Sunday, September 7, 2014

Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascist Notes on God as Inspiration for Expansion of Thought; the Problem of Jews, Identity, and Modernity(atavism and avant-gard or avantavism); and Some Thoughts on THE MIST(directed by Frank Darabont from a Stephen King Novella) , A.I.(directed by Steven Spielberg), INSOMNIA(directed by Christopher Nolan), and POLTERGEIST(directed by Tobe Hooper) PART ONE.

For PART TWO, Click Here.

Topics discussed: Religion, Richard Dawkins, Jan Assmann, Richard Wolin, 'mormality' or moral-normality, moralistic corruption or 'morruption', ethnic-economics or ethnoconomics or ethnoconomy, Paul Gottfried, ISI, Neocons, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Homomania, ass worship, the appeal of barbarism, Allan Bloom, Rock concerts, Gavin McInnes, homocentrism, Steve Jobs, counterculture, power vs truth, collective nostalgia,'repulgia', slavery, animal nature and human nature, demographic invasion or 'demovasion', California Hug, Excalibur and Gawain and Truth, Archived History and Living History, Rationality of Evil, Adolf Hitler, crazy Jews, Opposing craziness with counter-craziness, the conceit of rationality and sensibleness,Holocaust vs other tragedies, Nakba, Strong Personalty vs Cautionary Personality, Federico Fellini, Ingmar Bergman, Northern European Protestantism, Latin Southern European Catholicism, 8 1/2, Italian Fascism, Sawdust and Tinsel, The Godfather I, II, and III, New Testament, Old Testament, atavism, cosmpolitanism as cultural consumption, leftism from class-centrism to anthropology-ism, Anglo/American brains and Anglo/American balls connection, white guilt vs white geld, Jew Inc., Real Jew vs Ideal Jew, the power paradox among Jews, individual-conservatism, 'decadecency', Kubrick's totalism and Stalin's totalitarianism, nature of phobia vs nature of complex, homo-complex, Alfred Hitchcock, Vertigo, hidden space, subspace, Lifeboat, The Birds, Psycho, The Day(horror film),Preparing for crisis/revolution, THE MIST, Stephen King, Frank Darabont, THE SHINING, Stanley Kubrick, Anglo-protestantism, anemic Anglo culture, cult of rationalism,homo intelligence sharing and intelligence shaming, Holosexuals, the rule of taboos,homocarthyism,Carrie Prejean and indirect blackmail, Founding Fathers, Jewish Narrative,Nakba, homos and Red Square, earthen-ness, shallow homo sensibility and genuine homo talent, terracide, mea-fascism or my fascism, Joachim Fest, NOT I, atavision,Blood and Soil vs Sweat and Toil, Libertarianism and ultra-individualist selfishness,Homosexuality as sexual retardation, Subordination of marriage to decadent individualism,Judaism, Buddhism, philosophy of Nature, mandingo bulls, THE BIRTH OF A NATION, inferiority comfort,black-on-white violence, SPECTACULAR NOW.

Given the evolution of thought and the rise of logic, reason, & science in the modern world, religions aren’t generally associated with intellectualism. And it’s true enough that little that resembles genuine thought arises from religious or spiritual communities anymore. Some stick with old dogmas, some turn religion into crass populism and/or entertainment, and some try to appropriate religion/spirituality to serve some secular agenda — capitalism, socialism, Jewish nationalism, homomania, open borders, and etc.
So, it’s only natural that the likes of Richard Dawkins would see religion — and even all forms of spirituality — as the enemy of the mind, reason, progress, and etc. But then, Dawkins is very confused about this. He excoriates Christians for having defamed and attacked Jews through the ages, but he also reviles the religion that originated from the Jewish community as the most poisonous, pernicious, and destructive in history. That being the case, shouldn’t he argue that Jews would have done better to reject their cultural identity long ago because, after all, Jewishness has no meaning apart from its religious tradition? Even secular or atheist Jews feel Jewish because of the Law of Blood as written in the Old Testament(or Original Testament, as Harold Bloom calls it). It is difficult to critique and condemn aspects of Christianity without likewise attacking Judaism — at least if one were to be intellectually consistent and morally honest — since the ‘problems’ of ‘intolerance’, ‘judgmentalism’, ‘absolutism’, and ‘hypocrisy’ that are found in Christianity are simply a universalization of all the ‘pathologies’ inhabiting Judaism.
