — has some poetic intensity. The fall of white Americans to Jews is a total farce, a clown show. It is the craven and cowardly surrender of the greatest people in the last 500 yrs to a bunch of people whose weasel-like nature is so plain to see. And the primary blame must go to the East Coast Wasp elites as whites in the South and the West showed some grit against the rise of Jewish power. Though many good things can be said about the Northeast Wasps who were known for their propriety, sobriety, diligence, and manners, their excessive emphasis on dignity meant they didn’t have the kind of guts to push back the pushy Jews. They’d rather lay down their weapons and surrender than get down and dirty to fight the dirty Jew.)
Anyway, a seismic shift has taken place in the underlying premise of what it means to be ‘leftist’, and to better understand this, we need to understand the essence the French Revolution, English Evolution, and the American Revolution(that maybe should be called the American Resolution). (I wonder if the evolutionary nature of change in English politics had a temperamental, albeit unconscious, influence on Charles Darwin’s development of the theory of evolution by natural selection.) All three transformations were about one elite replacing another even if they, especially the French and the American, made a big fuss about the Rights of the People. To be sure, all three had the radical wing that wanted to totally smash the power structure as it then existed, but even the radicals of the French Revolution held power for only a brief stint. The revolutionaries and ‘evolutionaries’ were essentially alternative aristocratic and/or bourgeois challengers to power. The Founding Fathers were quasi-aristocratic landed gentry or Anglo-bourgeoisie. French Revolutionary leaders were mostly from bourgeoisie or even aristocratic backgrounds. The English transformation experienced a more gradual shift of power from the aristocracy to the haute-bourgeoisie, and with so much intermarrying between the two, it wasn’t easy to tell which was which after awhile; the bourgeoisie might even buy aristocratic titles, as in the film TESS by Roman Polanski. In a way, the challengers to the existing power structure were similar to American Jews who eyed the established Wasp elites and sought to take over as the new elites. Notice that one of the biggest gripes among (rich, successful, and privileged)Jews was that they weren’t admitted into certain Wasp golf clubs. But then, such exclusion turned out to be a great blessing as things turned out. If Jews had been happily and immediately admitted into all sectors of Wasp power, they’d have less of a ‘victim’ narrative in America as they would have been collaborators of Wasp-Jewish privilege. Also, the exclusion of Jews from certain Wasp clubs became comical as the basis of exclusion went from economically snobby to culturally defensive. Initially, the richer and more powerful Wasps thought Jews were not rich and successful enough to join their club. But as Jews gained ever greater wealth and became richer than even most Wasps, excluding Jews became an ever more desperate means to cling to a dwindling vestige of Wasp identity and power. Since Wasps could no longer rely on economic superiority, they sought to maintain some degree of superiority through cultural symbolism. It’s like aristocrats in the 19th century who found themselves on the decline relative to the rise of the bourgeoisie clung to their titles ever more dearly as those were the only remaining proof of their superiority. Some bourgeois person could be a 1000x richer than an impoverished aristocrat, but if the latter was an Earl, Count, Duke, or some such, it meant he was something special. And as long as such titles meant something(especially to the status-insecure bourgeoisie who sought to emulate the styles of the aristocrats), an aristocrat could whore himself or herself out to the rising bourgeoisie who sought respectability. So, desperate noblemen might sell their titles to rising families, or they might hope to marry their children to the children of bourgeoisie. We see some of this in the US today, with declining Wasp families relying on their once much-prized pedigree to essentially offer up their not-too-bright children for marriage to elite Jews and mulattos. (Craven scumbags.)
Anyway, the three great transformations of the late 18th century and early 19th century were about one elite replacing another; they were not about the People replacing the elites. In the end, none of them were about People Power even though, at times, enough people were suckered into believing in their own empowerment. To be sure, something like increased People Power came to the US with the rise of Andrew Jackson(a much loathed figure among American Jews). Most Jews I’ve met much prefer Thomas Jefferson over Andrew Jackson. While they have little use for Jefferson’s ideas of states’ rights or agro-romanticism, they like his idea of the natural aristocracy, the notion that the ‘best and the brightest’ should rule. When Jews think of Andrew Jackson, they think of pitchforks and populist passions. While both Jefferson and Jackson were race-ists and slave-owners, Jefferson relegated his views on such matter to thought and discourse(and feigned some remorseful conscience about slavery), whereas Jackson was very much a blatant man of action who took blunt actions without much thought to gentlemanly propriety and never felt apologetic about ‘keeping Negroes in their place’ and kicking out American Indians westward on the Trail of Tears. Jefferson was a mind-person, and minds can always change(or be molded by others), whereas Jackson was a balls person, and balls prefer to act out of gut instinct and push back when pushed. Jews don’t want white folks to have gut instincts since the gut instinct of most people is ‘my family, myself, and my people’. While minds can hold ideas ranging from the far right to the far left, they can at least be shaped and controlled by those who control the discourse. Of course, control of the mind can also lead to control of the balls, at least to some extent. With the ‘gay rainbow’ as the new Red, White, and Blue, a lot of Americans now have an instinctive gut-hatred of Russia because... it doesn’t allow ‘gay pride’ parades and homo propaganda in schools. Such Americans are like Rambomosexuals. And even though the main enemy of white Americans is Jews, Jewish control of media and entertainment have convinced a lot of Americans — even red-blooded right-wing Americans — that Jews are their best friends while their biggest enemies are ‘Muzzies’, ‘Chicoms’, ‘Russkies’, and of course, those damned ‘Eye-ranians’.
Anyway, in the long run, even Andrew Jackson came to adopt the way of power and became an insider — he brooked no rebellion from the masses — , and his underlings and associates who rode on his coattails became fellow insiders. Besides, there was something a bit odd about Southern populism since southern society was essentially hierarchical, indeed much more so than the North. While Jackson came from a humble background, he rose to become one of the neo-aristocratic southern gentry with lots of land and slaves. And the Southern elites, even as they increasingly came to see themselves as outsiders from the power structure dominated by the more populous and prosperous North, modeled themselves on European aristocrats. Their ideal was to keep the Negroes and poorer whites in their place, and indeed this kind of odd combination of authoritarianism and rebelliousness still marks certain aspects of American conservatism even today. As with General Patton, right-wing rebellion wasn’t to expand greater freedom and/or equality but to protect privileges and exclusionary powers within the local community from central government that seeks to ensure equal freedom and rights to each and every citizen. In this sense, both the American Revolution and the Confederate Rebellion were contradictory in their ideological designs. The Founding Fathers rebelled because they wanted to rule as the dominant elites of the American colonies(than to share equal power and rights with the people), and the South rebelled because it wanted to maintain its system of hierarchy over black slaves and poor white folks; poor white folks sided with rich whites mainly because they feared the muscled and big-donged Negroes. It was about the freedom to dominate or freedom to enslave than equal rights for all individuals.
Of course, the idea of equal freedom and equal power for all is an unworkable utopian/anarchist pipe dream, and societies will always be ruled by dominant elites. The American experiment would have failed if the Founders had been radical egalitarians, and Southern whites had good reasons to want to keep the Negro down for the simple reason that blacks are biologically stronger and more aggressive than whites(even though white males were back then, as now, loathe to admit the truth as it might hurt their white male pride and sense of superiority). Indeed, the Founders, even as they appealed to ideals of equality and People Power, always maintained their conviction in elitism as not only an ideal but the only proper way to govern society. (Though Jews often point out this ‘flaw’ about the Founders, they are no different. Anyone who thinks Jews want to be equal with the rest of us is crazy. In many ways, Jewish rule is more problematic than that of the Founders because the latter at least shared identity with and felt affinity for the white majority. While the Founders were class snobs, they were not racial snobs over the white majority. In contrast, for all the Jewish sermons about the need for greater racial equality, Jews feel superior to non-Jews as a race and look down on goyim as either dangerous thugs or brainless beasts.) And once Andrew Jackson and others like him were admitted into the halls of power, they did everything to limit the expansion of the political franchise. Besides, the elites — even if relatively new to power — soon learned that most people are suckers and that populist tropes could easily be appropriated by the elites to fool the masses, and so, there’s been a long tradition of ‘born in a log cabin’ and its variants in American politics. Also, elites built political machines, gained control of the media, and made campaigning so expensive that only the rich elites and those amenable to elite interests could run for higher office. While everyone has only one vote in America, a handful of people have the money and the means to control the minds of millions of voters, which means that while US is an electoral democracy, it is a ‘selectoral’ aristocracy where a handful of insiders get to select who gets to run and manipulate how most people will think. People are so easily duped. As the Jewish master of mind-control Edward Bernays said: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” It’s like sheep think they’re moving in a certain direction out of their own volition, but they are being led by shepherds and their goon dogs who will eventually lead the sheep to slaughter.
Anyway, even though the American Revolution, French Revolution, and the English evolution did pit class against class, they were not opposed to the very idea of class itself. Rather, the ruling class would be replaced by a new ruling class. The existence of class was seen as natural, permanent, and ineradicable. Class dynamics was more fluid in America than in Britain, but Americans were always aware of class realities and differences.
The real shift in political philosophy came with the rise of communist ideas that sought to abolish classes altogether. Marx differed from most other communist thinkers before him in that his view of class tended to be historical and ‘logical’ than prescriptive and ‘utopian’. Communism prior to Marx emphasized the formulaic blueprint for the best way to organize and manage a communist society. Communism was, first and foremost, an manual that could be implemented upon human society through a combination of persuasion, coercion, and social engineering. While Marx agreed with general principles of what would make a good communist society, he didn’t believe communism could simply be implemented as an idea on any society. Rather, communism was less an intellectual product of inspiration and reason than the inevitable product of historical processes that brought Western society to the point where the final class struggle would ensure the victory of the proletariat.
Most of human history was about a small number of elites ruling over the toiling masses. The stability of such systems relied on the slowness of change and the ignorance of the masses. But the rise of capitalism made society unstable, with the innovative bourgeoisie competing with one another with fiercer intensity and for higher stakes than existed among kings who fought kings and aristocrats who fought aristocrats in the past. And if the old wars among kings or among aristocrats could be settled with agreements on new borders and alliances, capitalism defied and overturned all fixed borders and stabilities. Thus, even though the capitalist bourgeois amassed fortunes inconceivable to previous elites, their power was far less secure since capitalism was the very enemy of stability and continuity, creating new big winners and new big losers within in a span of a few years. Also, capitalism uprooted the masses from their farms and brought them together in huge cities where they could unite and organize and come under the influence of mass media and politics. Even as they were impoverished under capitalism, they would be radicalized in a way that localized rural masses couldn’t even imagine. So, communism was part of a historical process than the product of someone’s thought. Material conditions determined thoughts and ideas than vice versa. People didn’t make their own ideas out of the blue but were determined by history to become conscious of an idea such as communism since capitalism exponentially multiplied social and economic contradictions that could only be resolved by communism.
To an extent, Marx preferred this view of communism(and this view of communism became appealing to many intellectuals) because he loved modernity and preferred the bohemian lifestyle. He understood(and even appreciated) that no historical force was as revolutionary, dynamic, and productive as capitalism. Indeed, the appeal of a communist future was its restoration of peace but with the goodies created by capitalism to be shared and enjoyed by all.
If anything, communism would be a blessing because it ‘ended’ history and restored stability. Communism would be revolutionary but a communist society must be conservatively stable and maintain its perfect order for the rest of history. Communism could never be as bold and transformative as capitalism could be since it had to take care of everyone instead of violate all humanist principles and values for more innovation, more growth, more production. It’s like bohemian-ish grasshoppers who want a good time cannot create wealth, whereas the toiling ants could. One wants the goodies produced by ants but one also wants to be ‘free’ like the grasshopper. Marx loved the bohemian grasshopper-ish life, but he couldn’t make any money that way, and his family suffered. But under future communism, maybe the grasshopper could inherit the wealth created by ants. Theoretically, the ants will side with the ants since they toiled under the super-ants who hogged all the wealth created by ants. So, grasshoppers would lead the toiling worker ants to overthrow the super-ants, and then, the grasshoppers and toiling ants would share the spoils. (If backward Third World nations are smart, they will call back the Western imperialists to serve this ‘bourgeois’ role in their own nations. They should say, "come to our nation, conquer us, and ‘exploit’ us, and in the process, build vast new infrastructures, cities, institutions, schools, hospitals, and roads. After you’ve done all that, we’ll kick you out and inherit what only you guys could have created." Why is South African economy bigger than those of other African nations? Because whites built up the economy. Funny how Afrikaners are blamed for apartheid but never given any credit for creating a rich economy that blacks came to inherit. And consider what the British did with Singapore and Hong Kong, which used to be muddy villages and banks. The British turned them into world-class trading ports and cities. Guess who inherited them? Whites conquered, ‘exploited’, and built, but non-whites inherited the riches.) Ideally and theoretically at least, communism couldn’t be ruthless as capitalism since communism prioritized the well-being of the people whereas capitalism favored innovation, production, and profits above all. Thus, Marx wanted the fruits of capitalism without the capitalism, but for the fruits to be there, capitalism had to precede communism. This was one reason why Marx scoffed at the idea of a backward society becoming communist. Not only did such an idea violate his theory of class struggle but a society that turned communist prior to capitalist transformation couldn’t enjoy the fruits that could only have been produced by capitalism. Just as many Jews secretly feel that goyim exist to serve the interests of Jews, Marx felt that capitalists existed to ensure good times for communists in the future. Capitalists would produce the fruits to enjoy for themselves, but the communist revolution would take the fruits from the capitalist gods and share it among the people who could then take it easy, work maybe 4 hrs a day 4 days a week, read books, enjoy music, create art, and be bohemian-like. As far as Marx was concerned, he was morally justified in not wanting to work since work was demeaning under the current exploitative system of capitalism. Those who had to work had to toil drearily for long hours and had no time for anything else and therefore were lacking in finer tastes in life. But under humanitarian communism, work would be made humane and dreamy with short hours and safe conditions, and so, even bohemians like Marx wouldn’t mind working a few hrs a day to become a fellow workers, and furthermore, the previously exploited workers would finally have time to learn about art, literature, and the finer stuff in life and become bohemian-ish.
Such socio-economic philosophy still lingers in some form, especially in social-democratic Europe. Some yrs ago, France decreased working hours and expanded benefits in the idea of expanding humane employment for Frenchmen and increasing joy of life(with shorter hours) for French workers. There was always an element of café society about Marx and his heirs. Though Marxism was ostensibly about serving the People, it had a self-serving bohemian element in hoping for a future where bohemians could get by with minimum amount of work — instead of having to rely on the fickle patronage of the rich — and where workers could be turned into fellow bohemians by dabbling in arts and letters in their spare time.
Even though most Western intellectuals and politicos weren’t adherents to communism, Marxism’s anti-class ideology had a profound impact on Western political thought and sensibilities in the 20th century. The element of class came to be seen as questionable if not evil. Though the liberal revolutionaries of the 18th and 19th century mostly opposed slavery, they didn’t see anything wrong with the existence of classes as long as there were sufficient guarantees of individual freedom and rights, with which the better elements of the lower classes might socially elevate themselves. But Marxism targeted the reality of class itself as an evil — even if a necessary evil through most of human history — , as something that must be eradicated like slavery. (Nevertheless, classes couldn’t be abolished without the proper conditions that would ensure a communist future. Abolishing classes prior to capitalism would leave everyone poor and ignorant. Capitalism had to create the wealth first before classes could be abolished and everyone could share the wealth equally.) According to communist ideology, it didn’t matter how fluid the classes were and how mobile the people in them. As long as different classes existed, the upper ones exploited the lower ones, and that was a kind of neo-slavery.
Though radical class theories were rejected by America and Western Europe, the notion that class differences are inherently wrong(even evil) seeped into the thinking of most liberal and even conservative intellectuals. Even the ultra-rightist ideology of Adolf Hitler appropriated the ideal of socialism in National Socialism. Thinkers like John Kenneth Galbraith envisioned a society of such abundant affluence that virtually all Americans would be lifted up and provided with the good life via higher taxes and more public programs/projects. The rhetoric of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society would not merely try alleviate poverty but wage ‘war’ on it and ‘end’ it. ‘Equality’ — later to be joined by ‘diversity’ — became the mantra of even the uppermost elites. Social-Democrats in Europe pushed the fiction that democracy and expanded government spending would gradually lead to a classless society as envisioned by Marx. Of course, most Social-Democrats came to see it as fiction — just like no ruling elite member in China really believes that China is currently undergoing a capitalist phase to produce conditions for a true communist revolution in the future — , but it sounded just good enough in theory to maintain the facade of commitment to the Revolution.
As Marx had made class struggle such a primary focus of political/moral discourse, leftist movements in the late 19th century and the first 3/4 of the 20th century tended to focus on the interests and needs of the People. No longer could progressives be as elite-minded as throughout most of the 18th and 19th centuries. No longer was it considered sufficient to guarantee the masses with basic political rights and liberties. As long as classes existed, it meant society was fundamentally unfair and possibly even evil. Before ‘racist’ became the worst epithet on the left — as soon on the copycat right — , the worst thing a person could be called in the leftosphere was ‘bourgeoisie’. Even after the end of WWII, there were many on the European Left who defended imperialism and colonialism as civilizing missions. Ho Chi Minh complained of how he’d been rebuffed by French leftists who believed Indochina had much to gain by remaining in the French Empire. And before Algeria became an obsession of the French Right, even many on the French Left thought Algeria should remain as part of empire. Even as late as the 80s, the American Left griped about ‘yuppies’, or young urban(or upwardly mobile) professionals, the aspiring members of the new elite class. Today, the notion of affluent urbanites being the object of ridicule and resentment on the ‘left’ is rather quaint as most affluent and hip downtown areas of most cities are so convinced of their ‘leftist’ credentials because... they support ‘gay marriage’ and voted for a fancy mulatto who bends over to Jewish billionaires and homo millionaires — and also because they try to send their kids to elite kindergartens on the path toward admission to Ivy League schools. We still hear of the problems of inequality — rising ever higher — , but given that inequality had exploded under Obama, hipster-hopesters cannot make too much of a fuss about it. Besides, the main beneficiaries of rising inequality have been urban Liberal cosmopolitan classes of Jewish-homo-wasp-Asian-mulatto-Conquistador-Hispanics, so why would they want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs for them?
And as long as the neocon-manipulated and libertarian-addled GOP refuses to go into national socialist mode and instead pushes for even lower taxes for the super-rich, the Liberal elite community will happily spread the fiction that they are for equality but is opposed by Republicans who are only for the rich. Imagine a scenario with a very rich guy who keeps getting richer, a not-so-rich guy who wants to get richer(but fails at it) and wants to be accepted by the very rich guy, and a bunch of down-and-out guys who are pissed off at rising inequality. Naturally, the down-and-out guys should be angriest with the very rich guy, but suppose the very rich guy makes the right noises about the need for more equality while the not-so-rich guy says equality is a lot of crock in the hope that such rhetoric will make him richer and gain the approval of the very rich guy. But suppose the very rich guy, instead of reciprocating the dog-like admiration of the not-so-rich guy, scapegoats him as the problem for the inequality, and so, the down-and-out guys fix their anger on the not-so-rich guy. That is the problem of the Republican Party in a nutshell. It’s a party that is more slavish to Jews even though Jews kick them in the teeth. It is the party that is more servile to the super-rich even though the super-rich favor Liberalism and the Democrats. Therefore, the not-so-rich American Conservatives handily serve as useful scapegoats for the problem of inequality in the US. The super-rich Jew get richer but yammers about the need for ‘equality’, and the not-so-rich white Conservative struggles but rails against equality. So, the super-rich Jew blames the not-so-rich white Conservative.
Anyway, especially with the end of the Cold War and the rise of New Democrats in the US and New Labour Party in the UK, class simply isn’t much of an issue, and if it is an issue, it’s just a cynical ploy by super-rich Liberals(often Jews)to invoke INEQUALITY to scapegoat the hapless Conservatives as the cause of it despite the fact that the main beneficiaries of Free Trade and market liberalization have been social Liberals of the Democratic Party that have always dominated most of the cities. In the end, the talented and the well-connected make it to the top, and it just so happens that the cronyism of Jews, homos and Liberals is protected from charges of ‘racism’ and ‘favoritism’ that are almost entirely aimed at white conservatives. If Jews, whether Liberal or neo-Conservative, stick together in business and networking, no problemo, but if white conservatives try to do likewise, they are attacked for using the "old boys’ network". Apparently, the New Boys’ Network of Jews and homos is perfectly fine. As no business that is deemed to be ‘racist’(at least in the interests of whites) or ‘homophobic’ is provided with funds or left alone by the law, it cannot succeed no matter how much talent it attracts, but then it won’t attract any talent to begin with since the most intelligent people in America have been raised with Liberal indoctrination that burdens all the historical guilt on white folks. PC is the new JC. There was a time when everyone had to profess faith in Jesus Christ to make it in Europe, which is why some Jews converted to Christianity to access full rights and opportunities. Today, everyone has to profess faith in Holocaustianity and MLK cult... as well as in homo-worship to be accepted into the economic and governmental power elite fold. Today’s smartest kids have been brainwashed into believing that any group or person who doesn’t bend over to the homo agenda is ‘evil’ and ‘less evolved’. Of course, it applies more to whites than to others. There isn’t much fuss about Chinese Communist suppression of the homo agenda but lots of fury about Russian policy that limits homosexual expression. As Jews see it, white Americans and white Europeans will never much identify with yellow Chinese, but they might do so with white Russians, and if white Russians are perceived to be proudly and courageously standing up for their values, identity, tradition, and history, non-Russian whites might be emboldened to do the same. So, Jews have been using their control of the media to make Russia out to be evil, and given the declining US opinion of Putin and Russia, it appears most Americans are easy to dupe.