The German Egyptologist (with the rather unfortunate name of)Jan Assmann has made just that point to the displeasure of the Jewish writer Richard Wolin. Wolin the Jew is, of course, displeased because his tribal ilk love to point fingers at goyim — especially white gentiles and Middle East Muslims — but hate it when others return the favor. As I see it, the arguments of both Assmann and Wolin are valid but too narrow — though Assmann is to be lauded for the courage of going against the grain of Jewish-dominated media/academic culture; but then, even without Jewish domination, the grave tragedy of the Holocaust has had a tempering effect on gentile scholarship that might otherwise have been more critical of Jewish culture, history, and influence. In the immediate aftermath of WWII, white gentile sympathy and sensitivity were expressions of decency; today, such attitudes are obligatory and mandatory than a matter of conscience as anyone who isn’t properly reverent toward Jews will be targeted and destroyed. Jewish elites use their muscle to turn any critical view of Jewish people, culture, and history as the worst kind of taboo. (As an extra measure, Jews have also promoted homomania to weed out anyone who might be hiding his ‘antisemitism’. Jews figure that white rightism has been the main refuge of ‘antisemitism’, but the problem today is because even white rightists have learned to feign their love for Jews, it’s not so easy to identify the ‘Jew-haters’ since even ‘Jew haters’ all say they love and care for Jews. So, a roundabout way is necessary to smoke out the ‘anti-Semites’. Since white rightism in the West is pro-majority and pro-normality — modes of thought that have been associated with ‘antisemitism’ — , Jews seek to weed out latent ‘anti-Semites’ by targeting the ‘homophobes’ and preventing such people from rising in government, business, and elite institutions. Jews figure that if there are white rightists who oppose the minority elite power of homos, such folks might be closet anti-Semites who also resent the power of the Jewish minority elites. Beside, while white rightists might be willing to hold their noses and pretend to love Jews, it may be too much for many of them to hold their noses and claim to love both Jews and fecal-penetrative homos. Thus, making it obligatory to revere both Jews and homos in order to gain great wealth and power makes it all the more difficult for potential white rightist rivals of Jewish power to climb the rungs of power. Though Jews as 2% of the US population owns 40% of the national wealth, they effectively CONTROL 95% of the wealth — even those of non-Jews — since the ‘moramlity’ controlled by Jews forbid any gentile — no matter how rich and powerful — from funding things that deemed to explicitly serve white interests though, of course, Jews can spend any amount of money on whatever they deem to be pro-Jewish and anti-white. To fully understand how this works, we need to consider the power of ‘mormality’ and ‘morruption’ — moral normality and moralistic corruption. During the Cold War, there was the idea that communism is about ideological dictatorship over the economy whereas capitalism is about free enterprise and free exchange of goods independent of ideology. In other words, to work under communism, you had to morally and ideologically agree with communism and be a good comrade. But in order to work as a capitalist, you could be anything and trade with anyone based purely on mutually beneficial materialistic interest. Also, communism isn’t just an economic system but a totalist system whereby communism must be your ‘religion’, your moral values, your private life, your civic life, your intellectual philosophy, and etc. In contrast, one may limit capitalism to the world of economics while thinking and behaving in other modes in other spheres of life. So, you can be a capitalist at work but a devout Muslim in your cultural community or in the Mosque. You could be a Jewish merchant in the streets but an Orthodox Jew at home or in the Temple. You could be an atheist who loathes religion and religious people, but you could still do business with religious people. You could be black and hate whites but do business with whites, and you could be white and hate yellows but still do business with yellows. And yet, capitalism hasn’t entirely been independent of ideological, cultural, and moral norms/pressures. So, even if a white hotel owner wanted to admit black guests in the Old South, there were cultural and legal norms that worked against such economic freedom. And, the stakes of moral pressure increase as the level of power and privilege increase... though not necessarily for genuine moral reasons. The ruling elites have feared the competition of rivals with different ethnic/cultural agendas, and one way to suppress the rise of the rivals is to use the power of ‘mormality’ or ‘moral normality’. Mormality, as we mean it here, isn’t so much about conventional community values as about elite-enforced norms that are the pre-conditions for doing business and socially mingling at a high level. In Old Europe, one such ‘mormality’ used against Jews was that the rule that ONLY CHRISTIANS could work at the elite level. So, while one could remain Jewish and do certain things, if a Jew wanted to rise to higher ranks or enter certain prestigious professions, conversion was necessary. He had to surrender his Jewishness and submit to the Christian elite order in order to play for high stakes. In the American past, anti-communism was one such ‘mormality’, and Jews came to resent it as an anti-Jewish measure because, after all, many Jewish capitalists had ties to communists, not least because there were lots of connections between Jewish-American capitalists and Jewish-Russian communists. Also, a Jewish capitalist family could have relatives, parents, or children with communist sympathies or connections. So, anti-communist ‘mormality’ would have hobbled certain Jews in climbing to the upper echelons of power in business, government, academia, and media. Jewish anger and bitterness about the ‘McCarthyite’ blacklist were less about ideology and even less about ‘civil liberties’ but almost entirely about Jewish tribal power. Elite society is always exclusive in some ways, and to gain entry, there’s always some degree of hazing and acceptance of codes. And the elites get to decide what the codes of ‘mormality’ are. As Jews and their mini-me homos dominate today’s elite echelons of power, one rule of ‘mormality’ is impassioned support of ‘gay marriage’ and virulent denunciation of anyone who dares to say anything even faintly critical of homosexuality. Even to suggest that fecal penetration among men may not be the most ideal kind of ‘sex’ is condemned as a moral crime almost on the level of Holocaust Denial. Wanna-be-elites must be careful not to commit the sin of homo-wonderfulness denial. You must love Big Bugger just like Winston Smith was made to love Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984. Other current codes of mormality is MLK worship, Jew-worship[the most important of all], cult of racial equality worship, cult of diversity worship, and ‘white guilt’ atonement. Of course, much of this is ceremonial or nominal since one doesn’t really have to practice any of them. You can be a white guy pursuing super-duper white privilege and you can have it... as long as you claim to be troubled by ‘white privilege’ and pledge yourself to ‘doing something about it’— it’s like the Ryan O’Neal character had to show he had proper aesthetic tastes and purchase certain high-priced items in order to be allowed into the elite order in BARRY LYNDON. It’s like every US presidential candidate has to say he will do his best to fix American education even though he knows it’s a fool’s errand that no one can fix. Rule of mormality doesn’t mean you have to really practice what you preach as long as you preach it convincingly enough and shine with the aura of goodiness. Democratic Party and American Liberalism are filled with filthy rich whites, Jews, mulattos, and homos who live it up like kings and queens, but they preach a good sermon about how they’re into ‘equality’. It’s like Google Jews rake in billions every day, but they make ceremonially mormalistic gestures on the Google search pages with icons celebrating homosexuality, illegal aliens, Negroes, and etc. And yet, mormality isn’t entirely toothless. Even though you don’t have to do much, if at all, for the People or the poor masses, you must submit to the Narrative imposed by the top dogs of the elites. In today’s America, they are Jews and their mini-me homos. Also, violation of mormalistic norms can lead to intense shaming and shunning, therefore, your empire will be threatened, as happened with Donald Sterling because the stupid old Jew carelessly spoke all-too-candidly to some bimbo mestizo-mulatto about race. Perhaps, Jewish media made a special example of him to, wink-wink, send a message to all powerful Jews to be MORE CAREFUL WHAT THEY SAY IN THIS AGE OF TWITTER WHERE ANY DUMB ‘SHIKSE’ CAN SPILL THE BEANS ON SUPER-RICH JEWS. Most Jews weren’t really shocked by what Sterling said but by Sterling’s sheer carelessness. It was as if he walked around with his fly open. It’s like if you wanna ‘dick-slap’ a ‘shikse’, make sure the door is closed and don’t make a spectacle of it. It’s like in TWILIGHT: NEW MOON where one of the main laws of Vampires is not to kill conspicuously as it will give the game away to the unwitting humans. It’s like how Vito Corleone was angry with Sonny in THE GODFATHER because Sonny blurted out what was on his mind in the presence of Sollozzo. Donald Sterling spoke TOO