Even though there was the Occupy Wall Street movement two years ago, it was less about the 1% vs the 99% than about the 1% vs the top 10% as most of the protesters in big cities were children of affluent class who came to realization that $100,000 in college loans to major in photography wasn’t exactly gonna pay off. Occupy Wall Street movement attracted very few blacks, white working class/poor, and Hispanics. It was mostly an internecine battle among the super-upper-class and upper class and upper-middle class. In a way, it was similar to the French protests during the Chirac years when, supposedly, the workers rose up to oppose the proposal to make it easier for businesses to hire and fire people. The vast majority of protesters were affluent white Frenchmen who wanted businesses to favor their own white kids over immigrants and non-whites. (As firing workers was difficult under French law, most businesses tended to hire young whites than young non-whites who were less of a known quality.) Most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters were white kids from affluent families who want the good life in urban centers but anxious and resentful over the fact that maybe they won’t be able to afford rent in Manhattan and San Francisco. Most of the real ‘99%’ understood this, which is why most of them dismissed Occupy Wall Street as a urban boho-bourgeois thing and refused to take part. Not because they liked or trusted Wall Street but because they instinctively sensed that most of those protesters were pampered and spoiled brats from affluent families who were either making radical motions(as fashion statements) out of moral self-aggrandizement or were resentful of the fact that they, with their useless diplomas in esoteric fields, might have to wait tables for the super-privileged and super-cool classes than be one of them. It wasn’t about the 99% at all. Besides, with Wall Street having hoisted the ‘gay flag’, it’s officially on the side of the most beloved ‘victims’ who are now the darlings of super-rich Jews who run this country. So, how evil can Wall Street be in ‘progressive’ opinion when it was ‘bailed out’ by mulatto hopester Obama and when its financial dick is deep inside the anus of the homo agenda? Indeed, an industry so Jew-heavy and pro-homo could easily weather the storm, and if anyone thinks the new ‘populist’ mayor of NY is going to stand up for the ‘99%’ against the ‘1%’, he’s a bigger fool that those who believed in the ‘hope’ of Obama as a ‘socialist’.
In a way, the current ideological-demographic configuration is, in some ways, more logical than the one that prevailed through much of the 20th century. Though there had been popular revolts all throughout history, they were almost never ‘progressive’. Instead, they were about enraged mobs running amok out of anger and desperation. They might shake or overthrow the system, but they were without ideas and talent, and so, order was restored by new strongmen. So it was usually the case of ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’. Real progress had always been an elite-led thing. The great Greek philosophers appealed to the children of the affluent class, not to the mobs. The movie SPARTACUS with Kirk Douglas would have us believe that a popular revolt was about progressive values of equality, but Spartacus and his fellow slaves rebelled for their own freedom, not for the higher ideal of freedom. Had they prevailed, they would have had slaves of their own and ruled with an iron fist. The three great transformations — American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the English evolution — were all elite-led. Even when the establishment elites were challenged, the threat came from other elites, and the new order was also elite-dominated. And even though there was much talk about the People, it was understood that classes were natural and some classes had the right to rule and govern, to write and enforce the laws, and to lead the masses like so many sheep. Thus, progressivism was closely linked with elitism and cyclo-aristocratism(with one aristocratic order replaced by another and presumably better one). The thrust of leftism really changed when Marxism and communism sought to do away with classes altogether to the point where society would leveled into a single class — in Marx’s ideal, the bohemian-intellectual-prole who worked few hrs few days a week, studied science in the afternoons, and enjoyed art in the evenings. Of course, most communist leaders were intellectuals from privileged backgrounds, and every communist state had its hierarchies(which were quite rigid in most cases), but Marxism redefined the core ideal of leftism from being led by enlightened elites to being an equal sharing of wealth and power for all. Of course, such a outcome was impossible — it was as much an opiate as was the dream of anarchism — , but when fiction becomes truth, believe the fiction. So, even though leftist intellectuals and elites continued to control and lead the movement throughout the late 19th century and 20th century, they believed(or pretended to do so)that an egalitarian society would one day be possible because, after all, leftist ideology(especially in the post-‘racist’ age) was committed to the blank slate theory that said most people could be made equal through good education and proper environment. Therefore, if inequality existed, it had to be the product of history of ‘disenfranchisement’ or poverty of under-privilege. So, leftist intellectuals with high IQs who graduated from the best schools carried on with the fiction that they were dutifully working to level the socio-economic field so that, one day, highschool dropout Negroes with low IQs will be on the same plane with them. And of course, this fiction isn’t dead in the discourse of progressive leftism. But it sounds more and more hollow, tired, robotic, and without conviction. In a way, signs of desperation in pushing this narrative betrays its bankruptcy and tiredness. If you have to work so hard at keeping it up, it means you’re repressing your own crisis of faith. And if you have to generate outlandish scapegoats — like ‘white Hispanic’ George Zimmerman, the mythical uniKKKorn at Oberlin, and white-folks-not-liking-Diana-Ross as the reason for Detroit’s economic downfall according to anal-wart-face Andrew O’Hehir — , it means you’re hunting witches to keep the PC faith alive.
Indeed, despite the endless droning about ‘equality’ from the noise machine of the ‘left’, acceptance(and even furtherance) of inequality is the default position of the current elite of ‘progressives’, and in a way, it’s a restoration to the original practice of leftism prior to the rise of Marxism with its emphasis on class struggle.
Intuition and faith are closer to prejudice, and most people ‘think’ and feel through intuition and faith. Thus, most people are ‘conservative’ even if their political positions happen to be ‘liberal’. For example, consider the instant ‘conservatization’ of the passions around the homo-agenda. Most people have been converted to homo-cult-worship as a form of religion; therefore, without an ounce of genuine thought on the issue, many Americans now promote and defend the homo cult out of prejudice. (Maybe it should be called ‘pro-judice’, i.e. if prejudice is a knee-jerk hostility toward something, ‘projudice’ is a mindless passion for something.) They feel holier-than-thou for worshiping the homo. They feel that those who won’t bend over to ‘gay marriage’ as ‘less evolved’ and even eeeeeeeeeeevil! They believe homosexuality and transvestitism are holy and sacred, beautiful like the rainbow. They enforce taboos and rhetorically shame and stone those who think it’s not normal or natural for a guy to be fecal-penetrating another guy. Indeed, just like it’s taboo for hardline Christians to question the miraculous birth of Jesus and it’s taboo for Muslims to discuss the details of Muhammad’s sex life, it’s taboo to even discuss the gross nature of homosexuality where the penis goes into a poop hole or the way of transvestitism where a man goes to a doctor and says, "slice off my penis and fit me with an artificial vagina." No, as homos and trannies are now considered holy, we must turn our eyes away from the details of their ‘sexual’ habits and just worship them as saints and angels with halos over their heads.
Indeed, elite Jews and homos have been bragging of how they won the culture war not through reasoned debates or logical persuasion but through corporate advertising, symbolism, pageantry, and other irrational methods that not only normalized but sanctified homosexuality. What the Catholic Church once did with the images of Jesus and Madonna, the Jew-homo elites did with the image of homos and trannies. They went transformed from objects of profanity to objects of purity(or poo-rity). Thus, most people who are into the homo-agenda tend to be sanctimonious and judgmental, even as they believe themselves to be non-judgmental and pro-tolerance. But in fact, they become angry and unhinged when confronted with someone who won’t bend over to the homo agenda, indeed no less than a radical Muslim upon hearing someone demean the holy name of Muhammad. Indeed, as the homo agenda becomes accepted by American Conservatives as well, it will be clear as day that (1) most people are psychologically conservative and (2) smarter elites can easily control their simple-hearted emotions. Even most political Liberals are psychologically conservative, which is why they are so slavishly servile to dictates and dogmas from their superiors and so mindlessly conformist toward whatever the orthodoxy happens to be. Even though political conservatives may be more resistant to new items of ‘change’, once they are won over(through coercion, persuasion, brainwashing, or intimidation), they are ‘intuitively’ and dogmatically conservative in defending the new item as if it’s a timeless truth. In this, most Liberal masses and most Conservative masses are both psychologically conservative. Liberal masses may adopt the new item of change before Conservative masses do, but this doesn’t mean that they are psychologically any less conservative. It means that since they obey their Liberal elite superiors, they are the first ones to obey the ‘progressive’ elites. Such mindless obedience is psychologically conservative for its defers to authority. And once Conservative elites follow the lead of Liberal elites, politically conservative masses will follow the lead of Conservative elites. As most people are thus easily manipulated, they aren’t capable of independent or individual thought or the courage of conviction. Even as most political Liberals brag of how they distrust and defy authority, they really only defer to the Liberal authority that flatters their vanity of delusional freedom and rebellion. Indeed, just look at the dutifully conformist and monkey-see-monkey-do Liberals all across America who roboticly spout the official line fed to them by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, establishment types in cahoots with the Jewish-homo elite political machine. All these Liberal masses defer to establishment ‘satirists’ — who are really little more than court jesters — but believe themselves to be thinking for themselves because they laugh along ‘sophisticatedly’ to ‘cutting edge satire’ that is really nothing more than partisan pro-Jewish-homo-elite politicking.
Given what we all know about the nature of most people — dumb and unthinking — , there’s no way that the current Liberal elites really believe that most people are equal or can be made equal. So, Steven Pinker’s BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE reassesses the 1960s in a negative light as the neo-dark-ages of youth-centered barbarism. And his earlier book THE BLANK SLATE challenged the once prevalent notion — even a dogma in some circles — that most people were naturally the same and could be molded by proper environments to attain equality in intelligence and skills. But, Pinker isn’t a proponent of reactionary-ism or conservatism in his wish to restore the pre-Marxist conception of progress driven by elites who are more intelligent and know better than the masses do. Cass the Ass Sunstein believes people should be manipulated or ‘nudged’ like guinea pigs — techniques that are far more effective with dummies than rational persuasion or logical arguments could ever be. Tyler Cowen the Jew wants us to get used to the inequalities as natural and develop a taste for beans as, presumably, our inferior bean-brains can get by perfectly well with bean-proteins. Why waste beef proteins on inferior bean-brains when they can be put to much better use with superior filet-mignon-brains? Of course, this neo-progressivism is bound to cause rifts and problems since leftism has long sold itself as a leveling ideology where class differences and inequalities would gradually be eased if not entirely erased. But with the experience of the past century and with growing scientific data on the genetic roots of human differences — even among racial and ethnic groups — , it’s getting ever more difficult to sell the notion that the fates of all individuals and groups will one day converge through socio-political programs — though genetic engineering may well change everything, but then, that would prove the primacy of genes over environmental factors.
The problem is becoming ever more acute as those who have reaped the biggest social, economic, political, and cultural rewards are not the pro-rich American Conservatives but the supposedly ‘socialist’ urban Liberals and Progressives. So, neo-progressives try to balance two contradictory factors. On the one hand, they still make a lot of noise about the need for greater equality and blame the odious and noxious Republicans for the ‘rich getting richer and poor getting poorer’. On the other hand, they keep sending signals, subtle and not-so-subtle, that maybe equality as once envisioned by the left isn’t possible and maybe differences will linger due not only to historical and economic circumstances but genetic ones as well. There is, of course, the third way of kicking the can into the future by claiming to be devising some superman project that may fix the problems in decades to come(until when we should all be patient and allow the ‘best and the brightest’ to formulate the best program to ensure greater equality; it’s the emperor-has-no-genius-Negro malady).
Despite the history of leftist challenge to elitist aristocratic power, leftism and aristocratism are psycho-socially related. Aristocrats were relatively few and far between and culturally considered themselves to be superior to the unwashed masses. Even though leftists claimed to be for the People, leftist intellectuals tended to be men of higher intelligence, greater knowledge, and infinite lust for power. Therefore, just like the aristocrats, they could only be members of a tiny group, and if once they came to power, they constituted the new privileged elite, a kind of neo-aristocracy. While traditional aristocrats stood for maintaining the status quo whereas leftist intellectuals were committed to radical change, they were both defined by a sense of superiority over the hoi polloi. Aristocrats felt they were superior in manners, courage, honor, and sophistication. Leftist intellectuals felt themselves to be superior in knowledge, commitment, truth, and values. They both believed in their right to rule. And even if aristocrats were generally conservative, they were less so than the masses of people who, while wanting better material conditions, had little or no idea of progress at all. After all, the people that the Bolsheviks came to hate and loathe even more than the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy were the stubborn Russian and Ukrainian farmers who had no use for the Revolution; they’d only supported it in the early stages because of promises of land, bread, and peace; they thought the Bolsheviks would give them land and leave them alone. The most habitually and psychologically conservative people in society are the masses, and this is true regardless of their ideology. So, a political communist member of the masses was no less psychologically conservative than a political conservative member of the masses. Paradoxically, psychological conservatives are both hardest to convert and easiest to convert. Because they are people of prejudice, instinct, and righteousness, they are resistant to intellectual and ‘rational’ appeal to new ideas and fashions. But once they are converted — often through irrational means of propaganda, pageantry, intimidation, deference to authority, addictive orgasmic popular culture, and etc. — to the new idea or way, they cling to it as mindlessly and ‘instinctively’ as they’d clung to the old idea. (Consider the change of attitude among ‘white trash’ to the black threat. For a long time, the ‘white trash’ elements were most prejudicial against and fearful of black power and black violence. ‘White trash’ maintained their own identity and culture and rejected black culture and relations with blacks. But with the breakdown of the ‘white trash’ family, the forced integration of poor white communities, the pussification of ‘white trash’ males by black muscle, the promotion of MLK worship in public schools, and the rise of rap/hip-hop culture, we see so many ‘white trash’ guys trying to imitate Eminem who imitates Jay-Z, and we see so many white girls ‘twerking’ their asses over Negro dicks. It’s like dogs. A dog will bark loudly at a stranger, but once the stranger takes control of the dog’s emotions, the dog will be most loyal to the very figure it had once barked loudly at.)
Also, as psychological conservatives of the mass population cannot think for themselves, they are far more likely to play follow-the-leader. So, if the elite of a certain group changes its views, so will most people within the group. Just consider the spread of Christianity throughout Europe. It didn’t happen through individual persuasion and conversion. Rather, the kings and princes were converted first(most often in consideration of political advantages), and then all the subjects just followed the kings and princes. And look at Japan and Germany during and after the war. During the war, the psychologically conservative Japanese and German masses dutifully obeyed the regimes, but immediately upon defeat, they dutifully followed the Allied Occupation forces. So, Jews know how the mind game is played and how it really works. To turn Europe Christian, the Catholic Church needed not persuade and convert each and every person. Rather, it only needed to convert the kings and princes with a combination of carrots and sticks: prizes if they convert, punishment(attack and invasion by Christian forces) if they refuse to convert. Similarly, Jews know that all they have to do is win over the Conservative elites and the rest of Conservative masses will follow due to either deference to authority, cowardice, or lack of will to fight. (Indeed, we can hear the resignation among Conservatives already: "Well, ‘gay marriage’ is gonna happen anyway, so, oh well, what can we do?" Shrug. Pussy boy conservatives no different from the inmates in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST.) And even though Conservative masses are grumbling about ‘gay marriage’ now, they will be among its most fervent supporters in years to come, just as American Conservatives have become totally crazy about Israel and MLK. We are seeing the same pattern all over again. In the 1980s, while the National Review credited MLK with some contributions to America, it was also critical in tone and criticized the personality cult growing up around him. Today, National Review writers say just hearing one of MLK’s speeches makes them all teary-eyed and wee-wee in their pants. Of course, given the power of the mass media, sometimes the Conservative masses can be converted even before the Conservative elites are, but then, who controls the media? The masses or the Jewish elites and their mini-me homo allies? In a way, the rise of sensory-overloading and attention-deficit-disorder-inducing pop culture and videogames have made it ever easier to manipulate mass minds. When American culture was more mature, adult, cerebral, moral, restrained, literary, and sober, the power of all-out-sensory assault would have been met with suspicion and resistance. The downside of this was that some critics failed to appreciate a film like Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY with its famous ‘stargate’ sequence. They distrusted the idea of letting go and ‘surrendering to the void’. But the upside was that Americans were less likely to be duped and carried away with emotional manipulation. But the rise of Rock music, Spielbergian blockbusters, shameless mega-mall churches that turned Jesus worship into pop concerts, crazy video-games, hyper music videos, raunchy porn, loony talk radio, and the like led to the critical/sober/suspicious mind and heart abandoning their guard and shamelessly being flooded by the power of sensory assault. So, we see the endless waving of the ‘gay rainbow’ flag, the quasi-fascist pageantry of the ‘gay’ victory parades, and the promotion of certain political views through LOL TV humor. When a supposedly free-thinking and independent culture critic Camille Paglia says REVENGE OF THE SITH is the greatest work of art in the past 30 yrs, what does it say about the current cultural state of affairs?
In a world where hype and sensory-overload are king, Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst can be sold as ‘artists’, two fecal penetrators walking down the aisle can be sold as ‘marriage’, and a mulatto hustler like Obama can be sold as ‘the One’. And the Iraq War can be sold to 80% of Americans who thought, at least initially, that Shock and Awe was so cool like a rock concert.
While some prejudices are natural — self-preservation, self-interest, family loyalty, tribalism, fear/fascination with strange things, etc. — , prejudices with little or no bearing on natural norms can also be instilled by society. For much of Chinese history, both men and women of all classes felt prejudice against women with natural and normal feet that were culturally looked down upon as ‘ugly’ and ‘ungainly’. Chinese society imposed the cultural ideal where women with crippled feet from ‘foot-binding’ were looked upon as attractive and beautiful. So, for over a 1000 yrs, many Chinese shared the instilled prejudice against natural feet in favor of crippled feet. Since most people are psychologically conservative and defer to authority(even Liberal authority is a form of authority), prefer to conform, and want to win approval, they mindlessly go along with the prevailing orthodoxy and repress their doubts if they feel any.
 |
| Ugly Chinese Woman with Uglier Feet |
In the economic competition, Big Labor is gone, and it’s all Big Business(in collusion with Big Government), and ever since Bill Clinton embraced Big Business as the new main ally of the Democrats, there isn’t even much of an economic struggle anymore since billionaires who’ve gotten fat from globalism and ‘free trade’ now control the ‘progressive’ movement. And with Wasp and Catholic power gone, there’s only Jewish power. Black power is pretty much a spent force too, with what passes for black power being the face of Obama, the pet monkey hustler who sold out to Jews and homos. And within the American Right, all the ‘Arabists’ and Paleo-cons have effectively been purged, and New Conservatism is mostly about sucking up to billionaire Zionist Neocons and ‘gay Republicans’. So, US is effectively a non-pluralistic soft-totalitarian state. Jews effectively control all the institutions that matter, and they have effectively purged all elements who might pose a challenge to Jewish supremacist power, all the while protecting and promoting their allies — illegal alien lobby and homo lobby — to serve Jewish interests as well. So, the GOP is on the precipice of signing Amnesty for illegals, worshiping at the altar of MLK, and bending over to have its ass pummeled by the fecal-smeared-and-smelling penis of homomania. Yep, I guess this is the way it ends, this is the way the white race ends. There was a ‘yellow peril’ TV ad(by a ‘conservative’ organization) about the future Chinese laughing at the decline of America resulting from high taxes and government spending, but if indeed the Chinese do get the last laugh, it won’t be because of taxes — after all, Chinese economy is still far more government-controlled than America’s — but because, whereas the Chinese kept control of China in their own hands, white Americans allowed Jews to take on soft-totalitarian powers over the white population. But then, the fact that conservatives fought and lost this battle so badly — despite their electoral victories from the late 60s to the 80s — shows that most conservatives have shit for brains and no imagination. Also, what passes for conservative cleverness and guile is so crude and blatant that Jews never bought it for a second. Bill Buckley’s wooing of the Jews was seen for what it was by the Jews. Buckley knew that American conservatism was lacking in intellectual, media, and cultural firepower, so he hoped to bring talented Jews onboard. But Jews saw right through this. Most Jews remained on the Democratic side, and those who went over to the GOP did so not to serve white conservatism but to make white conservatism serve Zionism by having all the Paleo-cons and ‘Arabists’ purged. If you think you can fool Jews, think again, as Jews are too smart and clever to fall for your shit. Worse, if you think Jews are worth trusting, you need to have your head examined. Anyway, in an America where most elite institutions are now totally controlled by Jews — with even Conservatism Inc. bending over backwards and forwards to Jewish power — , young Americans come under the influence of only one power: Jewish. Of course, Jews fear people noticing the immensity of Jewish power, wealth, influence, and control over people’s lives, and so Jews use buffers like homos, mulattos, and yellows. And when their privilege becomes an issue, they morph into ‘whites’ so that Jewish privilege in places like Hollywood and Silicon Valley become ‘white privileges’, giving the impression that elite institutions are run by people like Pat Robertson and Peter Brimelow. One should never a worship a people, and conservatives made a huge mistake when they decided to worship Jews. Once a people are worshiped like a god, they cannot be attacked, countered, or criticized. So, Conservatives rarely ever call out on the Jewish character of much of American Liberalism, even though Liberal Jews and even neocon Jews never stop to identify ‘white male’ gentiles as the source of all evil. A smart conservatism would have rejected the mindless antisemitism of Old Right and would have critiqued the nature of Jewish power on the ascendancy. Instead, it threw out the baby with the bathwater by not only abandoning mindless antisemitism but any possibility of examining and critiquing the nature of Jewish power that was gaining dominance in America. Also, admiration and respect for Jewish greatness is one thing. Worship and adulation are quite another. To worship means to take things on faith, and once Jews came to be treated as a holy people, their power could not effectively be criticized and countered. It got to the point that even when Conservatives noticed that Jews were the main driving force of Liberalism, they made sympathetic and admiring excuses for Jews. "Gee, Jews happen to be misguided because they are so naively well-intentioned and well-meaning, and even if we disagree with them, we should honor and praise their nobility of heart." Anyone who thinks Jews — at least smart and powerful ones — act in the service of anything other than Jewish supremacism simply doesn’t know the Way of the Jew. (One difference between Jews and white gentiles is Jews think in terms of ‘winning’ whereas white gentiles think in terms of ‘win/won’. To win something means to play the game to win the game. But once the game is won, it’s over and done with, and dissipation sets in. No matter how exciting a game might have been, once it’s been won, it’s in the past tense. But the idea of ‘winning’ means the game never ends, and that means you have to keep playing harder and harder to keep winning, because if you slack off and rest on your laurels, the other side will begin to catch up and score more points. So, if white gentiles approach history as a game to win, Jews approach it as a game where you must be keep winning forever and ever without taking anything for granted. Jews feel they’re in a marathon without end. In contrast, at some point, Wasps felt they won the race and stopped running once they held the victory trophy. But as it turned out, the game of history never ends, and Jews not only ran past the Wasps but fitted them with the burden of ‘white guilt’ to slow them down even more. Wasps, weighed with such burden, rely on neocon Jews to push them from behind, but neocon Jews are only piggy-back-riding on the Wasps, which only adds extra weight, what with American Conservatism more invested in serving Israel and praising Jews than serving and protecting white folks. It’s like the film EUREKA by Nicolas Roeg where the Wasp adventurer loses his fire once he hits the jackpot and falls into dissipation whereas the rat-like Jewish gangster is always focused on destroying his enemies and winning.)