CONSPICUOUSLY about how Jewish guys really feel about racial and sexual matters. One thing about mormality is it doesn’t have to be moral, and indeed, it usually isn’t. It’s just a political use/control of ‘moral norms’ to favor one’s allies and to punish one’s rivals. The gangsters of THE GODFATHER are all involved in immoral activities, but Vito Corleone, the head of the most powerful ‘family’, imposes NO NARCOTICS rule as a ‘moral norm’. To be sure, there is some degree of genuine moral concern on his part; he is also correct that expanding into the narcotics business can be risky for organized crime; but his main reason for opposing narcotics as the ‘new norm’ is it become bigger than gambling, which means that the family that specializes in narcotics will grow even more powerful than the family that controls gambling, the Corleones. Different societies have different mormalities since different elites rule them with different industrial stakes. And most of these mormalities have little to do with genuine morality. It’s hard to think of someone as destructive and evil as Mao Zedong in the 20th century, but he is a much revered figure in China because the Communist Party has enforced the Mao cult as the core of the national ‘moral norm’. So, if you’re part of a foreign company that wants to do business in China, you better not mess with the mormality of reverence for Mao. So, we don’t have Google and Yahoo in China spreading anti-Mao messages. Such would go against the ‘mormality’ in China and jeopardize their business arrangements. So, never mind that Mao’s policies killed tens of millions of people and destroyed so much of Chinese culture. As far as the Chinese Communist Party elites are concerned, he is a sacred icon of Chinese Pride, and anyone who dares to violate that ‘mormality’ will not be allowed to rise very high or do business at any high level. If you’re a foreign investor who wants to do major business contracts in Turkey, you better not ‘insult Turkishness’. One ‘mormality’ in Turkey states that blaming Turkey for the Armenian genocide is an evil & immoral act, a defamation of the great Turkish people. Turks react to such accusation as violently as Jews do when someone points out that many Jewish communists were involved in the mass killing of Christian Slavs in the Soviet Union and that Zionists committed the horror of Nakba — massive ethnic expulsion — on the Palestinian people. In Turkey, you won’t get anywhere if you bring up the issue of Armenian genocide for it goes against the ‘mormality’ as imposed by Turkish elites. And in America, you won’t get anywhere if you bring up the issue of Jewish involvement in Soviet communism, Zionist ethnic expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland, and Jewish role in the current crisis in Ukraine. American mormality is so totally controlled by Jews that even for an American politician to refer to West Bank as ‘occupied territories’ — as Chris Christie unwittingly did at the feet of Sheldon Adelson — can get him in hot water. Though mormality is elite-enforced, it spread to the masses because most people are stupid sheeple. The difference between mormalities in Turkey/Israel/China and US & EU is that the former serve majority pride whereas the latter serve minority power. As awful as Mao was, he was for Chinese power and pride. As horrible as the Armenian genocide was, it was about Turkish survival and power. As heartless as Zionists can be, the mormality of Israel is about Jewish majority pride and power. But in US and EU, both of which are ruled by hostile Jewish elites, the mormality promotes the pride/power of Jews, Negroes, homos, and even illegal immigrants over white gentile majorities who’ve been reduced to pansyass pussy-boys. America is in some ways the strangest nation on earth: the richest and most powerful slave-state as white gentiles have essentially been reduced to soul-slavery under Jewish elites who can destroy just about anyone simply because he doesn’t agree with ‘gay marriage’. If one bunch of capitalist elites had to compete purely on the basis of business skills, they can lose out not only to business rivals but to rivals with different political or tribal agendas. In the end, it’s about tribalism than principles. Just consider how Jews change the rules of the game as they see fit to serve their own interests. In the US, Jewish elites resented the anti-communist mormality that had once been imposed by Wasp elites, especially in the late 40s and 1950s. They saw it as a hidden anti-Jewish measure. But in the case of Russia in the 1990s, Jewish-American controllers of Big Media were full of praise for Boris Yeltsin’s harsh clampdown on Russian Communists who stood in the way of the Jewish oligarchical takeover of the economy. Though Jews had played a decisive role in the early days of Bolshevism, Russian communism had come to be a Russian affair with anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist overtones. Thus, by the 1970 sand 1980s, most Russian Jews were Liberals or anti-communist, and in USSR, communism came to be associated with ‘anti-Jewish-ism’. So, even as American Jews still bitch about the ‘rabid’ and ‘paranoid’ American anti-communists of the 1950s, they were bitching about the resurgence of Russian communists in the 1990s. The Jew-run media even cheered Boris Yeltsin when he used brute force to quell Communist resistance to his ‘market reforms’ that favored the Jewish oligarches. So, whether it’s pro-communism or anti-communism, Jews are really concerned about "But, is it good for the Jews?" If indeed, American communism in the 1950s had been led by white gentiles and had railed against ‘blood-sucking Jewish capitalist parasites’, Jews would today praise Joseph McCarthy as a great man who stood up for the wonderful Jews. Anyway, it’s obvious from such examples that ‘mormality’ is a strange thing. Jews revile anti-communism in America as ‘rabid’ and ‘paranoid’, but they hailed Yeltsin’s strong-arm tactics against communists in the Russian parliament in the 1990s. Since Jewish oligarches had most to gain from Yeltsin’s drunken ‘reforms’ — advised by American Jews — , Jews were entirely onboard with his anti-communism. The Jew-run media in the 1990s labeled Russian communists as the ‘conservatives’ who deserved to be crushed so that Russia could make ‘liberal progress’ toward Jewish oligarchic rule. Anyway, because of the legacy of Jewish anti-anti-communism in the US, one can do big business in the US even if one has or has had ‘far leftist’ ties. Also, ‘far leftist’ intellectuals can work in elite colleges or can have their books published by mainstream companies. People with ‘far left’ background can become millionaires or billionaires, and they can fund all sorts of ‘far left’ movements. To be sure, if a group is both ‘far left’ and overtly anti-Jewish, that’s a no-no. But, if some Jewish billionaire is found out to have been a fan of Che Guevara or Mao Zedong in his college days, he’s perfectly safe and fine. Indeed, anyone who brings up his past will be smeared of ‘rabid anti-communist McCarthyite paranoia’. Since so many Jews have leftist backgrounds, such tolerance of ‘far leftism’ helps Jewish power. But if any rich guy is exposed to have had ‘far right’ sympathies in the past, he can be destroyed overnight no matter how rich he may be. He can be shunned, lose all his business connections, be attacked 24/7, and be smeared endlessly by the Jew-run media machine. The only way he may save himself is to get on his knees, weep, grovel, pull out his hair, and donate 50% of his wealth to Jewish causes, homo causes, and Negro causes. And praise Israel to high heaven. Billy Graham isn’t a ‘far right’ figure, but he did say some critical things about Jews when he met with Nixon. When his conversation went public, he wet his pants and groveled before Jews like Paul Newman in COOL HAND LUKE pleaded with the boss to stop hitting him no more. It was a sorry sight. Recently, some actors and actresses dared to voice their concerns about the Zionist massacre of Palestinians in Gaza, but it wasn’t long before they got in hot water for having violated the rules of mormality as devised by Jews in America. Penelope Cruz discovered that a bunch of Hollywood agents and producers vowed never to hire her again. Now, such a brazen blacklist seems rather odd since one of the great moral fables of Hollywood revolves around the so-called ‘Hollywood Ten’ during the ‘McCarthyite’ blacklist era. And yet, the very Jews who still vent about the ‘civil liberties’ of Stalinists are now pledging to destroy anyone who dares to condemn the bloodbath in Gaza perpetrated by Jewish supremacists. So, you see, mormality has little to do with real morality. It’s the political use of morality for the sake of elite control. Jewish community was never against the idea of the blacklist or guilt-by-association, and it was never particularly sympathetic to communism either. Rather, there was a time when considerable number of Jews were either communists, communist-sympathizers, or fellow travelers, and so, the Jewish community saw anti-communism as being Bad for Jews. But when blacklisting and destroying people through smear campaigns are good for Jewish power, Jews are 100% for them. Here’s a good example of how mormality works. There was a recent brouhaha over how Facebook donated a measly $10,000 to some politician who opposed ‘gay marriage’. As we know, $10,000 is a measly drop in the bucket, especially when Facebook has already donated $100s of millions to the pro-homo agenda. And yet, there’s this hysteria about how Facebook did something so horrible!! Similarly, if someone donates a million to the ‘far