Religiousness is a part of human sub/consciousness, and if humans have a naturally sacramental sense, they must also have a naturally taboo-sense that seeks out witches to shun and/or burn. All religions, even the most universal, are as much about who doesn’t belong as about who does.
So, if the Old Church was about "homos don’t belong", the new church is about, "homophobes don’t belong". That the sacramental and ‘excremental’ are two sides of the same coin can be seen in movie like PRISONERS(written by Aaron Guzikowski and directed by Denis Villeneuve). Though not overtly religious, the film is a visual feast in the manner of a richly adorned Catholic Cathedral. There is a powerful visual sense/presence of Evil that not only drives bad people to do horrible things but tempts good people with evil deeds in the name of the good. Also, some good people, though ostensibly law-abiding and conventionally decent, seem to repressing their darker instincts and drives. Indeed, the film begins with a prayer, a killing of a deer, and the camaraderie between a brusque father and a sensitive son.
 |
| Cellar of the fallen priest |
Catholicist aesthetics is heavy on the gravy, big on flavors, large in serving sizes, grandiloquent in scale, and richly textured. It posits a visionary world of sacred objects, symbols, archetypes, relics, totems, and larger-than-life gestures. It can be impressive, overpowering, and/or awesome, but it can also be grating and fraudulent in its phoniness, pomposity, narcissism, self-promotion, and inflated-ness, all the flaws that apply to some of Fellini’s films as well as those of Coppola. Scorsese’s MEAN STREETS is interesting — as are TAXI DRIVER and RAGING BULL — because it’s Catholicist and anti-Catholicist at the same time. On the one hand, Scorsese wants to believe in the myth and sacredness of the Church. But what the Church professes about the world is unlike the real world that is so lurid, ugly, haphazard, crazy, and chaotic. The world looks less like a operatic world of Good vs Evil — as in THE EXORCIST — than a world filled with louts and punks who aren’t worth God’s time. They aren’t good but also fail as exemplars of great evil. MEAN STREET is cinema verite meets Catholicist aesthetics, and the result is at once exasperating and hilarious.
If sensuality is inherently sinful, isn’t the Catholic Church sinful in its ‘excessive idolatry’ of the oversized cult of beauty wrapped in narcissistic sanctimony? In some ways, is the porny world more honest than the Catholic Church because it exults in sensuality whereas the Church tends to denounce sensuality, hedonism, and pleasure, all the while indulging in the most brazenly ripe kind of idolatry with forms, shapes, and colors? Just as the Negro Gospel couldn’t resolve the tension between the orgasmic rapture of boogie-wooging and the humble reverence before God, the Catholic tradition couldn’t resolve the tension between its divine iconography and its idolatry rooted in Greco-Roman-homo-paganism. So, even as black church elders denounced black folks who secularized the Negro Gospel for entertainment purposes, there was a sneaking suspicion that maybe the boogie-woogie secularists better understood the true essence of the Negro Gospel. It was more about ‘my ding-a-ling, your ding-a-ling’ than bowing humbly before God. Similarly, Scorsese had a sneaking suspicion all his life that maybe the porny world of prostitutes, gangsters, gamblers, playboys, and millionaire hedonists understood and practiced the Catholicist aesthetics better and more honestly than the Church did. When a spiritual institution is into so much ripeness, richness, colorfulness, and ecstatic-ness, maybe it has something on its mind that transcendental spirituality. So, Camille Paglia, the homo-lesbian paganist in love with Catholicist aesthetics, adores madonna as the whore incarnate. Maybe if the pretensions and facades of the Church were stripped away, it’s really about something like the haute orgy in EYES WIDE SHUT, based on a novel by a Jew(Arthur Schnitzler)who lived in the Catholic world of Vienna. Maybe it’s no accident that the Catholic Church is, at once, the most anti-homosexual Christian Church and the one that tends to attract the greatest fascination among homos, not least from pedo-homosexual priests. More than any Protestant Church, homos wanna convert the Catholic Church to open homosexualism as so much of the Catholicist aesthetics owes to the tradition of Greco-Roman-homo-paganism. Homos see the Catholic Church as a homo-designed world where homo-ness is still locked in the basement. Fruitkins are funny that way.... but not exactly wrong.
RAGING BULL is an interesting film for its stark black-and-white cinematography drains and saps the colorful world of the Italian-Americans, and yet, Scorsese also finds much in the lurid ritualism of the blood-sport of boxing that has parallels in the Church. Of course, the Church teachings are about peace and humility whereas boxing is about violence and ego, and yet, the Church ruthlessly competed for power, riches, and glory throughout its history; it cut deals with Fascists, National Socialist, Communists, Zionists, and Americans just like Jake LaMotta and the Mafia cut a deal. So, hasn’t the Church been corrupt and devious not unlike the mafia bosses who rigged the boxing world? So, while it may be upsetting that the real world doesn’t confirm the vision of the Church, the greater shock may be that the indulgence of the material world and the excesses of the spiritual order may have too much in common. If Scorsese at least tried to balance the Catholicist aesthetic with the counter-Catholicist aesthetic — playing a kind of contrarian Martin Luther role with his grimy cinema verite style in MEAN STREETS and THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and with the stark b/w abrasiveness of RAGING BULL — , Francis Ford Coppola, though a secular liberal, was unabashedly Catholicist in films like THE GODFATHER, (some of)APOCALYPSE NOW, ONE FROM THE HEART, THE OUTSIDERS, PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED, and DRACULA — though, to be sure, he also made smaller ‘personal films’ like YOU’RE A BIG BOY NOW and THE RAIN PEOPLE.
THE CONVERSATION is a small personal film and yet ripe in Catholicist imagery, which probably influenced Brian De Palma’s BLOW OUT. The problem of the Catholicist aesthetic becomes apparent in the ‘moralistics’ of THE GODFATHER saga. While THE GODFATHER parts I and II are irresistibly among the greatest films ever made in terms of entertainment, artistry, tragedy, and family drama, it’s an entirely bogus vision of organized crime presented in the manner of holy ‘relickry’, ritual & pageantry, and dark prayer. Though not about religion, it is steeped, indeed soaked, in Catholic aesthetic sensibility. If Scorsese couldn’t help seeing the discrepancy between the Church’s vision of the world and the actual world as it is, THE GODFATHER has no such qualms and offers a Catholicist vision of the world as a grand theater of sin. The Catholic Church was never G-rated in its teachings about the world. It wasn’t Disneyland, and if anything, it taught Catholics to be fearful of a world beset with the Seven Deadly Sins. The problem is that the world, even at its foulest, is a lot more mundane that the Church would have us believe. The Church offered a blockbuster movie vision of the world where, not unlike a Spielberg movie, everything — Good and Evil, holy and profane, saintly and wicked — were writ large. (Consider William Blatty’s THE EXORCIST III that pits the Force of Good vs the Forces of Evil. Being set in Washington D.C., you’d think that the main object of fear in most people would be black thugs who roam the streets and invade homes. But that is so mundane and not very politically correct to point out. Instead, the movie presents some mythical battle between Good and Evil whereby Satan revived an executed serial killer to possess the body of Father Karras who then controls the minds of old white lades in a retirement home — ROTFL — in Dr. Mabuse fashion to go on killing sprees against people such as an angelic black child. And in a dream sequence, there’s even Patrick Ewing as an angel as if Heaven above have a thing for the NBA. Thus, the Catholic world-view can be escapist than dealing with real problems of the world. Because the Church prefers dramatics and operatics, it tends to ignore the truly mundane and ‘banal’ nature of evil.) So, in THE GODFATHER, we see the clash of great families, big egos, grand conspiracies & strategies, inspired brilliance, and etc. They may be in the service of evil, but it’s a grand vision of evil, just like APOCALYPSE NOW is a grand vision of war. But what if real-life gangsters are more like the two-bit players in MEAN STREETS and the loathsome thugs in GOODFELLAS? What if Evil isn’t a grand villain but just a dirty hustler whose power rests less on grand gestures than cunning cleverness? Maybe we live in a mondo mondano(mundane) than a mondo magnifico. But the Catholicist aesthetics and sensibility have no use for such a hard-nosed and clear-eyed view of the world. So, Sergio Leone’s Westerns and his gangster movie are writ large as if they’re about the battle of gods and dark angels.
PRISONERS is one of the most Catholicist movies I’ve seen, but therein lies its fatal flaw as well as its strength. THE GODFATHER and ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST(or AMERICA) are not plausible stories and have little to do with actual gangsters or gunslingers, but they are all of a piece, self-contained in its sacramental myths. They are serious enough and believable enough(within their own universes) to engage our interest and emotions but more in the manner of tragedy and opera than realism or naturalism. PRISONERS is genre material, a suspense-thriller-mystery, and it need be no more serious than necessary. Just as one would have to be a fool to mistake THE GODFATHER as a glimpse into the real gangster world, one would have to be deluded to believe the plot of PRISONERS is even semi-plausible. Now, genre entertainment has a right to be outlandish, which is why REAR WINDOW and VERTIGO don’t have to be plausible to be effective and moving.
There are many definitions of art, and one definition calls for at to probe into the nature of truth with honesty, integrity, speculative intelligence/empathy, and appropriate imagination. PRINCE OF THE CITY, HUSBANDS, and MEAN STREETS would be such works of art. THE GODFATHER and VERTIGO don’t qualify, though one can argue that despite their indifference to social truth(or plausibility), they get something right about psychological truth of power and passion. The problem of PRISONERS is it aims for social and psychological realism — and moral gravitas — with a material that is essentially outlandish bordering on preposterous and sleazy. Rarely has such sincere earnestness been invested in something so tawdry and sensationalistic. If PRISONERS really aimed for social truth, it should have invested more in plausibility and less in lurid plot twists. If its aim were sensationalism and good time for the audience, it should have dropped the tone of sincerity that is rendered meaningless by the unfolding of events. It’s a powerful piece of film-making — and gripping for its entire 2 ½ hrs — but for all the wrong reasons. So, even as we can’t take our eyes off the screen, we feel cheated both morally and aesthetically. But this is what makes it so Catholicist, like Michael Cimino’s THE DEER HUNTER, another film with a powerful dose of earnestness that is incompatible with the ludicrous plot and cliched formulations of epic grandeur.
 |
| The Vision |
 |
| The Prisoners |
There was an element of too-much-ness that marred the films of Terrence Malick beginning with DAYS OF HEAVEN(which nevertheless transcended its problems) to the utterly stupefying THE TREE OF LIFE. (There seems to be two kinds of Catholicist aesthetics in cinema. One derives from artists with Catholic or Catholic-esque backgrounds — like certain sects of Buddhism and Hinduism that are heavy on ornamentalism and an uneasy blend of the sensual with the spiritual — , and the other was developed by artists from non-Catholicist backgrounds who rebelled against the ‘drab’ and ‘bland’ cultural traditions of their own folks. George Lucas came from a very conservative Protestant family, and he seems to have gravitated toward a kind of Catholicist futurism as a rebellion against his own cultural roots. I don’t know about Terry Gilliam’s background, but he has a very Catholicist style. Ken Russell, another heavy Catholicist of style, went whole hog and converted to Catholicism. If some Protestant and Jewish artists rebelled against the ‘drabness’ and ‘sparseness’ of their own culture and took baptism in Catholicist aesthetics, some Catholic artists, even as they kept their faith, adopted un- or anti-Catholicist aesthetics. If one didn’t know Robert Bresson and Eric Rohmer were Catholics, one could easily mistake their aesthetics as ‘Protestantist’. And under communism, both Russia and China waged war on their own ‘Catholicist-like’ cultural traditions of arcane ornamentality and copious extravagance.) Even so, a few scenes in PRISONERS are among the most memorable in cinema. Especially the desperate drive through the rain near the end comes to mind, what with the impaired vision and faltering consciousness of the cop, along with streaks of rain on the window, transforming the out-of-focus world of night lights into a cinematic equivalent of stained glass windows. The reflection of traffic and street lights on the wet roads create a similar effect. Too heavy on style, maybe, but it has the power to convert even those who’ve lost faith in cinema to believe once again. It’s a kind of miracle only possible in movies.
 |
| Kama Sutra stuff |
In contrast, consider the films of Francis Ford Coppla and Steven Spielberg. THE GODFATHER and APOCALYPSE NOW are about ‘bad’ men in an ‘evil’ world, but there’s also a powerful sense of the Fall(tragedy) and the search for Redemption/Salvation(as the hero of APOCALYPSE NOW, while on a mission to kill a fallen angel, comes to a realization that the crazy colonel, in his own crazy way, is a seeker of the holy truth of the warrior than just a bloodthirsty madman). And the triumph of Michael Corleone isn’t just a victory of human evil but of Evil, and where Devil exists, God must also exist — and there is a sense of punishment(and thereby, need for atonement) for Michael at the end of THE GODFATHER II where he has gained the world but lost his soul. As for Spielberg, his movie are heavy on action, thrills, and spectacle that shamelessly overfeed and satisfy the sensory-gluttonous beast in us, but they also offer a communion of purity and faith that make us feel baptized and raptured. Though Spielberg the Jew could never convert to another religion, he is one of the most fervently Catholicist film-makers in the history of cinema, an aspect most clearly evident in the cathedral-space ship extravaganza at the end of THE CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. Thus, Spielberg’s conversion has been audio-visual than spiritual. In HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, Woody Allen mocks the Catholic Church for its kitschy iconography and relics. Being more dryly wit-centered, Allen simply lacked the sensibility that could be as awed by spectacle and rapture. Unsurprisingly, Allen’s idea of the greatest film-maker of all time is Ingmar Bergman. (To be sure, Allen was as much attracted to Bergman as a contrast as well as a compatriot. While both tended to be cerebral than sensory-driven, Bergman was often humorlessly serious — though he did make comedies and could work in the light mode — whereas Allen was naturally a funny man. Opposites sometimes attract in art, and perhaps Bergman thought Tarkovsky to be the ‘greatest’ because they were so different. Also, Bergman’s FANNY AND ALEXANDER contrasts an exuberantly Catholicist view of life with the severe Spartanist mode of Lutheranism that Bergman identified with his stern father. And Allen wasn’t entirely devoid of Catholicist impulses either. His other great inspiration was Federico Fellini, and the Fellini touch can be seen in films like MANHATTAN, STARDUST MEMORIES, BROADWAY DANNY ROSE, PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO, RADIO DAYS, and CELEBRATION. The beginning of MANHATTAN suggests New York is for Allen a giant cathedral of not only corruption and neurosis but of beauty, art, and philosophy. And the look and feel of RADIO DAYS, in its blend of nostalgia/innocence and irreverence/craziness, has an undeniable Catholicist element drawn from films like AMARCORD. And Allen seems to have been as fond as fearful of Italian goombas all his life. The Italian characters in his films are often dumb and brutish but also colorful, flamboyant, and ballsy. Jews are brainy, but there’s something about Italians that is both more animal-like and child-like — like the Zampano character in LA STRADA. And maybe there’s more possibility of truth and salvation in such ‘innocence’ than in the overly intellectual life of Jews. It’s like, at the end of BLUE JASMINE, the goomba guy, as stupid as he is, finds a measure of happiness and ‘salvation’ that forever eludes the neuroticists who can never be true with their emotions and status. Brutes can be thug-like and unpleasant, but animality is close to childlikeness, and childlikeness is closer to faith, and faith in closer to salvation. So, there’s greater chance of a dim-witted brute being ‘saved’ — or at least believing himself to be saved — than for a witted person who ‘thinks too much’ to have faith in anything. What Woody Allen sees in Italian-Americans, James Toback sees in Negroes like Mike Tyson, the Negro Zampano. Even so, it may be a conceit among intellectuals to believe that the brutish may find a kind of salvation that forever slips through the fingers of cerebral personalities. Indeed, one of the appeals of communism(at least when it happened to other people in other countries and didn’t interfere with the lives of free intellectuals in the West) to the Western progressive elites was that all those salt-of-the-earth folks in poor backward nations were working with such childlike innocence and honest toil to create heaven on earth. Maybe some intellectuals just want to believe in the salvation of thugs because it makes the thugs seem less threatening... or useful as icons to guilt-bait white gentiles. If indeed we are to believe that Mike Tyson is essentially a pure childlike soul who was trapped in and scarred by horrible circumstances that turned him into a bully, a monster, and a thug, then the fault can be said to lay with whites who brought blacks in chains to America.)
 |
| Allen directs goombas in BLUE JASMINE |
Another mode of expression need to be considered in order for us to better understand the Catholicist principle in art. It might be called the ‘Byzantinist’ aesthetic, and some works that we might consider to be Catholicist may be closer to the Byzantinist mode, though, to be sure, it’s not always make a clear distinction between the two. While both tend toward scale and ostentatiousness, Byzantinist expression lacks the intimacy, focus, and the emotional content of the Catholicist; it tends toward flatness and two-dimensionality than the Catholicist vision with its powerful sense of three-dimensional perspective that allows individual figures and objects to loom forth from the receding background. One could argue that Kubrick’s sensibility is partly Byzantinist — as well as that of Masaki Kobayashi in films such as HARAKIRI and KWAIDAN(which are also Zen-ist) — in contrast to the Catholicist spirit of Spielberg and Coppola’s. The worst Byzantinist is surely Theo Angelopoulos, whereas its greatest practitioner may have been Andrei Tarkovsky. There is a certain dispassion and sense of wider spectrum of time in Byzantinist expression. One feels this inside a Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox Church. Time seems suspended and nothing comes into clear focus or take center stage. Consider the ending of ANDREI RUBLEV where we are shown the various works of the great Russian artist. They have to be taken as a whole and lack the kind of individuality of details found in Catholicist art. When one walks into the Sistine Chapel, countless details come into focus as one gazes at the paintings. In contrast, it is the larger vision and formal pattern that are the central concerns of Byzantinist art.
On the other hand, it was the fusion of Spielberg’s Catholicist vision and Kubrick’s Byzantinist vision that made A.I. all the stranger and more special. Spielberg focused on David as a holy child(albeit one created through unholy science) — like Jesus, he is created by a godlike father figure and given to a ‘virgin mother’ figure to the extent that she didn’t produce the child with her husband’s seed. David, throughout the film, is like the last flickering flame in a candlelight vigil, and our emotions bask in its glow and feel the frost of a hostile world that seeks to blow it out. And yet, A.I. offers a vaster scope, a kind of dispassionate and distended Byzantinist vision of the past and future that nullifies the miracle of the present. Even as the Catholicist expression is aware of the grandness of time and space, it tends to focus our attention on some dazzling or overwhelming detail, thus accentuating the miracle of the present. One gets this impression when staring at Madonna statue inside a Cathedral bathed in the glow of candlelight. In contrast, the sense of the present is extinguished in the Byzantinist spectrum that reminds us that the present is but a drop in the vast ocean of time. Thus, despite all the hellishness that overcomes Jack Torrance in THE SHINING in the present, the film is framed by a sense of space and time that suggests that the present is merely a replay of the same old thing(and individual free will is but an illusion): drama is a mere detail in the panorama. Catholicism is the glow of candlelight that captivates one’s eyes even in vast darkness. Byzantinism is the scent of incense that lingers everywhere but can’t be pinpointed where. The ending of A.I. is one of the most sublime blend of the Catholicist and Byzantinist principles. We focus on David as the holy child who has survived through all these years and whose prayers have been finally answered. A miracle. And yet, we also realize that this magic moment is but an inconsequential flicker in the vastness of time and space; furthermore, his reunion with the ‘mother’ may have been a dream projected into his ‘mind’ by future beings, therefore of no consequence.