left’, the rules of mormality requires you to remain mum because if you sound the alarm, you’ll be labeled as some paranoid neo-McCarthyite who has no place in the current system. But if someone donates just a single buck to the ‘far right’, the rules of mormality requires us to attack the donor and do everything to destroy his business and organization by any means necessary. According to current mormality, it’s perfectly wonderful to make believe that a male anus is like a vagina that is meant for fecal-penetration by the penis. We are to make believe that two guys or two women indulging in a perverse form of sexuality are ideal parents — even though homosexuality never produced any life. But if someone believe that the male anus is the wrong sex organ and thinks marriage should be meaningfully wedded to biological facts and moral consequences, he is to be tarred-and-feathered and destroyed by government, media, and business. This the how the Jew-run order works today. Or consider how Gavin McInnes has been suspended for his remarks that trans-gender stuff is crazy because it’s not normal for people to undergo radical surgeries to become the other sex. Agree or disagree, one is not even allowed to express such views according to the current mormality. Today’s homo elites are like hardline Muslims in Turkey and Egypt. Initially, hardline Muslims living under a secular regime say that the only thing they’re asking for is to be Muslims in their own spaces. But once Muslims gain more power, they say they should be allowed to practice Islamic norms in public life. And once they gain elite power, they try to impose Muslim ways on everyone and go after heretics. Same goes for homos. At first, they said they just wanted to be left alone to be homo. Then they said they want to be openly homo in the public sphere and have laws specifically protect ‘gay rights’. And today, they want to impose homo-worship on everyone, indeed to the point where anyone who has negative opinions about homos must be purged and destroyed. Today, those who indulge in shameful sexual acts are shaming us for not praising their acts such as fecal penetration or mutilating/amputating body parts to become the opposite sex. Homos are naturally bitchy and narcissistic, and the real homo nature has finally reared its ugly head. But homos on their own would never have gained such power, just like the Tataglias could never have outfought Sonny in THE GODFATHER. Tataglias had Barzini to back them up — just like the Rosato Brothers were backed up by the Jew in Miami, Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER PART II. Homos became immensely powerful because they were favored by the all-powerful Jews. In this, homos are just like Obama, which is why Obama and homos naturally identify with one another; both love to take it up the ass from Jewish power. Recently, Paul Gottfried was the target of mormality when he was purged from a Conservative organization that was taken over by Neocons. It’s somewhat amusing since the organization wasn’t a major outfit like Heritage Foundation but a very small one unknown to most people and with almost no impact on American politics. But Neocons still spread their tentacles to take over and exert pressure to be rid of crime-thinkers such as Paul Gottfried who never suffered fools gladly. Though Neocons are said to have Trotskyite roots, their actions are downright neo-Stalinist and Michael-Corleone-like. Remember when Tom Hagen rebuked Michael in THE GODFATHER PART II for wanting to ‘wipe everyone out’ even though the Corleones had already won? It’s not enough for Neocons to have taken over American Conservatism; they must go after all the old rivals and wipe them out totally, even in a pipsqueak outfit like Intercollegiate Studies Institute, or ISI. If Negroes are about "let the good times roll", Neocons are about "let the rival heads roll". Of course, it was easy to pull off since Gottfried is a race-ist who publicly admits to believing in possible racial differences. Though most sensible people do believe in racial differences, it goes against the grain of mormality to admit it in public. It goes to show that mormality is less about truth, courage, and honesty than about conforming to the standards of permissible thoughts or conduct as prescribed by the elites. Of course, the forces of PC can say Paul Gottfried’s rights haven’t been violated since he is still free to believe what he believes and speak as he wishes. Rather, an organization has merely exercised its freedom and right to cut off ties with a certain individual. Technically, this is entirely correct. If you are head of an organization and if a member of the organization acts the fool, talks shit, or says crazy things, you have the right to get rid of him. And by firing him, you would not be denying his right to free speech. No