In contrast, even in the rapturous ending of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, there’s a sense of a new vision, of a new beginning of a great cycle in the revolution of mankind. There is a restless and restive quality in Rabbinicism that is generally missing in the resigned and receptive mode of Byzantinism, and this was one reason why Jews and Russians never saw eye to eye. Jews, like Germans, always must be doing something. Russians like to take things in stride, except when guzzling vodka, wrestling with bears, and dancing on tables, for which they have boundless energy. The difference between Jews and Germans is Jews are more individualistic and curvy-creative whereas Germans prefer teamwork and the straight rule-book. Jews have long harbored anti-Russianism and anti-Germanism, seeing Russians are intrinsically lazy & sloppy and seeing Germans as overly brusque & regimental. Of course, such Jewish stereotypes of gentiles are acceptable, but it’s not okay to see Jews as cunning, devious, and manipulative. Though the early stages of Bolshevist-Communism tried to energize Russia for world revolution, the Russian people reverted to their cultural mode of Byzantinism, and the Kremlin fell into the mode of ‘deep state’, and order/stability took precedence over radical initiative and fiery aggression. Byzantinism in religion, culture, and politics inculcated people to obey the system, accept the status quo as part of the holy patrimony. It prefers the meaning of ‘is’ than ‘should be’. The world is as it is(and as it is is as it was and will be), and people should make peace with the world as it is than try to remake the world as it ‘should be’. Thus, the Orthodox Churches of the East didn’t try to convert the world whereas the Western Church of Catholicism did and still does transform the world. Most of us don’t know who is the patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, and Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but everyone knows the Pope of the Catholic Church. Protestantism also tries to convert the world, but it’s important to remember that it began as a reform Catholicism and not as reform Orthodox-ism. Indeed, the Orthodox Church didn’t produce a rebellion on the scale brought forth by Martin Luther who, upon realizing that the Catholic Church would not reform itself, set about forming a new Church altogether. Even so, the urge to shape the world as it ‘should be’ informed the way of the Protestant Church — just like independent cinema tries to challenge Hollywood in defining film culture all around the world — , which is why the two Churches competed neck and neck to convert the heathens around the world whereas the Orthodox Church, in its Byzantine resignation, wanted no such trouble. Of course, this has brought the Catholic Church under greater scrutiny since it’s so engaged with the world. Therefore, we hear of Catholic Church scandals but hear nothing of what’s happening inside the Orthodox Church — unless Western-funded Pussy Riot bitches are mocking Church services to the delight of decadent scumbags in the West whose idea of morality today is ‘marriage’ between men who stick their sexual organs into fecal holes — as the Orthodox Church only wants to be left alone in their own nations and communities to carry on with their holy traditions. And in time, Russian communism took on a Byzantinist-Orthodox quality, less and less interested in converting the world and most unwilling to take in defectors from other nations(but then few dissidents in the West actually wanted to go live in the communist east.) It’s interesting to compare the different modes of imperialism as practiced by the Byzantinist Russians, Catholicist Hispanics, and Protestantist Anglo-Americans. Russians came to occupy huge tracts of land in Siberia and Central Asia but never thought to convert the population to the Russian Church or the Russian way. Also, despite the Russian settlements and industrialization of parts of Siberia, the Russian view of nature was as an infinite mystery that one must revere than conquer and tame. In contrast, Anglo-Americans sought to convert the American Indians, conquer and settle the entire territory of America into a City on a Hill or some such. The Catholic Spanish were also into conquering and converting the heathens. Russians conquered territory but mostly left the natives alone to do their own thing. Communist policy reversed the traditional Russian approach for awhile, but in time, most of the non-Russian territories were left to manage their affairs autonomously as long as they took orders from the Kremlin, which was more like a city behind a wall than a city on a hill. The good side of Byzantinism is the patience and larger perspective it garners in the human soul, but the bad side is the collective obedience to power and detached indifference to problems such as corruption. If one’s main cultural outlook is that the larger reality cannot be altered, and if the larger reality is know as corrupt, then the only solution is to be corrupt yourself to get by(since it’s the way of things), and such a dire attitude marks much of Russian society.
 |
| Aguirre the Wrath of God / Klaus Kinski |
Even though the legendary tales of the making of APOCALYPSE NOW are mostly associated with nearly insurmountable production values of location shooting, Coppola actually overcame most of them; what he failed to overcome was infinitely both simpler and more complex. The real problem was the script, something that could only be resolved with a typewriter and some paper. For the last two thirds of the film, Coppola mostly only typed, "All work and no play make Francis a dull boy." There are so many compelling and thrilling things happening in the first third of the film that character development doesn’t really matter up to Kilgore’s helicopter attack on the Viet Cong village. But after the attack on the village, it’s mostly one long river ride, and Willard is just a passenger on the boat, and others on the boat are mere secondary players, good as they are. Even so, had the conclusion of the film paid off, the languorous journey might have all seemed worth it. It’s like a long grueling hike can seem worth the trouble if the destination turns out to be quite a sight. If not, the entire journey seems wasted. Because the ending of APOCALYPSE NOW is so disastrous, much of the last two-third of the film just goes down the sinkhole along with it. If Milius saw Kilgore as a darkly prophetic figure illuminated with the higher wisdom of a true warrior, Coppola decided to end the film on a note of pessimism, futility, and resignation, modes closer to the Byzantinist view of history.
Though the Catholicist and Byzantinist modes are equally valid as artistic expressions, APOCALYPSE NOW suffers from trying to have it both ways. It tries to be both an exciting war adventure about the final confrontation of Good vs Evil and a meditative ritual about the futility of man’s action in the vastness of time and space. Thus, the violence in the final scene, ghastly as it is, is inert and zombie-like. We simply don’t care.
Because we are social beings and because our minds prefer to focus on single details, the Catholicist mode is the more familiar and more pleasing to most audiences. Scene after scene in a movie, we want the establishing shot, a sense of who is who and what is what, where we were, where we are, and where we are going. THE GODFATHER saga, especially the first film, is one of the most masterful examples of this. Though three hours long, it doesn’t flag for a second. Though the plot points aren’t always lucid and clear — especially in part II and the god-awful part III — , we know who the main characters are and the nature of the conflict ranging from the familial to the political to the spiritual. We know there’s much that is good in Vito and Michael Corleone, and we know they are trying to become legitimate and respectable. They must make a pact with the devil to wash away their sins, but Faust is quite a loan shark when people deal with him to grow closer to the angels; the debts can almost never be repaid. Such big themes of Good and Evil, redemption, corruption, and pieties like "what does it profiteth a man to gain the world but lose his soul"(that closes THE GODFATHER Part II with a lone shot of the victorious yet muted Michael) makes THE GODFATHER a Catholicist masterpiece. It’s designed, orchestrated, and executed so well that its too-much-ness doesn’t grate, as such did in THE COTTON CLUB and THE OUTSIDERS. It’s like a cheese-maker has to be extra-mindful in preparing and handling his cheese because it can easily become cheesy-wheesy. Something as inherently rich and strong like cheese can spoil easily, and Coppola ruined many of his movies into ham-and-cheesiness, but THE GODFATHER Part I and Part II turned out to be masterworks of near-perfection.
One interesting facet of PRISONERS is how it challenges certain deeply held notions of Liberal piety. Generally, Liberal Jewish-run Hollywood would like for us to think that irrationality, aggression, hatred, and pigheaded meanness are the owned by ‘redneck’ white males, especially of the South or small towns. And the white father in PRISONERS possesses many such characteristics. In many films, his type would have been presented as a simple monster — like the repressed homo-conservative gun-loving, wife-beating, child-whupping, and Reagan-admiring father in AMERICAN BEAUTY(that might as well have been made by Piers Morgan). He’s into guns, has a survivalist mentality, is into the cult of manhood, and etc. He’s also abrasive and headstrong, stubborn in his vigilante disregard for the law. And yet, his best friends happen to be a Negro couple, and his two kids — son and daughter — are good friends with the two daughters of the Negro folks. So, the charge of ‘racism’ that would normally stick to such a character is missing in the movie. Initially, the Negro couple is presented in a somewhat idealized manner typical of Hollywood movies, and indeed, they seem a bit nicer and kinder than the white couple. Not surprisingly, it is the white father who takes matters into his own hands in nabbing a suspect vigilante style and using torture to force a confession. Even so, the Negro couple are dragged into the plot, and despite their moral doubts, they decide to allow the white guy continue with the brutal inquiry/inquisition. As parents wracked with fear and anxiety over their abducted children, both the white guy and the Negro couple are willing to do anything.
Be that as it may, PRISONERS is really too calculating, manipulative, and preposterous to qualify as real art. It’s not on the level of the original version of THE VANISHING(by George Sluizer). In contrast, the Danish film THE HUNT is a genuine work of art, and it touches on some of the same themes but without the sensationalism, symbolism, grandiloquence, operatics, and sanctimony. And its ironies are not cast in iron. (PRISONERS doesn’t so much reject cultural stereotypes — especially Liberal ones — as give them a pseudo-thoughtful twist that is somewhere between provocative and faux-ambiguous. Of course, even though Liberals take pride in their stance against stereotypes, they have their own stereotypes of redneck white southerners, Magic Negroes, noble illegal immigrants, saintly homos, wise Jews, brutish Russians, etc. And their stereotypical view of themselves is as the most wonderful people on earth, as a progressive privileged people who are all too aware of their undeserved privilege and doing everything to undercut in the name of equality, even though, for some reason or the other, their fortunes and privileges as urban white/Jewish/homo Liberals seem to be ever-increasing at the expense of everyone else. Stereotypes are a problem, but many of them carry a certain general truths about various social, ethnic, national, and religious groups. Only an idiot would deny that southern Italians and Greeks tend to be more temperamental than Germans and Swedes. Also, certain stereotypes are not only tolerated but even encouraged, especially if they negative portray white southern conservatives, Russians, and Iranians, three peoples that Jews hate the most. And there are positive as well as negative stereotypes, and indeed, positive stereotypes about Jews, blacks, and homos abound in our popular culture. Some stereotypes are based on actual life-experience — having dealt with blacks in decrepit cities, with Mexicans along the border, or with Jews in Israel or NY —, and such might be called ‘experitypes’. But some widely and strongly held stereotypes are really the product of media and propaganda, and they might be called ‘propatypes’. Many white people in mostly white communities who know little about the black race got their main impression of blacks from stuff like THE GREEN MILE that would have gullible whites go weepy-weep over a mountain-sized Negro whoe loves a little white mouse. In the real world, such gigantic Negroes are going around pushing people around and raping white boys in the ass in prison, but THE GREEN MILE would have white audiences idolize a giant noble Negro as angelic. It has NOTHING to do with reality, but it has a great hold on popular imagination because propaganda and media have the power to warp mass minds. During the 1930s, many American leftists who were bombarded with leftist propaganda thought Russia/Ukraine under Stalinist rule was a paradise with rose-cheeked farmers happily harvesting bountiful crops from the land. And in the 1960s, many Americans had this idea of the Viet Cong as noble ‘freedom fighters’, and in the 1980s, Americans had similar delusions about Afghan ‘freedom fighters’. Granted, there was something admirable about Vietnamese and Afghan warriors who were willing to lay down their lives for what they believed to be ‘national liberation’, but the truth was far more complicated, something many Americans were willing to overlook to either end the war in Vietnam or to roll back the Evil Empire. Similarly, the real MLK was a rather twisted figure, but the endless propagandizing about him have turned him into not only the noblest of all Negroes but of all humans.) The plot and theme of THE HUNT sounds like something set in the Middle Ages or at least when Denmark was a far more conservative, ‘judgmental’, and ‘reactionary’ society. It’s about how a community feels so sure of a man’s guilt that it drives him to agony and despair. It’s the sort of film that, in most cases, would flatter Liberals for their ‘enlightened’ views — like PHILADELPHIA or BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, which should be called Backdoor Mountin’ — and wonderful tolerance. But THE HUNT is set in the present, not in the ‘bad old past’. Also, even though the setting is a small town, there are many signs that the townsfolk are reasonably ‘progressive’ by modern EU standards. At the daycare center, we see non-white kids(even a ‘pickaninny’), and Danish men and women mingle with non-white immigrants(and they seem to have no problem with marriage with foreigners). So, like the small-town white family in PRISONERS who are chummy with a family of Negroes, the white folks in THE HUNT are not the stereotypical small-town provincial types. They too have been culturally and politically globalized. And yet, when a little girl suggests a sexual incident with one of the male workers at the daycare center, it triggers off a chain-reaction of responses that leads to the persecution of the man by nearly the entire community. Even though no one can know for sure what really happened, some folks even go into the hysterical mode of the faculty and students at Duke University who were so sure that the ‘privileged white male’ Lacrosse players raped a powerless and ‘hepless’ black woman. Though liberals are supposed to be open-minded, skeptical, questioning, rational(as opposed to rabid), patient, and respectful of legal process, many ‘progressive’ professors and students at Duke just went crazy and were so convinced of the guilt of the Lacrosse players since they fit the stereotype of evil white males as depicted in so many Jewish-Hollywood-made TV shows/movies and Jewish-promoted college courses, lectures, and forums. The very people who bitch and whine about how black men had been falsely accused of rape in the South have no qualms about jumping to conclusion even before the facts are in when the accused are ‘privileged white males’ — though even poor ‘white trash’ will do, as happened with the Jena 6 case. Consider the herd-hysteria(or herdsteria) over the George Zimmerman case. (And consider the case where some white mudshark mother and her mulatto son defamed an entire community by vandalizing their own property with racial slurs about ‘niggers’ and then blaming the mostly white community. Piers Morgan, the haughty British journalist working for CNN, jumped to conclusions without an ounce of skepticism and smeared the entire community because he, like so many of his Liberal privileged white ilk, felt a need to believe in the superstitions about an America where white folks are filled with an animus toward blacks. I only wish! Anyway, Morgan refused to apologize, but then Liberalism means never having to say you’re sorry. As Liberalism hogs the moral high-ground in American political and cultural life, most Liberals tend to be more self-absorbed and self-righteously closed-minded than most Conservatives are — not because Conservatives are intrinsically better but because, being on the moral defensive, they need to prove their own innocence unlike Liberals who are only in grand-standing accusatory mode. This was certainly the case of Paula Deen who profusely apologized for having said ‘nigger’ some 30 yrs ago after being robbed by a black guy. Interesting that she was judged harshly by vile self-righteous Jews who never look back on their own participation in the slave trade, their role in communism, and their ongoing oppression of Palestinians. While most Conservatives are willing to tolerate homos even as they reject the homo agenda, most Liberals will not even tolerate any view that doesn’t welcome and accept the crazy notion that fecal penetration between men is the biological and moral equivalent of real sex between men and women.)
 |
| Vile Negress elevated to black Anne Frank Status by Liberal Media |
In THE HUNT, it’s all the more hurtful because it’s a story of a close-knit town where most people know one another. The accused man was once a good friend to just about everyone in the community. Unlike MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON(Frank Capra movie), the main character is not an outsider who is persecuted by corrupt insiders. The situation is closer to the one in AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE(Henrik Ibsen play) where a much respected doctor of a town is made out to be a bad guy because he dares to speak the truth that might hurt the local economy. But if the doctor at least has righteousness on his side, the main character in THE HUNT does not. He’s just a loathed person that the town comes to see as a child-molester even though there is no clear evidence of the crime. And yet, there’s something even more troubling to consider. Even though the doctor in AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE is principled, courageous, and honest, there’s something darkly self-aggrandizing about his righteousness. Factually, he may well be correct about the danger of the town’s spa(that attracts tourists), but he’s blind and oblivious to the needs of the town. Instead of trying to find a pragmatic solution that may alleviate and eventually fix the problem, he goes into the mode of a jeremiad where it has to be his way or the highway — he’s like Al Gore with Global Warming, which is even loonier since climate science is still far from well-understood. Even if the doctor is 100% correct, he fails to take into account the nature of people, politics, and economics. Like a libertarian who’s willing to sacrifice everything for principle — like that Jewish nut Bryan Caplan — , the doctor says the spa must be closed down immediately even if it means economic ruin for the town. So, while the enemies of the doctor are unscrupulous, small-minded, self-interested, and contemptible, the doctor isn’t a pleasant character either as he’s driven not only by science but by righteous contemptuousness and egotistical vanity, a mind-set closer to religiosity than reason. It’s like Richard Dawkins is correct in most of his atheist arguments against religion, but his cause has all the hallmarks of a crusade as his personality is so similar to that of religious zealots. So, even people who are right can be driven by impulses and emotions that are far from reasonable, balanced, and tolerant. (The drastic and sudden application of a morally necessary or righteous action may cause excessive harm. It’s like if a car is moving in a direction that will eventually lead to a cliff, it must slow down and make a turn in another direction. However, if the car suddenly swerved without slowing down, it will just roll over and people will get hurt. While individuals might overcome a cold turkey approach, such a drastic method may do great harm to society as a whole. Consider the hogocaust, the mass killing of hogs that are no less intelligent than dogs and cats. Obviously, the right and just thing to do is to end it as it’s evil, wicked, and cruel, but consider all the people who work in the hog industry. A sudden shutting down of all the hog farms will be very disruptive, and many people will suffer as a result. Or consider the American Civil War. True, slavery needed to be ended, but the abolitionist movement demanded ending it right away. And the American South overreacted in its own sense of righteousness about states’ rights. So, northern righteousness and southern righteousness led to drastic measures on both sides. Lincoln tried his best to negotiate between the South and North, but when the South seceded, he felt there was no option but war to preserve the Union. Thus, whether a cause is just [ending the hogocaust] or unjust [promoting ‘gay marriage’] , the gradualist approach is going to be more effective and less disruptive. Though homo gains have been tremendous in the past decade, actually the grounds had been prepared over several decades through an alliance between homos and Jews and with the homo infiltration into and connections across elite institutions. Homos entered mainstream institutions before using the Alinskyite method of normalizing radical policies. This reveals the dark side of gradualism. If gradualism can be most effective in eradicating evil, it is also the most effective way of spreading evil. Ending the hogocaust overnight will be economically too disruptive, so we should implement the plan over a decade or two so that those working in the hog industry can move onto other things. The drastic nature of Prohibition did more damage than good, after all. But the gradualist spreading of evil can be dangerously effective because people are slowly made comfortable with evil step by step. So, if the homo lobby had tried to push ‘gay marriage’ overnight 20 yrs ago, they would have been stopped by most of America. So, the homos decided to go step-by-step, making movies and TV shows that ‘normalized’ homo-America, forming alliances with Jews, funding and working for politicians who gladly too homo money. And once the Americans have been gradually won over to the ‘new normal’, the homos and Jews could push the ‘gay’ agenda with full force. So, while gradualism need to be used to further the good, we need to be vigilant against the use of gradualism to further the bad. Gradualism can acclimatize us to evil without us realizing what is going on.) The accused in THE HUNT is like the doctor in AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE in that he’s a lone figure against the entire town(though, to be sure, his son of a divorced marriage and a small group of friends stick by his side). And yet, in another way, the townsfolk are like that doctor in feeling so sure that the man is a foul molester of children and nothing more needs to be said. Moralistically, it’s the doctor of AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE and the townsfolk in THE HUNT who are aggressive, righteous, accusatory, and judgmental. And what really hurts in THE HUNT is that the townsfolk are not wrong to feel that way, as many of us would feel likewise against a man suspected of child molestation. Even without the smoking gun, if we heard that a child at a daycare center said a man touched him or her inappropriately and showed his dingdong to him/her, we are liable to believe the kid and look upon the man as a pervert. Besides, the idea of a full-grown man working at a daycare center sounds loser-like. In the recent Woody Allen case, I’m more likely to believe in Dylan than in Woody. I accept the ruling of the law(though had Mel Gibson had been accused of the same thing, Jewish-controlled legal system would surely have conspired to prosecute and imprison him), but there’s always been something fishy about Allen. But the thing is we don’t know what really happened, and yet, so many people discussed the issue as if they knew what really happened. Not declaring Allen’s guilt doesn’t mean that he isn’t guilty. It just means we really don’t know. But many people abhor such a vacuum of justice, and their minds feel a need to fill it an element of certainty.
Even so, despite the legalism and enlightened values of modern society, people tend to fill in the vacuum of the unknown with their biases that take on a logic of their own and harden into certainties. The elderly woman at the daycare center seems like a nice lady, and she obviously meant well when she reported the incident to the authorities, but there’s another side of her that gradually dispenses with skepticism and lurches toward judgmental certainty. When the accused confronts her, she says that children don’t lie about certain things as if it’s scientific fact. Why does she feel this way? Was she molested as a child long ago at a time where adults were less likely to pay attention to such problems? Is she limited in her empathy/imagination and prefers a more black/white view of the world? Does she have some buried hostile feelings toward men in general? Does she take it personally when he confronts her? Does she want to feel morally righteous and justified in life? Whatever the reason, she goes from carefully proceeding with the matter to encouraging other children at the daycare center toward making their own ‘confessions’ of having been molested by the man, leading to his arrest. And yet, ironically, the outpouring of more ‘evidence’ from more kids leads to the man’s release as the authorities come to realize that the kids have been encouraged to let their imaginations run wild: a bunch of kids said he molested them in the basement of his house, but his house has no basement.
And yet, even after being released, the suspicions linger and most townsfolk either ignore him or treat him — and even his son — with derision and contempt. And yet, can we really blame them? Via dramatic irony, we are allowed to see things that the townsfolk did not and cannot. So, we are made to know more than the townsfolk and even the accused. So, even though we may wince at the ‘small-mindedness’ of the townsfolk, we can’t help feeling that we could be them and they could be us if our positions had been reversed, i.e. they were privileged with the dramatic irony and we weren’t. Based on what we’ve seen, we can connect dots that the townsfolk cannot. We know that the young girl was shown a picture of a stiff penis by two boys. So, her imagination may have used the stiffy in a made-up story of the man she felt a momentary gripe against.
So, we know the key missing pieces of the puzzle that the townsfolk do not. We know what ‘rosebud’ is, they do not. On the other hand, we haven’t been shown everything, so who knows what OTHER things may have happened between them? (Indeed, the ambiguous ending of the film raises further questions. The man has been re-embraced by the community and goes on a hunting expedition with them. Everything seems normal again, but someone takes a shot at him, and he falls to the ground. Looking across the ridge, he sees a man taking an aim at him and expects to die. But then, the shooter is gone as if he was never there. Was there really a shooter? Or, did the man imagine him? If he can hallucinate something that didn’t happen, could he have blanked out something that did happen? Is he suffering from something akin to whatever afflicted the woman in Steven Soderbergh’s BUBBLE who killed someone but sincerely crossed it out of her mind?)
Perhaps, one could surmise that the town’s hostility toward the man is a toxic release of their repressed doubts about social and cultural changes beyond their powers to halt or slow down. Europeans have been inculcated in the cult-ideology of multi-culturalism, anti-‘racism’, ‘diversity’, and ‘tolerance’. And yet, beneath the surfeit of calm, the fact is many Europeans — even ‘progressive’ and ‘leftist’ ones — are worried about rapid changes of demography, culture, and values that are overwhelming many parts of Europe, especially as many Europeans have deep roots in homogeneity and community. But their fears and anxieties cannot be voiced or expounded since such would be deemed expressions of new ‘deadly sins’ of ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘homophobia’, and etc. Since such hostility cannot be directed outward at outsiders, immigrants, non-whites, and freaks, the emotions may find release in cases like the one featured in THE HUNT. Pedophilia is still an approved target of moral, social, and political outrage. Since Danes are not allowed to be ‘bigoted’ and ‘judgmental’ in so many areas, their repressed fears, anxieties, and hatred about rapid social change may find an outlet in the one remaining traditionally proscribed vice of pedophilia. Also, since it’s not allowed for good white Europeans to hate non-whites, homosexuals, foreigners, and Jews — not even the ghastly Gypsies or Roma — , they can only hate other whites. Thus, even conservative and right-wing whites must repress all their negative emotions about non-whites, Jews, homos, and foreigners and direct their feelings at ‘bad whites’ — this is certainly true of white Conservatives and Libertarians in America who attack white Liberals as the ‘real racists’ because places like Detroit were ruined supposedly by Big Government ‘socialist’ policies; and American Conservatives also attack Liberals as the ‘real anti-Semites’ since, supposedly, the Democratic Party wants to ‘throw Israel under the bus’(despite the fact that the Democratic Party is totally owned by Jews). So, the idiot Swede behind GIRL WITH A DRAGON TATTOO fantasizes about some neo-Nazi conspiracy even though the main danger to Sweden’s survival comes from globalist-elitist Jews and massive African/Muslim immigration. And everywhere, we see white conservatives directing their repressed rage at ‘bad whites’. So, even white American conservatives are screaming about white Russians because Russia doesn’t bend over to homosexuals and doesn’t honor the Pussy Riot. The so-called ‘conservative’ National Review magazine supports the Pussy Riot and excoriates Vladimir Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church. Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin sounded alarm bells about Putin as the ‘new Hitler’ in 2012. Since they were laughed at and mocked by Jews, you’d think they’d realize that Jews are their enemies. But now that there’s trouble in Ukraine, they are groveling before Jews and yapping, "Master, didn’t we tell you so? Putin is Hitler, Putin is Hitler, and we will serve you more loyally to bite his ass than Obama is doing." Never mind that Obama is acting calm because his attack dogs are busy ripping Ukraine apart. Anyway, even though white Liberals in places like Boston, New York, and Philadelphia have most to fear from criminal Negro thugs, they repress their anxieties and direct them at imaginary KKK at Oberlin College or phantom redneck lynch mobs who presumably still roam the South to kill innocent Negroes who are pure as snow. That Liberal whites indulge in such attitudes is easily understandable, but it’s bizarre when white Conservatives do likewise, as with Glenn Beck’s vitriol against Russia for its refusal to bend over to the homo agenda. Surely, many white Conservatives are frustrated with Jewish power, but it’s a taboo to discuss Jewish power, so even Republicans like Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain tore into Chuck Hagel the white gentile for his allegedly ‘antisemitic’ views. It’s like how so many frustrated men who couldn’t stand up to their boss went home and beat up his own wife and kids. Today, white folks in Europe and America are not only afraid of Jewish power and Political Correctness but have been conditioned to believe it’s shameful to harbor any negative thoughts about Jews, homos, Negroes, and etc. And yet, deep down inside, they must know that lots of Jews, homos, and Negroes are up to no good. But for them to even feel such suspicions would make them feel ‘sinful’ with ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘homophobia’. So, their repressed emotions have to find an outlet, and it comes down to hating other whites. So, white Liberals accuse white Conservatives of ‘racism’, and white Conservatives accuse white Liberals of being the ‘real racists’ and also rail against Russia as ‘reactionary’ at odds with the PC Conservatism that Americans have. The most pathetic spectacle of American politics is Conservatives pandering to Jews and Negroes(and increasingly homos) with such reverent servility despite the fact that most Jews despise white Conservatives and so many blacks beat up and pussify ‘white boys’. But because whites are not allowed to judge and dislike non-whites — though exceptions can be made for Iranians, Palestinians, Chinese, and sometimes Asian-Indians — , whites must vent their spleen against ‘bad whites’. And in THE HUNT, the ‘bad white’ is the guy accused of being a child molester. Ironically, he’s treated by other whites as non-whites had sometimes been treated by bigoted whites in the past. His son is told not to shop at a certain store. When the father later goes to buy things, he is beaten up and thrown out the by personnel. One could argue that the violence is morally driven than a case of bigotry, but moral righteousness can take on aspects of bigotry and may even serve to mask emotions that are bigoted at the root, as with some Christian Right loons who go around saying "God hates fags"; such people aren’t so much being moral as glibly feeling superior by using moralism as a crutch. This is what Jesus understood about the men who were trying to stone Mary Magdalene. They were using morality as a kind of sadistic sport. In the faces of the store personnel in THE HUNT, we sense not only hatred for the man but a kind of satisfaction in their hostility. They feel good feeling superior to the heretic. One even tosses a can at the man’s head that becomes bloodied.
And yet, a cloud of doubt hovers above them all because children often say what they think adults want to hear than what they really know to be true. Children are naturally fearful and naturally willing-to-please. Paradoxically, such feelings can make a child remain silent or deny what really happened OR make the child make up something that is patently false. In either case, the child is afraid of saying the ‘wrong’ thing — ‘wrongness’ being determined by perception of approval/disapproval than by facts. If the child feels that adults will disapprove of him/her for speaking the truth of having been molested, he/she will clam up about it even if it happened. If the child feels that he or she will win the approval of adults for saying he or she was molested even if he or she was not, the child may do just that. Of course, lots of adults are like this too, which is so many white folks are such liars who say whatever to please their Jewish masters. Indeed, the relationship between Jews and white gentiles is like that of cunning adults and anxious children so eager to win approval. But if at least white gentile adults — some of them anyway — know the nature of behavioral psychology that affects them, children don’t understand why they doing what they’re doing. So, in THE HUNT, the little girl senses that adults want her to stick to her original ‘statement’. If she reverses herself, she’ll be called a liar, and kids fear the loss of approval/affection more than any betrayal of truth. If the daughter reverses herself, adults might look upon her with cold disdain. Also, children are acutely alert to certain ‘vibes’ around adults. Like a dog attuned to the feelings of its master and ever shifting its behavior to lighten the mood, kids are sensitive to adult emotions and unconsciously self-regulating what they do and say to keep adults happy and/or friendly. So, the daughter may have sensed that her account of what the man did to her(but actually didn’t do) made some adults ‘feel good’ and, picking up on these signals, may have stuck with the story to keep the adults ‘feeling good’. Not ‘feeling good’ in the sense of happy-go-lucky feeling(as no sane adult could feel good about child molestation) but ‘feeling good’ in the sense of feeling righteous, justified, moralistic, sanctimonious, and holier-than-thou. Even as the adults flinch at her story of molestation, she will have noticed that adults are ‘feeling good’ about their goodness that stands against wickedness. Indeed, consider the kind of people who watch TV talk shows that specialize in horrible people. The guests and their stories are terrible and upsetting, and yet, the TV audience feel self-satisfied and self-justified in feeling smugly superior to such scum. The audience take sick pleasure in passing easy judgment on the obvious rottenness of others. It’s like gladiator-morality or gladiamorality.
The mind abhors a vacuum as uncertainty leads to insecurity, anxiety, and doubt. Therefore, in THE HUNT, we want a surefire evidence that will clear the man’s name in the eyes of the community. We want closure that will determine if the man is guilty or not guilty. THE HUNT could have gone the way of RASHOMON or L’AVVENTURA and left us in the dark as to what really happened. But like CITIZEN KANE that finally reveals the identity of ‘Rosebud’, we the audience are essentially made to believe in the man’s innocence. And yet, this more-or-less certainty on our part, in making us feel easily superior to the judgmental and hostile members of the community, also tests and challenges us. After all, we were shown what they(the people of the community) were not shown. If it had been vice versa, would they be more understanding and us more judgmental? Maybe. Probably. Thus, our sense of certainty paradoxically calls into the question the meaning of certainty. As certainty is truth, we would like to believe in its universal veracity. And when it comes to scientific laws, this is true enough. The law of gravity is same everywhere and be tested over and over. But when it comes to individual incidents of man and nature, absolute certainty is the privilege of only those who witnessed it. Suppose I witnessed a man kill another man and then run away. Suppose I am the only witness. For certain, I saw what I saw and know what happened. But for everyone else, the truth is a matter of what I tell them, and they may choose to believe me, not believe me, or even suspect me as the killer. While certain criminal cases leave sufficient evidence and traces that can, more or less, ascertain the perpetrator and what he did, there are cases where the ‘truth’ is a matter of witnesses or lack of witnesses. We can never know for certain what really happened.
Also, the fact that we the audience know the truth in THE HUNT makes us impatiently hopeful for the moment when the community will come around to share the truth we are privy to. In Alfred Hitchcock’s STRANGERS ON A TRAIN(written by Patricia Highsmith and Raymond Chandler), we know what the world doesn’t know. We know who is guilty and who is innocent, and we want the world to share our knowledge(though, in typical Hitchcockian fashion, the ‘bad guy’ represents the repressed id of the ‘good guy’ in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde manner). And as a genre thriller, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN eventually ties all the knots at the end, and the whole world shares our knowledge of what really happened. Things a bit stranger in LADY FROM SHAHGHAI by Orson Welles as the world may never find out what happened among the three main characters. Even so, the romantically charged ending is not without catharsis.
But in THE HUNT, the key evidence that will finally absolve the man remains elusive(and will always be so) for the community. (If in CITIZEN KANE, the evidence of ‘Rosebud’ existed in the physical form of the sled — even if it was destroyed before anyone found out — , there is no physical evidence to prove or disprove the molestation in THE HUNT. Even we, who trust the accused man, believe in his innocence only by mentally piecing together bits and pieces of reality that, on their own, has no bearing on the case. For instance, the little girl was shown a picture of a penis on a smart-phone, and such porny pictures bound on the internet. In and of itself, it has no relation to the accused man, the girl, or the community. It is us who psychologically link it with the girl’s imagination and assume that it may have inspired her fanciful account. THAT is our evidence.) The world will never know what really happened in THE HUNT, just like the world will never know what really happened to the couple in THE VANISHING. In the end, the estranged friend decides to trust him, the community re-embrace him, and things return to normal. If the father of the girl trusts his friend, there’s less reason for the town to feel hostile toward him, and at the end, everything seems hunky dory again, as if the troubled episode had never happened. But we are denied the satisfaction of seeing the man’s name cleared absolutely. And because we have no power to affect events in the film, our sense of power and privilege paradoxically feels all the more powerless. We were ‘privileged’ and ‘empowered’ in having been shown something that was denied to the townsfolk. And yet, like the paralyzed man in DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY, we are powerless to convey our knowledge to the people of the community. Thus, our power is rendered frustrating and powerless. We can’t do anything but watch an innocent man be treated horribly by the folks of the community. And yet, because of the nature of the accusal, we know that, but for our special knowledge, we could easily be like the townsfolk.
The situation is all the more fragile and troubling in THE HUNT because a child’s mind — especially that of an eccentric child — is an unstable entity. An normal adult’s mind is clear. He or she may lie about something, but he or she knows for certain if something happened or didn’t. So, at the very least, he or she know the truth; even if he or she were to lie about it, he or she still privately knows the truth, and there’s the chance that he or she will one day have the courage and decency to reveal it. But a child’s mind is unstable about reality. So, even though the girl initially knew she was making up a story, all the pressures from the adult world carry the danger of turning her fantasy into reality in her own mind. Since the only two people who knows what really happened(or didn’t happen) are the girl and the man — and since the man, as the accused, is viewed with suspicion and hostility — , the only person who can clear the man’s name for sure is the girl. And yet, she’s just a child whose memory has been clouded by the adults’ urging upon her to say what they think she really wants to say. Many adults have a preconceived notion of what really happened and unconsciously prod the girl to keep talking until she says what they want to hear, which is what they think she really meant to say. As a result, the girl could really come to believe in her own lies or fantasies for the mind of a child is fragile.
The fragility of the mind was the theme of Chris Nolan’s MEMENTO and INCEPTION. In MEMENTO, everything about the man’s mind works perfectly fine except the ability to store his short term memory into long-term memory. That one little problem traps him forever in the past prior to his injury and in the ever-vanishing-and-forgotten present. In INCEPTION, minds can be penetrated and implanted with thoughts, moods, or memories of things that never happened.
In THE HUNT, a kind of inception takes place in the child’s cloudy mind as the adults around her are so certain that they know what’s in her mind better than she does, in effect planting suggestions in her mind. As THE HUNT isn’t sci-fi, we don’t observe the mind-process from the inside(as in INCEPTION or TRON LEGACY), but it’s palpable what is happening. The boundary between real and unreal is already tenuous in a child’s mind — that always seeks approval from adults — , so what happens when a child’s mind comes under intense pressure from adults who don’t want her to be afraid in telling the truth but the truth they want to hear has more to do with their own preconceptions than with the girl’s actual knowledge? Paradoxically, the girl may become afraid of the adults’ effort to make her not be afraid. If adults go to a child and say, "don’t be afraid and tell us the truth", and if the ‘truth’ happens to be false, then the actual truth has been associated with ‘being afraid’, whereas the false ‘truth’ has been pegged with ‘not being afraid’. So, for the child to show the adults that he or she isn’t afraid to speak the truth, he or she must stick with the ‘truth’(that adults want to hear)that is really a lie.
Though adults have a much clear view of reality than children do, they aren’t immune from confusing reality and unreality. If you witnessed a crime, you may clearly remember the face of the perpetrator. But as time passes, the face begins to fade and merge with other faces, and when you’ve finally at the police station for a lineup of suspects, your memory is hardly trustworthy. A part of you tells you that you must point to the person you think committed the crime in order to protect society from a dangerous thug(and possibly to win the approval of the police), but another side of you doesn’t want to send an innocent man to jail. What is to be done when one’s memory isn’t so clear? And we might remember a movie or book in a certain way — and be absolutely sure of it — , only to discover the details to be quite different from how we remembered it. But such matters that fleetingly pass through our sensory-filters are easily forgotten or confused by most people and thus are the norm. It’s natural to forget or confuse faces or details of a song, movie, or book.
But what about more fundamental things that should be clear in one way or another? In LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD, it’s not possible that both the man and woman are telling the truth. One has to be lying. Or both could be lying — the woman really wasn’t there and the man wasn’t there either, but then, it’d be absurd for him to even bring up the issue. I may forget faces of strangers and details of a book or movie, but if I killed someone, how could I forget that? If someone I know well poured boiling water on me, how could I confuse that person with anyone else or not know that what actually happened. And yet, even when things seem totally certain, social pressures and/or psychological duress can lead to doubt. Though most inmates on death-row insist on their innocence to save their skin, there could be some who really come to believe in their innocence out of a pathologically driven need to feel justified. And consider the hallucinatory fever-dream that becomes the reality for the Naomi Watts character in MULHOLLAND DR.
Even so, adults have stronger sense of individuality, therefore their sense of reality is better able to resist social pressure and/or manipulation. Even if adults lie, they know they are lying. So, truth remains buried beneath falsehood. What is alarming about the scenario in THE HUNT is that the truth beneath the lie may also dissolve and vanish in the child’s mind under adult pressure. That the father surmises as to the truth when his girl is half-dazed in a dream suggests something about the child-psychology of reality. Because the conscious mind of a child is so geared to saying what adults want her to say, she may be more likely to speak the truth when her conscious defenses have been lowered by the narcosis of sleep. And yet, sleepiness is the region between waking life and dream fantasy, so how trustworthy can that be? Thus, the scene where the friend access the truth is, at once, tender and terrifying: the real glimpsed in the world of the unreal. Finding a needle is a haystack is difficult enough, but at the very least, there’s a certainty of an actual needle somewhere in the haystack. But what about finding grains of salt in a swimming pool? At some point, the salt will dissolve and vanish. The salt of evidence cannot be found in the girl’s mind pool, but a faint taste of it stirs the father into sense.
The conscious mind is most clear and precise, but it is also most survivalist, warlike, and partisan, thus potentially most biased. Thus, the conscious mind is both the greatest friend and greatest enemy of truth. A scientist can objectively use his mind to reveal a truth about nature. But as so much of the world is ‘political’ — struggle for power, privilege, fame, reputation, status, etc. — , the conscious mind is often at work to spin, obfuscate, manipulate, or distort the truth. We see this among lawyers in courtrooms.
And something like this happens in THE HUNT. When the accused man’s son goes to the girl’s house and accuses her of lying, her wounded ego insists that she was indeed molested, which, of course, makes things worse. (And if we didn’t know any better, the sight of a teenager ripping into a little girl does him no favors. And even though we are apt to sympathize with his frustration, his conviction of his father’s innocence isn’t any different from his father’s friend’s conviction that his daughter is telling the truth. It’s faith vs faith.) Consider David Mamet’s OLEANNA where a woman’s moral inquisition against a professor is driven more by her wounded ego — as a failing third-rate student — than anything he may have done to her. He instinctively senses this and tries to put her at ease with profuse apologies about his misunderstanding. He knows that if he calls her crazy, she will dig in her heels. So, he uses the soft approach and almost makes her come around... but then a phone call upsets the hypnotic-nice-guy spell he finally cast upon her and reawakens her determination to ruin him once again. Morality is about right and wrong, but the ‘politics’ of morality is often used by ‘losers’ to get back at the ‘winners’ — as with the goy guy townie who loses the girl in STATE AND MAIN and as with the Ed Harris character in GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS who rants about the dignity of the ‘working man’ but is really bitter because he’s not one of the ‘winners’. Or it is used by winners to intimidate the losers — as with Jews who use Holocaustianity and ‘white guilt’ to browbeat whites into obedience.
Anyway, rational consciousness can paradoxically be most irrational, deceptive, and/or mendacious. Though some people can become very aggressive/paranoid under the influence of certain kinds of drugs, there are also lots of drugs that pacify people and dissolve their rigid barriers of ego and pride. Consider a film where someone flips out in a movie and gets out-of-control, whereupon a doctor appears and gives him/her a shot of something to restore calm and control. Even Thor got peaceable after a shot in the butt in Kenneth Branagh’s movie. Or consider the scene in the hospital following the fight in ROCKY II. Apollo Creed has a big mouth, but when half-asleep and lying weary on the bed, he replies in a friendly manner to Rocky’s query about the fight: "Did you give me your best?" "Yeah." This is one reason why friends get together and drink or smoke stuff. Certain substances take the edge off, so they put aside the competitiveness, mellow out, and think more calmly. And in Freudian therapy, the psychoanalyst tells the patient to lie on the couch, relax, lower his/her guard, and enter into a zone that is somewhere between consciousness and dream-state. While the conscious mind is most adept at dealing with reality, it is also most tightly wound up with ego, pride, & status, and those factors tend to urge the conscious mind to favor the interests of one’s reputation than the cold facts of hard truth if such may undermine one’s standing among peers.
When we are fully conscious, we often use our rational faculty not to be factually rational but to serve our ego that is ambitious and/or vulnerable. This is why there’s so little agreement in public discussions even though everyone’s thinking and speaking consciously. Debates are almost always more about pride and prejudice than truth and honesty. Maybe talk shows should offer drinks and smokes to all the guests so that the discussion will less ego-drive, though, to be sure, some people’s egos tend to become inflated under the influence of intoxicants.