organization should be compelled to keep on members who’re deemed to be offensive or contrary to the spirit of the organization. If Heritage Foundation discovers it has a member who believes that Stalin and Mao were the greatest conservatives of the 20th century, it has every right and even obligation to drop the fool. If a Jewish organization discovers it has in its rank some crazy nut who thinks Hitler was actually a friend of Jews and that the Holocaust is ‘holohoax’, it has no obligation to keep him on as a member. And indeed, conservatives have been arguing forever that any organization should have the freedom — from government interference — to decide who gets to be included and who gets to be excluded. All true enough. But, the problem in a so-called free society is that power is never equal, and some higher organizations exert far greater power than others who are effectively forced to toe the line as well. Also, all organizations depend on donations and/or government support. So, rules of ‘mormality’ as shaped by the elites can have a repressive factor on other elite organizations and non-elite organizations. Thus, many organizations will act against their own values, principles, and core convictions just to conform to the ‘mormality’ and survive. They will act more out of fear than of freedom. In the case of Gottfried, his ouster was motivated mainly by fear and cravenness. To be sure, the power of elite-imposed ‘mormality’ can be challenged, and it happened in the 1960s when radical boomers, angry Negroes, and their sympathetic professors waged a rowdy war against the liberal establishment academia that was thought to be too ‘bourgeois’, ‘privileged’, ‘elitist’, and ‘reactionary’. Though elites are powerful, they are also cowardly and get nervous in the face of mass rowdiness, especially in a democracy where key elements of the media might side with the rowdies who are seen as the ‘underdogs’. So, when students took over administration buildings, when black students threatened violence, and when anti-war demonstrations broke out on campus, many elite college deans just caved into the demands and went into appeasement mode. Today, if masses of conservative students were to act in a similar manner in colleges across the nation, many elites would be shuddering in fear and will cave into their demands. After all, notice that Liberals, for all their anti-religious bitching, almost never make fun of Muhammad or do something that might set off Islamic fury. When a bunch of degenerates debase Christianity by putting on a play about ‘gay’ Jesus, Liberals laugh along and support such freedom of expression. But if someone burned a Koran, it would be denounced by Liberals as ‘hateful’, ‘ugly’, and ‘extreme’. Why is this? It’s because Liberals are afraid of crazy Muslims — also because they hate the Christian Right even more. If Christians acted like angry Muslims, there’s no way Hollywood and Liberal elites would dare mock Christianity and Jesus. Indeed, there was a time in America when white people did get angry and use violence against those who defamed or demeaned their sacred icons. Back then, even Liberal Jewish Hollywood dared not put down white Southerners. So, the elite power can be countered, but it takes a lot of anger, passion, street violence, and storming the ivory towers, as happened at places like Columbia University and Cornel in the 1960s when radical Jewish students and black students used storm-the-Bastille violence and intimidation. The putz-putsch or putzch. Today, conservatives are powerless because they not only lack the power of elite ‘mormality’ but because they don’t know how to use mass violence against the ivory towers. This is why PC is so invested in inculcating students with sheepish worship of ‘progressive’ sacred cows. That way, students with conservative views will be nipped in the bud on colleges. They will be spotted and attacked the minute they raise their heads or voices in colleges. Thus intimidated, they will never think to unite and storm the ivory towers as radical leftist students and angry Negroes did in the 60s. But, if you don’t control the mormality, the only way to gain power is to use ‘spontaneous’ mass violence and intimidation against the elites that are essentially cowardly when confronted face-to-face with rage and passion. I mean how many Jews in Hollywood are thinking of making a funny movie about Muhammad? They are so afraid of Muslims targeting them and their families or burning down movie theaters around the world that they dare not even think of such a thing. So much for Liberal courage when it comes to mocking religion. Muslims don’t have much in the way of elite power of ‘mormality’ around the world, but they are livid with mass rage and violence, even to the point where no Liberal will dare to burn a Koran or make a movie about