Anyway, prior to the father’s quiet chat with his dream-dazed daughter, something happened at the Church that made him revisit and reconsider his feelings about the scandal. After all, the accused isn’t just any man but someone he’d considered his best friend all his life. This brings up another issue, that of the relation between the moral and the personal. After all, if the accused man had not been a friend, the girl’s father would have felt no pity for his plight and probably wouldn’t have revised his thoughts about the case — and the accused man wouldn’t have felt a sense of betrayal by a friend. It’s because the accused man was his friend that he feels a powerful sense of both betrayal and guilt: betrayal because his daughter was allegedly molested by his best friend and guilt because there’s a lingering doubt in his mind that his friend could have done such a thing. And if they hadn’t been best friends, the accused man would not have confronted the father the way he did in the Church.
The scene in the Church is the very antithesis of the Catholicist mode of iconography. According to Catholicist expression, there is a link between the sacred truth and sacred image — as well as between profane falsehood and profane image. In THE EXORCIST, there’s a link between the image of purity and spiritual purity; there’s a link between the image of putrefaction and spiritual foulness. THE GODFATHER inverts this by presenting figures of organized crime as ‘sacralized’ icons, but it is still in the Catholicist tradition where the image holds and conveys much truth about the characters. Vito Corleone looks the part of the wise patriarch and is exactly that. Michael is a fallen angel and looks the part with his reptilian eyes — the satanic can be ‘sacralized’ too.
But in THE HUNT, the rules of traditional iconography breaks down. An angelic-looking girl triggers a terrible chain of events. ‘Good’ people are seen doing terrible things. Bad things are done in the name of the good, the ‘bad person’ could be a good person. Nothing and no one in THE HUNT ha a clear iconographic meaning as good, bad, holy, evil, tragic, or even absurd. Thus, if PRISONERS is Catholicist in its powerful sense of iconography — the angry father, the dedicated cop, the good Negro neighbors, the disturbed men, the innocent children, the demented villain, etc. — , THE HUNT owes more to the Protestantist aesthetic of humanist realism. Catholicist aesthetics tended to turn figures into larger-than-life idols, representative of certain moral, social, or spiritual archetypes, whereas the northern Protestant painters tended to present people simply as people. Catholicist mode is about the capital-‘I’ Individuality whereas the Protestantist mode is about the little-‘i’ individuality. It’s easier to tell who represents what in a Catholicist story than in a Protestantist story where characters don’t radiate with holiness or lurk with unholiness. Everything in the Catholicist mode of expression tends to be either symbolic or representative of larger meaning, whereas much in the Protestantist mode simply depicts reality as reality. Sometimes, this aspect of the Protestantist mode can render people and objects as dull, bland, and banal in contrast to the flowery, luminous, and darkly mysterious expression of the Catholicist mode, yet in other cases, the Protestantist mode can delve deeper into the multi-faceted-ness of reality by rejecting the temptation to turn real-life elements into symbols or icons that, however powerful and mysterious in representation, can too easily be decoded into meanings of good, evil, purity, profanity, and etc. Also, the Catholicist mode often confuses the cult of mystery with real mystery. Anything can be shrouded with the cult of mystery — as with the dumb stories of the image of the Madonna on toasts, cracked walls, backs of turtles, and etc. — , and this is the problem of PRISONERS. For all its conceit of seriousness and complexity, it is a pretty cheesy and brazenly shameless piece of genre manipulation. Even its silences are too loud with ‘meaning’, and even its darkness is too ‘radiantly’ arty. It even has snakes for symbolism.
 |
| Snakes! |
 |
| The Godfather Part II: Hyman Roth,the Deadly Jew |
BABETTE’S FEAST gives us a glimpse of the Catholicist mode vs the Protestantist mode. Even though the former dazzles with its flavors and colors, it does nothing to change the real world.
And in the Church scene in THE HUNT, there are no visual cues to signal what is true, what is false, what is redemptive, what is befallen(as would be case with the Catholicist mode). We must feel the truth for ourselves within our own souls. There is no crutch of idolatry for us to lean on, no tapestry to clothe our eyes with the cloak of truth. All we see is a man confronting another man. A soul and a soul, the truth of which remain invisible to our naked eyes. There are no revelations to illuminate what is true and what is not true. The world is made of men, not of symbols, and good and bad are invisible matters of the heart that cannot be presented in pictures. The world isn’t filled with relics, holy or profane, that can serve as our spiritual compass. The Protestantist mode, in its emphasis on matters of the heart and mind, can be less superstitious and childish than the Catholicist mode. But the downside is it can also can be more fanatical and paranoid. Since the truth of the heart and mind matter above all, even the fanciful muttering of an ‘innocent’ girl can take on a life of its own regardless of physical evidence. Truth may be limited in Catholicism to its idolatrous manifestations, but then, so is its fanaticism. Truth can be boundless and deeper in Protestantism, but then, so can its puritanical urges.
THE HUNT reaches its climax in the Church where the accused man confronts his estranged friend, the father of the girl. And yet, it’s a climax unlike most that offer a sense of catharsis, resolution, or revelation. Though a highly charged breaking point in the film, the aftermath is just as unsettling as what precedes it. Despite his outburst, there’s still no way the accused man can prove his innocence. And yet, ironically, it’s this very out-of-control rage that has a pacifying effect on the girl’s father even though he is the object of its fury. More than any physical evidence or logic, the soulful rage suggests at the man’s innocence. If the accused man is really guilty, would he break down like this? And yet, of course, guilty people can be defiantly angry against their accusers. (The difference, however, is that while guilty people who angrily deny their guilt are trying to save what they have, the man in THE HUNT acts defiant after he has lost everything and has nothing more to lose. Thus, there’s an element of sincerity in his anger that might have been less convincing if he’d blown his top at the outset of the case. The rage seems to flow from the heart than from any mercenary need to protect his material interests.) But more than anything in that scene, it appears that the accused man is fixated on what his ex-friend thinks, not what the community thinks. It’s a moment fraught with so many tangled emotions, all of them legitimate in their own way, all of them confused and desperate, all of them righteous within their own contexts.
After being shunned and rejected by the entire community, the accused man, on Christmas day, goes to Church where the community is assembled. Given the nature of Christianity and its emphasis on forgiving the sinner — and emphasis on decorum — , even people of the community who despise the man tolerate his presence. It sort of reminds us of the Church scene in HIGH NOON.
Even though his family was the object of sympathy from the community whereas the accused man was the object of hate and derision, he’d been suffering too all along because the last thing he wanted to believe was that the accusation was true. And even when he believed the allegations, he found no pleasure in his ex-friend’s torment. As he explains to his daughter when she dreamily admits she’d said ‘stupid things’, it isn’t easy to wipe away the entire history of friendship that traces back to childhood. It’s like the scene in Andrei Konchalovsky’s SIBERIADE when the son of a commissar asks his father why one particular member of the class enemy(who’s incorrigibly resistant to the Revolution)isn’t just taken out and shot. The father explains that despite the bad blood and political differences, he and the man — who turns out to be the boy’s uncle — grew up together as children and share many precious memories.
Though a much lesser film, the friendship between the landlord’s son and peasant’s son in Bernardo Bertolucci’s 1900 is similarly fraught with the love/hate element. In THE HUNT, the two men grew up together and became like brothers. The sexual allegation pulled them apart, and yet, neither could renounce the entire meaning of their friendship, and each, in his own way, even if unconsciously, was looking for a way to reconnect and reignite the friendship that was as precious as family.
There is a resolution of sorts between the two men near the end, an understanding that may restore their friendship. After the Church service and talk with his sleepy and contrite(in her own innocent way)daughter, the father decides to take some Christmas left-overs to the accused man’s house and rekindle what had been snuffed out between them. His decision is based on some degree of ‘evidence’ but also on an article of faith. As no one has the power of God to turn back time and see everything as it actually happened everywhere, there’s no way the father can know for sure that his friend is innocent. Thus, even in our age of rationalism and modernity, so much relies on a degree of faith and sentiment. We fill the gaps in truth with trust. The scene between the reunited two men reminds us of the scene in Robert Altman’s SHORT CUTS where the couple confront the baker who’d been making nasty phone calls without the knowledge their child was hospitalized by a car accident: a touching scene in an otherwise insipid film.
Anyway, we were saying something about the fusion of neo-aristocraticism and the new brand of leftism. Leftism, at least in the West, no longer tries to win over and rally the People against the elites. Rather, it is far more interested and invested in the winning over the elites — or elites controlling the discourse of the ‘left’. One reason for this is that most ‘leftist’ organizations are funded by rich elites. But even those that are not tend to emulate those that are. So, even a ‘leftist’ blogger/activist working from his/her basement will pretty much follow the dictates handed down by organizations like ThinkProgress, Salon.com, Slate.com, Huffington Post, and etc. Indeed, the degree of ideological conformity and sameness across the entire spectrum of the neo-‘leftism’ is astounding. We don’t see the kind of pluralism and contentiousness that defined much of 60s radicalism and leftism. Rather, it’s everyone from Ariana Huffington and George Soros to everyone from the Young Turks and Chris Crocker bleating the same thing: mostly about how we must all bend over to the elite globo-homo agenda and never ever notice/criticize Jewish power. In our world shamelessly defined by excessive glamour, celebrity, fashion, trendiness, and superficiality, the notion of the People seem so drab and dull. Also, having been fattened up by the welfare state and corrupted by popular culture, the People — once represented by the working class and lower middle class — no longer even have any dignity. And with erosion of family and religion — or the vulgarization of religion into mall church shenanigans — , popular culture has become the new cathedral for many Americans. There used to be a time when one found morality and meaning in tradition, family, customs, community, & church apart from the pleasures found in arts and popular entertainment. Today, with the traditional institutions of family, church, and community having eroded away, popular culture has become the primary source of the majority of Americans’ values and morals. Since most of popular culture is controlled by Jews, homos, white Liberals, and rapping Negroes, the new American values are about worshiping Jews, bending over to homos, putting on superficial SWPL manners, or grinding one’s ass like an ape to rap music or interracist porn.
And of course, there’s the eternal ‘white guilt’ constructed out of selective reading of history that focuses only on cruelties committed by white gentile males. But then, a morality that is purely accusatory and lacking in self-criticism and self-reflection isn’t morality at all. This is why so much of Jewish, homo, Negro, and feminist morality is really without genuine moral content. Their idea of right and wrong is to be self-aggrandizing and self-righteous in focusing only on wrongs done to them by white gentile males who, by the way, did the most to create the modern world that availed freedom and liberty to the greatest number of people. A morality that is wholly self-serving is hardly moral, but that is the kind of morality that defines the Jewish and homo communities that would have us worship them as demi-gods. And if we refuse, we are condemned as immoral for daring to criticize their power instead of worshiping them.
So, it’s not enough that a bakery is open to homos and even hires homos. For a bakery to be ‘good’, it must bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes for socio-sexual degenerates. Of course, Liberals are totally selective about this in their boundless hypocrisy. For instance, the KKK and Neo-Nazis are legal organizations in the US despite being maligned by the most of American society(for good reasons). Now, suppose a KKK guy goes to a black baker and orders a cake to be decorated with a picture of a fat-lipped sambo munching on a watermelon. Or suppose a Neo-Nazi guy goes to a Jewish baker and orders a cake with a Swastika and ‘Heil Hitler’ sign. If the black baker and Jewish baker rejects those orders, would Liberals attack and revile them for discriminating against certain legal organizations? If anything, the bakers will likely sue the individuals who placed the orders for ‘hate crimes’, and the Liberal media will side with the black and Jewish bakers. It might be more tricky if a communist ordered a cake praising Stalin at an Ukrainian-owned bakery or if a Muslim ordered a pro-PLO cake at a bakery owned by Orthodox Jews. Liberals might sit on the fence on those cases, but in general, there’s nothing consistent about Liberal morality — though Conservatives are full of shit too; consider how American Conservatives who condemn abortion in America are completely silent about Israel’s highly pro-abortion policies. If a bakery refused to serve homos at all, I would sympathize with the homos. But a bakery’s refusal to bake a ‘gay wedding cake’ should be within the rights of an organization or business. After all, newspapers and TV stations oftentimes reject certain ads and opinion pieces even if the contents are perfectly legal because of they don’t conform with the values of the paper. Dildos are legal, but that doesn’t mean that New York Times has to splash its pages with dildo ads. If New York Times has the right to reject a request to advertise something that is legal, why shouldn’t a baker reject an order to make a cake that celebrates the abomination of ‘gay marriage’ that equalizes fecal penetration among men with the union of a man and a woman that produces the gift of life? Marriage is about being fruitful, not fruity, especially tutti-fruity. But according to the Jewish-homo or Jomo Cabal, it’s ‘bigotry’ and ‘discrimination’ if a baker refuses to make a cake for a ‘gay wedding’. Of course, if a homo baker refused to bake a anti-homo-agenda cake for a perfectly legal organization that stands for real marriage, Liberals would praise the decision as a courageous stand against ‘hate’.
And if the Jomo Cabal cannot win over the majority in some states, they use ‘judgepacking’ — judicial fudgepacking — to force their foul degenerate and decadent laws up people’s ass. But then, homo power would have been nothing without Jewish power. It’s just Jews using the homo agenda as a battering ram to push through Jewish power that is premised on minoritarian elitism. If the great overwhelming majority can be fooled and manipulated into bowing down to homos who make up only 2% of the population, then they will likewise continue to suck up to Jews who also make up only 2% of the population in the US.
In a way, the neo-aristocratization of ‘leftism’ makes sense(especially in the US) because leftism, aristocracy, homos, and Jews have one thing in common: they are all minoritarian at the core. Jews and homos are each only 2% of the US population. The aristocracy was only a small percentage of any society: at most 10% and more usually 5% or less. And super-aristocrats were only 1-2% of the population or even less. As for leftism, even though it was originally about leading and serving the people, leftist radicals tended to be well-educated people of privilege — and even considerable or great wealth — whose social views weren’t only at odds with the traditional elites but the vast majority of the unwashed masses. If anything, a leftist intellectual had more in common with a rich conservative on a cultural level than with the People. Even in his impoverished state and even while railing against the rich, Karl Marx put on bourgeois airs and never socialized with the common man. Despite his humble roots, once John Kenneth Galbraith became well-educated, rich, and famous, he was good friends with William F. Buckley and would have felt out of place among coal miners, factory workers, bus drivers(like Ralph Kramden of THE HONEYMOONERS), or dock workers(like Archie Bunker of ALL IN THE FAMILY). In SWEPT AWAY(by Lina Wertmuller), even a working class Italian communist has very retrograde views about family and women. In BARTON FINK, a Jewish leftist writer talks about the People in theory, but he obviously knows few if any real workers. Though he’s an anti-capitalist who loathes everything that the rich Hollywood Jewish mogul stands for, he has more in common with the rich Jew than with the People, most of whom are ‘boorish’ dimwit goyim like the John Goodman character. Indeed, most common people distrusted and even loathed the intellectual types who seem to be all talk and no action.
According to early Soviet cinema, the people are boiling with unarticulated revolutionary energy that simply needs to be tapped and released by intellectual radicals. The People may be unschooled and ignorant, but they have an instinctive sense of ‘social justice’ and are merely waiting for the right conditions and right leaders to bring about the revolution. Thereafter, the energy of the masses will power the revolution along to its destiny.
But in reality, the People tended to be ‘conservative’(especially socially and culturally) and clueless & disinterested(when it came to ideas). While the masses can be motivated to support a radical movement during hardships — like the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, the Nazi seizure of power, the New Deal, the Chinese Revolution, the Iranian Islamic Revolution, and etc. — , they mostly wanna be left alone to either pursue their own interests and/or stick when order and stability have been restored. And even when persuaded to jump on the radical bandwagon, it isn’t long before the burnout factor comes into play, which is why the Great Purge, the Great Leap Forward, May 68, the Cultural Revolution, the Anti-War Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Arab Spring, and etc. all ran out of steam. We wonder when the homo movement will run out of steam too. But maybe it won’t because it’s really about neo-aristocratic privilege than about mass upheaval and rebellion. After all, aristocratic orders lasted for centuries because they were about maintaining order from the top, which is far less disruptive than causing disorder from the bottom. So, while the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have run out of steam, the yearly homo parade of neo-aristocrats is going strong. The homo movement doesn’t rebel against the elites; if anything, elites use the homo movement to appropriate the mantle of victim-hood in places like Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Washington D.C.
That said, even most political Liberals have a limit beyond which they began to grow suspicious of radicalism and decadence. The black crime wave of the 1960s drove many political Liberals to the ‘right’. Even as they voted for Democratic Congressmen, they began to vote for Republican presidential candidates. And the reason why ‘gay marriage’ made such a headway was because it was, in Saul-Alinsky-style, sold as the ‘new normal’, packaged in red-white-and-blue, and made to appear mainstream and patriotic. This tomfoolery has been so effective that many Americans, even conservatives, are willing to start a new cold war with Russia over something as inane as the ‘gay right’ to march in cities and spread homo propaganda in classrooms. In other words, the success of the ‘gay’ agenda owed to ‘conservatizing’ its image, indeed to the point where the clean-cut and white-bread homos became almost indistinguishable from clean-cut Mormons.
 |
| Mormon or Fruitkin? |
We like to think that adults are different, and of course, adults are more complicated than children. But a lot of adults — possibly the majority — are like children: instinctively ‘conservative’ and intellectually ‘liberal’. They prefer familiar things, and this goes for political Liberals too, who wanna hang around their own kind in their comfort zone and be flattered for their moral sanctimony with the same cliches about ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ and etc. And ‘intellectually’, they are molded by the elites than self-molding. Most political Liberals have been suckered, browbeaten, or conditioned to believe in certain things by school propaganda, media distortion, late night talk shows, and pop culture. Few Liberals really thought about the meaning of ‘gay marriage’ since no honest person can see any value in it. They’ve been made to believe in fairies just like children. Their impression and ‘thoughts’ about homos have been shaped by Jewish-controlled news, academia, media, entertainment, and the like.
For this reason, only a fool invests too much trust and faith in the People. (William Bennett defended conservative values as being the bread and butter of the masses who know right and wrong almost by instinct against the intellectually driven agenda of Liberals who conceitedly believe their fashionably ‘progressive agenda to be the best. But if the masses really do know right and wrong in their hearts, how was it that so many became converted to ‘gay marriage’ in a matter of a decade? It’s a fallacy to think that just because the masses happen to espouse Conservative values in the now, mass values = conservative values.) People are like children. Both impossibly difficult and impossibly easy. Sometimes, a child will want something and insist and cry like crazy if he or she can’t get it. No matter how much you explain to the child, he or she demands it and cries like a loon. Grownups can be like this. If they’re stuck with a certain set of values, superstitions, sacred ‘truths’, or taboos, they will stick with them against all sense and evidence. And they will feel great hostility toward those who offer something new and different in its stead. In this sense, people can be impossibly ‘conservative’ and intransigent.
However, there are ways to butter them up and make them lower their guard. It can be done through laughter, comedy, bread-and-circuses, thrills, and such. And while the guard has been lowered, a new set of values can be slipped into them, and then, the People will be adamantly committed to supporting and defending those new values, indeed as if those values had been theirs since the beginning of time. It’s like a child will cry and go nuts if he can’t have a certain candy he wants. If you reprimand him or her for being stupid and stubborn, the child will cry even louder and dig in his or her heels. But if you make a smiley face and distract the child from his/her displeasure and delight him/her with funny stuff and then associate the funny stuff with a new kind of candy — that the child was initially unwilling to try — , the child might try the candy, associate it with the funny pleasures, and come around to feeling that this new candy is the stuff he or she really likes and has always liked. (It’s like the waiter in THE SHINING easily tricks Jack Torrance into believing that Jack had always been the caretaker of the Overlook Hotel.) So, next time the child throws a fit of demanding candy, it will about the new candy than the old one that has been entirely forgotten. Of course, there’s also the tactic of the scary monsters. If a child is crying and you can’ t make him or her stop, you tell him or her that a scary monster will come and eat him or her, and he or she will clam up. Or if you want the child to get angry at something, you tell him or her that the object of hated isn’t merely bad but this ungodly hideous thing. So, children are introduced to ‘racism’ with burning crosses on the front lawn and scary KKK in movies. (Granted, Hollywood movies tend to treat the audience more like children than European films do. Maybe because most European films are made by Europeans for Europeans, the artists tend to see the audience as fellow adults. In contrast, since Jews see gentiles as dumb children to manipulate and control, Hollywood films tend to push buttons on our psyche.) So, on a Japanese TV show, children were made to believe that zombies were coming to eat them, thus goading them to get ready to hate and kill the evil zombies. Not surprisingly, the kids acted just like the childish PC-addled morons at Oberlin College who see KKK everywhere.
With advances in psychology, advertising, and the art/science of propaganda, the elites now control all sorts of ways to shape, warp, manipulate, and control the minds of the masses. Brutal force, as used by communists, is less necessary since there are so many forms of control via entertainment, education, culture, advertising, social networking, and new forms via the internet. Indeed, even though the internet allows a free exchange of ideas all over the world, there’s only two kinds of real power: elite power and mass power. Elite power is owned by the super-rich and inner members of the most powerful institutions. It is held by individuals and networks/cabals of like-minded groups. Mass power, in contrast, is faceless and has worth only when accumulated into great volume. It’s like gravity: faint and weak unless exerted through concentration of huge mass. While every object exerts some gravitational pull, a small object has virtually none. Gravity makes itself felt only in great mass, as in the planets and the stars. While someone like George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Paul Krugman, Mark Zuckerberg, the Google guys, Steven Spielberg, and others have individual power(of elite power), most individuals don’t have any since they can only rely on mass power. But mass power isn’t decided by the masses just like sheep behavior isn’t decided by the sheep but by their ‘elite’ manipulators composed of shepherds and their running dogs. Even if individuals set up and run their own websites, each will be just one of the hundreds of millions all over the globe. Indeed, with literally 100s of millions of webzines, forums, social network sites, blogs, podcasts, and web pages all over the world on just about every topic, most of them just drown and neutralize one another out.
Besides, most political websites and blogs parrot the decrees of the elites who command the Narrative. So, if the Liberal elite say such-and-such, those views will trickle down to the Liberal mass sheeple who just bleat along on their own websites. Most of the American ‘right’ is no different, with Rush Limbaugh getting his orders from Neocon Jews and with most American conservatives saying spouting Talk Radio cliches. So, the notion of individual empowerment via the internet is a myth. Though there are some influential bloggers, they’re but a handful and tend to be associated with and approved/promoted by the big media powers that be. Indeed, despite all the talk of the demise of traditional journalism, bloggers and websites without ‘mainstream’ media endorsement tend to be a sideshow of a sideshow. Taki’s Mag publishes more interesting, original, and contrarian articles than most Liberal or Conservative news/opinion sites, but its number of fans on Facebook is just a few thousand. In contrast, Salon, Slate, and Huffington Post have millions of fans. Among Conservative sites, it’s ones endorsed by neocon money-men that have the most number of fans. Weekly Standard is more popular than American Conservative magazine, American Renaissance, and Taki’s Mag who are perennial losers. So, even though there’s a wide variety of voices on the net available to the masses, they fail to gain mass attention that may shape into mass power. It’s like each of us have a single vote and can vote for whomever we like — even for some unknown independent candidate — , but one’s vote is only meaningful as a part of a mass of votes for a certain candidate. So, if two candidates are running neck and neck with about 50 million votes each, what does it matter if you cast your vote for an independent candidate who mustered merely 1000 votes? So, if you are one of the People, your freedom/power means nothing unless it’s part of a mass movement, mass voting, mass whatever — a drop in the bucket filled with water. And yet, does mass power form of its own accord? Do we, as a people, naturally come together for our interests, or are we manipulated by higher forces to come together for or against certain agendas? Do the masses control what is reported through the mass media? Do the masses control what is taught through mass education? Do the masses decide what is promoted through mass entertainment?
We like to believe that the American Revolution happened because the People came together under the leadership of the great Founding Fathers. According to this narrative, the leaders of the American Revolution were merely channeling and serving the swelling anger of the American People. But in fact, only a third of colonialists wanted independence. Another third was loyal to the British, and another third didn’t wanna be bothered one way or another. So, even as the American Revolution depended on the support of the masses — or at least a third of them, which is still sizable — , it wasn’t the case that the masses came together out of the blue and called for a Revolution that was answered and led by the Founding Fathers. Rather, the leaders of the revolt were members of the colonial elite who spread all kinds of false propaganda to steer public opinion against the King of England. And it’s not the case that the Russian masses all came together out of the blue to bring about the Bolshevik seizure of power. Rather, the masses were simply angry with the war and called for land and bread, and it just so happened that the Bolsheviks played and manipulated these mass emotions most cleverly and ruthlessly. In the end, the Bolsheviks seized power, set up a massive police state, and imposed their version of ‘social justice’ on the people. In Red China, it wasn’t the masses who just came together to carry out the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. In both cases, the mass movements were guided, directed, and controlled by Mao and his elite collaborators.
Given the true nature of the People — the incapacity to do anything on their own — , does any ‘leftist’ intellectual really believe in the instinctive nobility and wisdom of the masses anymore? There was a time when leftists genuinely believed that the toiling and suffering masses were filled with latent revolutionary passion and could be led to overthrow the elite-aristocratic-bourgeois order and pave the way for a new system where all people would be, more or less, equally intelligent, capable, knowledgeable, dignified, liberated, and empowered. But in places where the existing elites were overthrown, the new radical elites soon discovered that most people are just dummies who are no good for anything but taking orders and doing as they are told. To further illustrate this, suppose an idealistic artist believes that everyone can become an artist with proper training and encouragement. He believes that the famous and popular artists are greedily and unjustly hogging all the fame and glory. So, he kills them all and prohibits the idea of artistic genius that implies only a handful people have the necessary inspiration and innate talent to be great. He wants to create a new order where everyone can become a great artist. So, what happens? In time, he discovers that it’s true enough that only a handful of people have the goods to become a great writer, composer, film-maker, actor, singer, performer, painter, and etc. As for the masses, they are better off as consumers of junk entertainment so that they will spend their money that will end up in the coffers of the elites who run the industries and get to decide what kind of art should be patronized.
There’s really no need to worry about mass power since mass mentality, especially in the age of the mega-media(owned by few conglomerates) and of the mass-education(controlled by the federal government), the masses are stupid asses whose values and ‘thoughts’ will be shaped by the elites. Indeed, the homo-agenda business was like an experiment that proved to the elites that the masses are asses that can indeed be made to swallow anything if manipulated like children. Of course, there will be free-thinking and independent-minded folks who won’t be hoodwinked by elite manipulation, but they won’t have the power to get their views across. (To be sure, anti-elitism is something of a cliche on both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’. After all, even the elites don’t claim to be pro-elite and indeed go out of their way to show that they’re against elite privilege. If anything, the elites even control the narrative of ‘anti-elitism’, which is why both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street failed miserably. As both were controlled or ‘led from behind’ by elite-manipulators, neither dared to touch on the topic most crucial to a true understanding of power: Jewish power. Tea Party came to be led by idiots like Sarah Palin, who is nothing but a strip-tease pole-dancer for the neocon war-porn-kings, and Occupy Wall Street, by focusing on the abstract notion of 1% failed to address the ethnic nature of the power that grips this country. Wall Street got away with massive crimes in 2009 because the globo-Zionist Matrix of Power also control the media, the courts, and the government, thereby providing cover for their financial kin on Wall Street. Also, with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street accusing one another of the same thing — antisemitism — , they were both little more than unwitting servants of Jewish power. Anti-elitists on the ‘left’ tend to yammer half the time about ‘gay marriage’ without realizing that elites pushed the homo agenda to de-economize leftism. With new ‘leftism’ serving gay asses than the working classes, the homo agenda is a neo-aristocratic tool of the elites. When what passes for ‘anti-elitism’ among the ‘leftists’ amounts to rich college girls yelling about ‘vagina’, it’s downright pathetic. Urban hipsterism is supposed to be anti-elitist, but it hangs around rich elites in places like NY, Seattle, and San Francisco. As for the ‘right’, their idea of ‘anti-elitism’ is defending tax cuts for Wall Street moguls, calling for more aid to Israel, and shaking its fist at Russia for not respecting the Pussy Riot, a group funded and supported by globalist elitist Jews. The issue of elitism is further confused because most people who claim to be anti-elitist are really only anti-elite-of-the-other-side. So, alternative rightist types who rail against the elites call for a neo-aristocratic order governed by followers of Carl Schmitt or Julius Evola. And you rarely ever hear any criticism of the likes of George Soros from the ‘left’. And most ‘progressives’ seem to be mum about Obama and his use of the NSA to spy on everyone.)
Most people who come across unorthodox views will deride them as heretical and wicked since their minds have been warped by political correctness disseminated by mass media controlled by the Jewish elites. Besides, it’s difficult to gain power on the basis of truth because truth tends to be abrasive and unpleasant. To gain power, you have to peddle stuff like Oprah, Obama, ‘hope and change’, ‘morning in America’, ‘compassionate conservatism’, and Hollywood movies. You have to master the art of hype, hysteria, and mania. On occasion, a thing of genuine value is commensurate to its fame and popularity — as with the Beatles and THE GODFATHER movies — , but, more often than not, what is popular is a product of the elites giving the masses what they want — formulaic cliche-addled gunk like FORREST GUMP — , with PC dosage slipped into the mix. For example, the masses love big dumb blockbuster movies. But they don’t want to watch a homo-promo film. But suppose a big dumb exciting blockbuster has an idealized homo character? People like loud and brash vulgar comedies, but they may not want to see some interracist sermon film. But suppose a film is chock full of vulgar laughter but also features a happy interracist couple. It’s really so easy to fool the masses. They are just like children. The technique of ‘slippaging’ works.
There’s a good chance of leftism deviating into a form of neo-aristocratism, especially if its leading figures are of a minority. While Jews resented the gentile aristocracy of Europe, they knew that the aristocrats, being educated and cultured, could be manipulated intellectually whereas the superstitious and unwashed masses had less interest in ideas. Indeed, education and intellectualism can lead to further emancipation or further enslavement for those who receive them. A smart and independent-minded person will use knowledge and ideas to expand his own power and freedom, but the dimwits who gain education and knowledge simply become mind-drones of people who are smarter and more powerful than them. It’s like the expansion of reading can liberate or further enslave people. The literate who read and think freely will gain in power, freedom, and independence, but those who are made literate but offered only propaganda as reading material will become even bigger mental slaves of those who provide the books.
In today’s colleges, someone who can’t read might be mentally freer than those who’ve read volumes of PC nonsense. (An idiot conservative might fallaciously deduce the wrong lesson from such observation, i.e. being illiterate is better than being literate. The correct lesson is that conservatives should offer better and more truthful reading materials. Unfortunately, American Conservatism decided that since most intellectuals and academia are Liberal, intellectualism and academics themselves are suspect, which is why Conservatism is now associated with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, and other nimrods. William F. Buckley’s words to the effect that people randomly picked out of a phone book would make better leaders than the college professors encouraged conservatives to be even more yahoo-ish than they already were. Does anyone really think Sarah Palin, a hillbilly Bubba, or run-of-the-mill Detroit Negro would make a better leader?) The modern university is not a center for free thought in many social sciences and humanities departments. Rather, students gain knowledge and ideas to become more malleable and docile to the academic/ideological powers-that-be controlled by Jews, homos, and Liberal white race-traitors. Since Jews don’t wanna be overly visible as the elites, they’ve pushed this homo-promo stuff to fool us into thinking that the elites are homo, when, in fact, homos are merely mini-me of the Jews.
Education and knowledge are like roads and bridges from people to people. So, if you and I share the same set of knowledge, references, allusions, symbols, narratives, legends, myths, and etc. — and of course, language — , we can better understand one another. Consider how the knowledge of the Bible united both the East Coast Brahmins with dirt poor farmers in America in the 19th century. Ideally, the roads and bridges of knowledge and ideas should be a two-way street: others enter our minds with their views, and we enter their minds with our views. Thus, we agree on some things, we disagree on some things, and we try to come to a better understanding of one another. But more often than not, the road/bridge of knowledge is a one-way street whereby the elites come to us with their ideas and images(that we are obligated to open our mental gates to) but shut off the passage of our ideas and images to them or the larger public. So, Jews who control the media fill our minds with ideas and images about poor Negroes who were enslaved by Southern whites, but they close the roads and bridges that would allow stories of black violence, rape, and murder of white folks to reach the larger public. So, we hear so much about the Holocaust but almost nothing of the Jewish role in the mass killing of Christian Slavs under Soviet communism. So, Jews can enter our mental territory through the roads/bridges of knowledge, but we are forbidden to travel to their territory or even to the public territory that should be open to all views and news but is, in fact, controlled by Jewish landlords. Thus, most people who become educated only become ever more brainwashed, more mentally and emotionally enslaved. Some gain fame and fortune — just like extra-docile ‘house negroes’ done get special favors from the massuh — by acting as toadies of Jews; Ken Burns is a good example of a pussy-ass ‘house white boy’ and so is James Carney. And Bill Clinton is the biggest ‘house white boy’ of them all, and Obama is the biggest ‘House Negro’. They’ve done fantastically well by serving Jews and homos. But despite their titles and wealth, they’ll never be anything more than toybots of Jews and homos. To be sure, Clinton and Obama are smart and savvy enough to know what they did and why. If you can be a ‘house white boy’ or ‘house negro’ flying around in Air Force One and with people calling you "Mr. President", that is a fabulous deal. Politicians are whores, so if you’re gonna be a whore, why not be the biggest whore of them all and make it to the presidency by sucking up to Jews. Indeed, the presidential race has become a contest of who-pleases-and-appeases-the-Jews-more?
Anyway, even though the gentile aristocracy in Old Europe were not educated to think favorably of Jews or to obey Jews, the fact that they were educated and cultured meant that they could be intellectually and ideologically played by Jews. People like Marx and Freud won over the gentile intellectuals, not the Archie Bunkers of the world. It’s the educated folks who can be fooled into appreciating something as atrocious as JEANNE DIELMAN. While the unwashed rubes can be awful brutish, stupid, and incapable of appreciating finer things in life, they can sometimes see BS for what it is than someone with a mind cluttered with fancy ideas and images. While a rube might not appreciate Picasso, he’s not gonna fall for Andy Warhol’s "Campbell Soup Cans" either. While a Bunker or Kramden isn’t gonna appreciate 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or ANDREI RUBLEV, he isn’t gonna fall for some crap made by Lars von Trier, Guy Maddin, or Derek Jarman. An educated person can be encouraged to appreciate different and finer things, but he or she can also be suckered into appreciating something because it’s supposed to be so ‘intellectual’, ‘radical’, ‘subversive’, ‘progressive’, ‘bold and daring’, ‘original and innovative’, and yabba dabba doo. Indeed, notice it was the educated/indoctrinated who fell for ‘gay marriage’ first, and it’s the rubes who are resisting it for reasons that are sound(homosexuality can never be the biological or moral equivalent of real sexuality involving men and women) or unsound("God hates fags"). However, the funny thing about rubes is that, even though they are knee-jerkedly the most resistant to radical ideas, once they’ve been made to swallow such, they become the most stubborn defenders. So pagan rubes were most resistant to Christianity, but once they were forced to be Christians, they became most resistant to anything that challenged Christianity.
Anyway, since Jews have been a mind-people, they favored other mind-peoples, at least to the extent their minds could be molded by the presumably superior Jewish mind. So, even if a gentile people were anti-Jewish in their values and attitudes, as long as they were a people of ideas, their ideas could be changed by Jews. Therefore, even though Jews had to challenge Wasp power in America to get to the top, Jews were better able to remold wasp minds than Negro minds. Negroes are not a mind-people but a dong-and-butt people. Negro men like to flex their muscles and fling their dongs all over, and Negresses like to shake their booties and holler like wild gorillas. Most Negroes ain’t into reading and writing and stuff and prefer to be jiving and acting crazy. So, even though Jews and Negroes are political allies in the Democratic Party, Jews haven’t been able to remold black minds as easily as wasp minds. Today, wasps are total mental servants of Jews whereas lots of Negroes still have an attitude that goes, "Jew mothafuc*a, I’s gonna kick yo’ kike ass!" And notice how the yellow drones — Asian-American academic grinds — are among the biggest mental running dogs of Jews. By nature and culture, the Asian mind obeys authority and wants to go along, so we don’t have yellow folks challenging Jewish power in the way that Jews once challenged Wasp power. To be sure, we are speaking of generalities here as there are dumb Jewish drones, and there are yellow folks, like Amy Chua, who happen to be gutsier than most. And there are Negroes who are well-behaved and civil instead of funky-jive-ass.
Though the Jewish mind can be countered by gentile minds, Jews figure that in a mind-vs-mind contest, they will win because they got higher IQ. It’s like a Negro knows that if he goes against non-Negroes in fist-vs-fist contest, he is gonna win because Negroes be badasser and tougher than other races. Jews also know that the mind doesn’t exist alone but in relation to sight & sound that govern emotions of the heart. While the mind is ideally rational, skeptical, logical, empirical, and critical, human thought is often governed and shaped by emotions drawn from sights & sounds. So, the power of the mind can be distorted and shaped by emotions that color the mind. Due to the power of Holocaustianity as the result of TV shows like THE HOLOCAUST, endless PBS documentaries on the subject, and movies like SCHINDLER’S LIST, we cannot approach the issue of Jews with a critical and objective mind. We are colored by emotions derived from powerful images and sounds made holy and sacred, and so, whenever our minds contemplate the power of the Jews, the rational/critical/skeptical/logical/empirical faculties break down. The images from something like SCHINDLER’S LIST makes us feel ashamed to have negative thoughts of Jews since, gee whiz, it must mean we are crypto-Nazis or closet-anti-Semites. Same goes for MLK. Because of the excessive cult surrounding him in image and sound, we can’t discuss him rationally as a historical figure. We must worship him more than even God and Jesus. We must go from whipping Negroes to worshiping Negroes.
So, not only are Jews more adept at mind-tricks and intellectualism, but, with all the money they’ve accumulated, they’ve bought up nearly all the media outlets and entertainment industries that enable them to control the images and sounds that color our mental/intellectual faculties. It’s no wonder that even college professors get all mushy about certain topics because of how their emotions have been manipulated.
Jews are especially powerful in the media and entertainment because they are so shameless and fashion-minded when it comes to culture. While some peoples might reject certain expressions and genres for moral or cultural reasons, Jews will appropriate and market anything — even things they despise — to rake in more cash. So, Jews have even made inroads into American Conservatism. Jews also control the image and sound of Sarah Palin. Jews run much of Talk Radio. Though Hollywood is Jewish Liberal, it will also make the kind of movies that appeal to American Conservatives who dole out the cash. Thus, Jews make money from all sides. Of course, Jews will not go so far as to promote white nationalism, but notice how they’ve appropriated the fascist aesthetics in making all these new kinds of wham-bam pop-fascist blockbusters. Jews approach arts and culture like pawnbrokers: buy and sell anything, even stuff they don’t like, if it makes them more money. Jews also know that if something cannot be sold as an idea, it can be sold as candy or eye candy. In this, Jews are excellent students of the history of Christian power. Though there was an emotionally appealing element to Christianity, its strange story of a God who came as Man and was crucified wasn’t an easy sell, especially to pagan folks who were steeped in warrior virtues. Thus, Christians often spread their Faith not so much through the ideas and teachings of the New Testament but through gifts, song-and-music, medicine, pageantry, and etc. Many pagan princes were won over to Christianity simply because Christians put on an awesome display of power with big Cathedrals, jeweled robes, magnificent art, and etc. And Western missionaries all over the world brought medicine and food to the heathens who were then converted to Christianity not so much because they agreed with the teachings but because the food and medicine were nice. Maybe homos will try to spread their agenda in Africa by doing good works like providing food and medicine for hungry Africans. Of course, Jews have mastered this game. They don’t just try to win over gentiles with ideas and persuasion but by putting on extravagant displays of power. Take AIPAC conferences that are with glitter and glamour. It’s a fancy dog-show for the running dogs. So, even though gentiles are paraded around as little more than dogs, they get all excited and feel flattered because the festivities are so lavish and impressive. They feel like they are being handed Oscars in Hollywood. And even though they are serving Jews at the conference, the thematic vibes of the evening is that helpless and saintly Jews need the support of brave, decent, and caring goyim to protect them from evil Russian, Iranian, Palestinian, and Muslim ‘anti-Semites’ who are maybe cooking up another holocaust. And American Conservatives are made to feel that they’re saving wonderful Jews from American Liberals, and American Liberals are made to feel they’re saving wonderful Jews from American Conservatives. It’s like master with two dogs praising each dog for its greater loyalty — and both dogs falling for the obvious trick. And since Jews know that elites control the power, AIPAC is only concerned with gentiles who go to elite schools and have elite contacts. If Jews control the gentile head, the gentile body will follow. So, gentile elites serve Jewish elites than serve their own people, the gentile masses. The radical leftist notion of molding the masses to be equally smart and equally empowered with the best-and-the-brightest is long dead. Jews — ‘leftists’ and ‘rightists’ — now believe the power is with the elites, and it will always be so. So, the new ‘leftism’ is all about winning over the elites, pressuring the elites, and shaping the elites.
Of course, not all elites are equal in power. While there are white elites, black elites, yellow elites, brown elites, and other elites, it’s Jewish elites who are the real kings of America. And they’ve chosen homo elites as their princes. The other elites serve as Counts, Dukes, Barons, and Earls who do the bidding of the Jewish kings. Just as noblemen served the kings than the people, the neo-noblemen of the goyim serve the Jewish kings than their own people. Just look at the GOP doing nothing to resist the homo agenda. If Jewish kings insist that homo elites are the princes, what are Republican noblemen to do? Disobey the kings? Jewish elites control the gentile elites financially, politically, intellectually, and morally — and even sexually, as the presidency of Obama sent a message that the ‘new normal’ is for white women to become race traitors and mix their own race out of existence in the name of ‘diversity’ and Negro-Jew worship. If Jewish elites tell white elites to love Israel and hate Iran, then white elites will instruct the white masses to do likewise, and most white fools will follow. The gentile news readers in the media just follow the script handed to them by Jews. Brian Williams has the look of a solid Wasp, but he’s just a toy-boy puppet of the Jews. And his daughter is owned by ugly Jew hags like Lena Dunham, which is why she masturbated on TV to show what a ‘liberated’ and ‘empowered’ woman she is. (Now, why would Jews empower gentiles when more gentile power means challenge to Jewish power? What Jews peddle as ‘empowerment’ is the breakdown of gentile power of unity. Jewish power isn’t just individualistic but collective. While individual Jews have lots of talent, Jewish power is the product of all Jews working together. Thus, there is a dualistic nature to Jewish power. It’s both individualistic and collective. But Jews want gentile power to be divided. So, gentile women are ‘empowered’ to hate gentile men. Gentile children are ‘empowered’ to hate gentile parents. Gentile Liberals and gentile Conservatives are ‘empowered’ to hate one another — even though Neocons and Liberal Jews get along just fine. Jews push libertarianism because it atomizes gentile power. Power isn’t a matter of individualism vs collectivism. It’s a combination of both. When a people are overly collectivist or conformist, they tend to lack individualistic power, which is true enough for Asian societies. But when a people are only into individualistic or sub-group power — youth, female, Liberal, Conservative, religious, atheist, and etc. — , they are unable to unite for a greater collective interest. As David Duke said in the "How Zionists Divide and Conquer" video, if one team works together while the other team is divided into individuals, each of whom are into his own ‘empowerment’, the other team will lose. An army is effective because it works as a team. If privates, sergeants, captains, lieutenants, colonels, and generals are all ‘empowered’ separately and against one another, they will lose to the army that is united and focused on working together to defeat the enemy. So, paradoxically, Jews seek to ‘empower’ many gentile sub-groups in order to dis-empower them as a group.) And notice how even the Negro community is beginning to bend over the homo agenda. Blacks are no longer so uppity as they’re ‘bendity’, bending over to the homo agenda since black elites have come under the power of Jews. With pro-homo-agenda-ist Obama as the new face of black leadership, even black masses are bending over to expose their asses to be buggered by the homo elites.
Notice how the common people in the movie are instinctively less trustworthy of the Jew than the ruling aristocrat of the community is. To them, Suss is obviously a snide and sniveling Jew. The corpulent goy nobleman doesn’t trust the Jew either, but being vain and greedy, he comes to value the Jew’s cunning advice on matters of finance, taxes, and laws. The Jew is careful not to attack the entire goy community at once because that will only bring the goy elites and goy masses together. So, he works on the goy elites, winning them over with loans, useful advice, and clever charm. He tries to make himself indispensable to the goy elites. Since goy leaders like to lead a lavish lifestyle that cannot be supported by taxes, they have to borrow from Jews, and that means Jews slowly slither around them like a python. Of course, if they so wished, the goy elites in JEW SUSS could crush and banish the Jews, but then, they’d no longer have a ready source of loans. Also, as aristocrats are bound by a sense of honor, it’s not so simple for them to welch on what they owe to others. And even when goy elites want to spit into the eye of the Jew, their fetish for manners restrain them from acting boorish, crude, and coarse. Jews exploit all these qualities of goy elites. This was why Hitler, a kind of coarse and vulgar Jewishy anti-Semite, could do things that the German elites weren’t able to do. Though German elites were worried about the rise of Jewish power, they didn’t want to come across as boorish and uncouth by speaking out loudly against Jewish power. So, their power ebbed away day by day. Hitler was willing to take on the Jews in a fight-fire-with-fire way. It’s the reason why Rush Limbaugh, Camille Paglia, and Howard Stern gained prominence in the 90s as enemies of political correctness; they were willing to be loud and lewd, something that more traditional conservatives like William F. Buckley weren’t willing to do. (Incidentally, the sly and cunning character of Salieri in AMADEUS is sort of like the Jew Suss character. He too is very clever in playing court politics to gain prominence as the favorite composer of the Emperor. Thus, there’s a duality to his cultural significance. On the one hand, he could be seen as the inferior gentile who is envious of Mozart as the signifier of Jewish genius. On the other hand, he could be seen as the Jew who, in favoring the game of power over purity of vision, can never really touch the stars. This is the paradox of Jewish power, i.e. that the people who were chosen by God fret that they are not the most beloved by God. It’s like the story of the Prodigal Son where the father shows more affection to the ‘bad’ fun-loving son than to the ‘good’ dutiful son. Jews, in being the chosen of God, had to understand God more deeply than any other people did. Thus, Jews became so deeply intellectual that they could never be pure in their emotions like some pagan folks were. Greeks, Romans, and Germanic Barbarians could have great fun with wine and beer and idolatry and bacchanalia. They could even imagine themselves partying with the gods. So, there’s something childlike and animallike about Mozart despite his high intelligence and genius. In contrast, Salieri is always thinking, always fretting, always calculating like Jew Suss. Even though Stanley Kubrick and Bob Dylan were among the greatest artists of the 20th century, something stands between their emotions and their minds. And though Dylan used a lot of drugs in the mid-60s, something pulled him back from the Rock scene and sobered him up. And his music was famous for having a lot to think about. He couldn’t break on through the other side all the way like Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, and Janis Joplin who unleashed all their emotions. Even with Spielberg, there’s an element of calculation despite all the magic and uplift; we know he is playing us like a violin. And even at their goofiest, we know people like Woody Allen, Larry David, and Seinfeld are thinking about their comedy. Even when Jews are most passionate and uninhibited, their mind stands between themselves and their emotions, which is why the orgy scene in EYES WIDE SHUT feels so strange. Even when Jews are most devout before God, their minds stand before themselves and God. But there is no such barrier between Mozart and his music — at least in the movie as I know nothing of the real Mozart. His commitment to music is absolute and total. He may be excessive and irresponsible, but there’s a purity about him. Such kind of total commitment tend to be absent from most Jews. Jews are always looking for angles. For this reason, despite having been chosen by God, Jews could never be totally close to God since they worshiped more with their minds than with their hearts. Thus, the appeal of Christianity was that its followers could surrender their minds and worship God with the purity of their souls. And since the compassionate Jesus showed Himself as the face of God, Christians could accept God as love & peace and worry less about the moral/spiritual contradictions in the Torah, in which God tended to be psychologically unfathomable and manic-depressive. God, being serious, chose the serious Jews to be His chosen. But being so serious, Jews became less fun than many pagan folks in the ancient world. Jews could never abandon their inhibitions and be wild like Greeks who were into nude dancing and Romans were into orgies and piggery. So, pagan folks made more fun and pleasurable stuff, and the hidden heart of the Jew wondered if their God really preferred the fun-loving pagans than the ‘drably’ pious Jews. Even so, Jews felt justified in believing that no matter how pure-hearted the pagans may be, it was in the service of wanton wickedness and sin. In contrast, even if Jews weren’t so pure-hearted, they had God on their side. But then, Christianity came along that fused pagan pure-heartedness with Jewish solemnity. The genius of Christianity was that it made the worship of God ‘fun’ with simple faith and childlike devotion. It fused pagan sensualism with the worship of the Jewish God. It’s no wonder Jews hated Christianity with such passion. Of course, today’s Jews are very different from ancient/traditional Jews as modern Jews at the forefront of spreading homo-stuff, porny stuff, and other hedonistic excesses. Even so, what remains the same is that Jews push all those things not out of pure-hearted belief in their worth but because of their usefulness in controlling the goyim.) So, Jews know that they must gain power step by step. The gradual seizure of power in the US turned out to be a lot more fruitful than the sudden seizure of power in Russia in 1917. Though Jewish Bolsheviks prevailed, the new order led to all the goy communists ganging up on Jewish communists in the end. As communism was anti-elitist, Jewish communists couldn’t rely on elite privileges for long; communism also opened the door to the rise of goy proletariat to the ranks of the elites, and such people tended to be boorish and uncouth.
But prior to WWI and all the disaster it brought, Jews were quietly but fitfully gaining power by working with the goy elites. Jews showed to the goy elites that the latter could get richer and more privileged by doing business with Jews and/or by letting Jews handle their affairs. While the leftist Jews tried to overthrow the old order in the name of the People, most privileged and ambitious Jews find it more advantageous to form close alliances with goy elites. Of course, Jews didn’t intend to serve the goy elites forever. It was the first step toward gaining power over the goy elites. Though Jews were out-competing and destroying many goy enterprises and businesses, they also formed partnerships with many goy elite clients who relied on Jewish expertise and cunning to make them richer. If Jews had sought to suddenly disenfranchise the entire goy elite, the latter would surely have sided with the gentile masses against the Jews.
Of course, since Jews came to control much of the media and education, the masses were also being turned into philo-Semites step by step, and the agenda surely succeeded in the US, where your average unwashed rube is just as pro-Jewish and pro-Israel as any member of the race traitor wasp elite. Nevertheless, even if the unwashed rube is pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish in America, his mind-set is still instinctive and ‘conservative’ than open-minded and tolerant. He is pro-Jewish because the mass media have brainwashed him into believing that pro-Jewish is what American patriotism is all about. One can be pro-Jewish and even pro-communist out of conservative instincts. During the latter days of the USSR, communism became synonymous with Russian nationalism, and many rubes were rabidly pro-communist as a form of patriotism. Same goes for Castro’s Cuba. Because the masses live by instinct and rough passion, their loyalties can shift easily, as when Mark Anthony manipulated a mob from being rabidly anti-Caesar to rabidly pro-Caesar. There was a time when American Liberals tried to paint Hitler as some degenerate closet-homosexual. Today, the ‘gay rainbow’ flag is sold as the new red, white, and blue, and some Americans are even eager to start a new Cold War or even WWIII because Russia doesn’t allow ‘gay pride’ parades. Given such passions, one has to wonder if Liberalism is truly liberal, i.e. open-minded, judicious, thoughtful, rational, critical, skeptical, etc. So many American Liberals have been won over to simpleminded agendas as the result of manipulation of crude passions than due to anything associated with thought or reason.
But even highly educated liberals can slowly become less liberal because, paradoxically, being liberal leads to the pride of being liberal, and the pride of being liberal leads to the conceit of being liberal, and the conceit of being a liberal leads to the moral and intellectual narcissism of being a liberal, and the moral/intellectual narcissism of being a liberal makes a liberal feel he or she must always be so right. Just like the fast hare took its speed for granted and took a nap while the tortoise passed by, it appears many liberals have given up on being truly liberal because their conceit of being liberal no longer requires them to even try. They don’t have to try to be liberal because they are so sure that open-minded liberality comes to them so naturally and effortlessly. But something similar can be said of conservatives. Some conservatives are so sure of their conservative credentials that they don’t even try to study, preserve, and honor the tradition, the heritage, and the past. As a result, so much of conservatism is so lazy and tired.
We must always be mindful of the Way of the Jew. In JEW SUSS, notice how the Jew tries to persuade the nobleman that any attack on himself is also an attack on the nobleman. Jews do the same thing with American gentiles. So, Jews would have us believe that any hostility toward Israel or Jews is an attack on ALL Americans. So, even though Israel has no real importance to US geo-politics — and even though Jews spit in our faces — , we are made to feel that any nation that offends Israel also offends us. What other people have pulled this kind of shit on Americans? Not even the British pulled off something this crazy, i.e. what is bad for Britain is bad for the US, what is good for Britain is good for the US. While US-UK ties have been close(though the only thing both have in common these days is slavishness toward Jews), Americans never believed that anything that offended the Brits also offended us. If anything, US often acted contrary to British interests — as Winston Churchill could well have attested during and after WWII. Consider US stance during the Suez Canal Crisis. Consider America’s refusal to aid and abet British imperialism after the war. And we cannot imagine Iranian-Americans fooling us that any offense to Iran is an offense to Americans. The idea of Russian-Americans or Chinese-Americans convincing us that any offense to Russia or China is an offense to us is laughable. And it’s downright surreal to even ponder the possibility of Palestinian-Americans fooling us that whatever offends the Palestinian people must also offend us. But Jews, with their media, academic, cultural, and financial power, have pushed the notion that whatever offends Jews/Israel must offend us also(even as they never relent from insulting us, mocking us, and reviling us). This is crazy since the so many Jews go out of their way to offend Americans, especially white Americans and extra-especially against conservative white Americans. But all Americans, from the ‘bluest’ state to the ‘reddest’ state, from elites to unwashed rubes, carry on with the crazy fiction that anyone or anything that offends Jews must also offend us. It’s crazy since Jews denounce white conservative rejection of open borders, ‘gay marriage’, and anti-white agenda to be offensive, ‘racist’, ‘neo-Nazis’, ‘ugly’, ‘hateful’, and etc. If we follow the Jewish logic, then white Americans — and especially white conservative Americans — should hate themselves since so many of them offend Jews. If whatever offends Jews should also offend us, that means we should find ourselves offensive since we give offense to Jews. But then, whoever said white Americans — especially white conservative Americans — had much sense?
Whatever sense they once had seems to have evaporated into the thin air.
The traditional white elites of the past, instead of trying to help and uplift the white masses, decided to join secret clubs at fancy colleges and play golf and put on airs. Jews, though resentful of the wasp elites, gradually gained control over the minds of the children of wasp elites who came to despise their own parents. And the new generation of wasp elites came to serve and suck up to Jews and turn up their noses at the white masses. As for white conservative leaders, they opened their gates to neocons(who reconfigured conservatism inside out), went on playing golf, and snubbed the masses of dumb white folks who were only exploited — often with cynical pandering to social conservative issues, such as the bogus ‘prayer in school’ or ‘pledge of allegiance’ nonsense — to cast their votes for Republican whores-weasels whose only real objective was to cut taxes on the super-rich and promote globalism to increase the profits of the rich donor class.
Paradoxically, the rise of secularism made the class divisions even more pronounced. Even though secularism is associated with progress and egalitarianism, its emphasis on intellectualism and education favors the intelligent and cerebral-oriented over everyone else. And even ‘progressive’ secularists, in their pride of greater intellect and knowledge, tend to look down on the unwashed masses who may still believe in God. At least when America was mostly religious, there was shared spirituality and common faith to bind people together. Rich man or poor man, literate or illiterate, east coast or west coast, northern or southern, most Americans worshiped the same God. So, there was a cultural and emotional link among all peoples. Today, as the vast welfare state provides lots of poor folks with material needs, there is no spiritual or emotional link between the mostly secular rich and the poor, no need for Christian charity by the rich for the poor — let the secular bureaucrats take care of the poor. And if the elites do dabble with religion, it’s to manipulate dumb Americans into fighting wars for Israel or believing that Jesus died on the Cross so that homo fecal-penetrators can marry. If Obama is a Christian, then Donald Trump is a communist. Indeed, look at the diverse groups in the Democratic Party, and there’s so little cultural unity and commonality among them: the Jews, Negroes, white working class, Hispanics, homos, Liberal Wasps, feminists, Hindu-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, etc. Can something like homo-worship and ranting about ‘racism’ hold such a disparate group together indefinitely? Do such opinions have long-term spiritual value as unifying symbols or emotions? One is based on the idolatry of perversion and the other is premised on mindless hatred against white folks who are scapegoated for all historical ills. If the GOP were to vanish overnight, I believe the Liberal coalition will break apart almost overnight even if Jews and their mini-me homos try their best to hold it together. The Cold War lasted as long as it did — and brought so many Americans together — because most Americans instinctively saw something wrong and even evil about a totalitarian system that had destroyed millions of lives, created a prison state, forbade freedom of speech and worship, and etc. But can any kind of long-term hatred against Russia(or conservative America for that matter) be sustained by smearing it with the ‘evil’ label of not allowing ‘gay marriage’? Who knows? Maybe if Americans are dumb enough to swallow ‘gay marriage’ from coast to coast and worship homos as the children of god, maybe a new cold war is in the offing. And Jews, with their vast wealth and media power, can sometimes do incredible things, especially as so many Americans are such pathetic sheeple addicted to junk pop culture and PC education. But maybe Jews will overreach in America as they did in Russia in the 1930s and in Iraq in the 2000s. At some point, some Americans are bound to ask, "what the hell is this Jew shit?" Or maybe not. Americans have become so corrupt, childish, and stupid.
Anyway, Jews play the game of power very cleverly. They approach it like a game of chess(favored by Kubrick) or like a con-game(favored by David Mamet). Communist Jews tried to use the masses to overthrow the gentile elites, and capitalist Jews tried to use the gentile elites to keep the masses under the control so that Jews can further extend their tentacles. Since Jews honed their skills through business and Talmudic studies, they got very clever at the game of power. In contrast, since gentile aristocrats were born into privilege and were matched-and-married according to status than ability, their ranks ranged from very smart to very dumb.While smart and capable gentile elites were better able to fend off the Jews than the dumb and lazy gentile elites were — consider how easily Jews ran circles around the likes of Dan Quayle — , even smart and capable gentile elites often fell under the sway of Jews. As smart people tend to be intellectually vain, they like to hang around and win the approval of other smart people. Since Jews are smart and knowledgeable, smart and capable gentiles tended to gravitate toward the Jewish way of seeing the world. It’s like a very smart Polish friend of mine — who actually outperformed most Jews in high school — is slavish to everything Jewish. Even though he calls himself a ‘liberal’, he admits he doesn’t care even the slightest about the Palestinians because he’s so admiring of Jews. His vanity gets its jollies by hanging with smart Jews.
In the past, the risk for Jews working with gentile elites was, when things got bad, the gentile elites might panic and save themselves by scapegoating the Jews for all the problems to pacify the rage of the masses who’d had enough of taxes and economic troubles. But the cult of Holocaustianity has made it impossible in the US and the West to be critical of Jews even when Jews act like scum of the earth. So, nowadays, it’s Jews who scapegoat the gentile elites for everything that goes wrong. So, even though George W. Bush followed the advice of Jewish neocons in invading Iraq, he(and fellow gentiles Cheney and Rumseld)got most of the blame for the misadventure by the Jew-controlled media. And even though Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s handed over Russia to Jews who did much to loot the country, almost no one in the media and academia talks about the Jewish role in the mass robbery of Russia. Instead, Jews place all the blame on Yeltsin for the disaster. Jews would have us believe that Jews are so clean, wonderful, and noble, and always working for the higher good of all humanity, but sadly, their wonderful agendas and policies are messed up stupid goyim like Bush and Yeltsin. Unfortunately, most American goyim are dumb enough to swallow this BS as they are addicted to mass media owned by Jews. When you own a TV, Jews own your mind for it is Jews who control what comes through the TV set. The mass media are one-way roads and bridges where Jews get to load images and sounds into your eyes and ears, and you are nothing but a passive participant of a mass brainwashing campaign coordinated by Jews and their mini-me homos who promote the radical homo agenda, normalize Jewish supremacism, and vilify any idea, feeling, or sentiment associated with white survival, white interests, white heritage, white defense, and white power. Jews seek to upset the sexual norm. The sexual norm for any race is racial survival, and that means the men and women of the race have children together. Thus, Jews don’t like any notion of sexual norms since it will encourage white men to have white children with white women. Jews seek to turn sexuality into some kind of a game of alternative lifestyles where anything goes. If a male anus is a man’s vagina, then sex/sexuality is anything Jews say it is. Anything goes, and that means white people no longer think in meaningful terms. They are decadent dupes of the Jews who seek to control them. Notice how ‘gay marriage’ has been promoted in reference and deference to interracist marriage laws. While one can make a valid argument that the US Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to marry anyone of any race, race and culture have meaning above and beyond the law. Whatever the Constitution says, white people are free to value their own identity, history, heritage, and uniqueness. And those are guaranteed not by the law but by racial consciousness, racial unity, and racial loyalty. Otherwise, the white race will become mulatto-ized, mestizo-ized, and/or mongolized out of existence. While many whites have been brainwashed not to care — indeed even to welcome and celebrate their own demise — , there is still a minority of whites in the West who do care, and the future of the white race depends on them. And the first step toward reclaiming the destiny of the white race must be to name its primary enemy, which are Jews.
Jews, in their shameless Zelig-ish cleverness, will appropriate and extract ideas and images from all cultures to push their agenda. Notice how Jews have extracted certain elements from even Nazi Germany and Soviet Union to formulate ever more effective means of propaganda that manipulate and cajole the irrational part of mass psyche. So, homos parade around as if ‘gayday’ is the new Mayday. And the new antisepticism of the homo image partly draws from the Nazi cult of purity and health. Jews and homos would have us believe that men who indulge in fecal penetration are the new face of purity, health, cleanliness, mental balance, and middle-class values.
If one thing is certain in today’s world and perhaps for the foreseeable future, it’s that ‘leftism’ is now an elitist ideology that mainly caters to Jews and their minions. Whatever one may think about Negroes — I certainly am no fan of the jivers — , one cannot deny that there was something compelling about the sight of black men marching holding placards, "I AM A MAN". Or even though MLK was a fraud, one cannot deny the power of his speeches and the nobility of the sentiments(despite their cynical and willful naivete of hope). In contrast, for the current crop of ‘progressives’ to associate the demand for ‘gay marriage’ with the Civil Rights Movement is the height of decadence, chutzpah, and homoxiousness. But today, we are led to believe that denying homos the right to marry is like homo Jim Crow(or Him Blow). But this is to be expected when Jews speak of ethnic discrimination in wasp golf clubs as having been on par with segregation in the South. So, some millionaire Jew who wasn’t welcome to hit a golf ball around with millionaire wasps is equally worthy of our sympathy as some Negro who had to sit in the back of the bus. When the ‘gay flag’ is hoisted outside Wall Street and when the homo nonsense agenda is the defining ‘progressive’ issue of our age, it should be obvious with anyone with sense that ‘leftism’ is just a brand toy of the elites.
No comments:
Post a Comment