Muhammad. Conservatives defend gun rights and buy a lot of guns, but they have a bunker mentality. They are like the French on the eve of the German invasion during WWII. They just hunker down as if pure defensiveness can save them. But the only way to fight any war — and there is a Jewish War on the White Race just like there is a Jewish War against Palestinians and Russians — is to fight both defensively and offensively. You have to defend your position but also attack enemy positions. It’s like no football team ever won by only playing defense. No boxer ever won a fight by only trying to hide from blows without landing any against the opponent. Conservatives must come out their bunkers. And while their bunkers may be defended with guns, the enemy bastions of power must be attacked on foot. There needs to be massive rallies on Harvard, Yale, and etc. Conservatives must storm the administration buildings that enforce PC tyranny on the student body and force conservative students to hide in the closet. There must be massive marches in favor of true marriage. There must be discussion of Jewish power and privilege, and American white folks must come to realize and state that JEWS ARE THE ENEMY. Of course, it doesn’t mean EVERY JEW is an enemy, just like during WWII not every Japanese or German was an enemy as many Japanese detested the military government and many Germans detested Hitler. Nevertheless, the great majority of Japanese had supported Japan’s aggression, and the majority of Germans had come to cheer for Hitler. So, generally speaking, Germany and Japan were enemies of the Free World. Today, there’s no question that most Jews are indeed the enemies of the white race, and this truth must be admitted and addressed. Jews fear white mass power, and their cynical use of media reflects this. When ‘progressive’ forces — controlled by Jews — use street violence, protest, intimidation, interruptions, and brutishness in order to be heard, the Jew-run media say it’s all about ‘freedom of speech’, ‘freedom of expression’, ‘what America is all about’, and etc. Recall how the media covered the black march in support of ‘Jena Six’ thugs. Recall the hateful virulence of the Liberal protests during the GOP convention in 2004 in New York. In contrast, consider the mild-mannered Tea Party protests in 2009. The media went ballistic and compared the Tea Party with Nazi rallies and the KKK. When Democratic politicians use the worst kind of demagoguery at Democratic conventions, it’s called eloquent and inspiring, but when Pat Buchanan gave an impassioned speech at the 1992 GOP convention, it was attacked as Hitlerian and Nazi-eaque. So, even though Jews mock white gentiles as ‘white bread’ and ‘bland’, when a white guy shows some real passion and conviction, he is attacked as ‘Hitler-like’ and ‘demagogic’. The Jewish War on the White Race means that whites are always wrong no matter what. If conservatives acted at Democratic conventions like Liberals, ‘progressive’ radicals, and blacks act at Republican conventions, the Jew-run media would not defend conservative behavior on grounds of ‘free speech and expression’ and ‘what America is all about’. The way the Jew-run media cover Conservatives and Liberals is like the difference in the media coverage of Palestinians and Zionists. Palestinians shoot bottle rockets at Israel and kill almost no one, whereas Israel drops heavy-duty bombs on Gaza and kills thousands. And yet, the Jew-run media make it seem as though helpless Jews are defending themselves against all-powerful and threatening Palestinians. Palestinians are condemned for refusing to recognize the right of Israel to exist, but the Jew-run media sweep under the rug the fact that Israel was founded on the principle that Palestine has no right to exist — and that Zionist Occupation even denies Palestinians in the West Bank a right to have a Palestinian state. Also, while the Palestinian side is always associated with Hamas, an extreme organization, it’s hardly mentioned that Israel is run by the ultra-nationlistic Likud Party. We are given the impression that it’s about Hamas vs Israel. The media will never depict the conflict as being between Palestinians and the extremist Likud party that is hellbent on ethnically expelling all Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. Of course, Russia and Putin gets the same treatment. We are all Putins now. Just ask Gavin McInnes who got the Putin-treatment because he criticized the trans-gender community. This is why it’s so pathetic that Americans most slavish to Israel are white Conservatives. American Jews do to white Conservatives what Zionist Israelis do to Palestinians, but white American Conservatives praise Israel and denounce Palestinians. While scumbag Liberal Jews demean and defame white American Conservatives as neo-Nazis, neo-KKK, and perpetrators of ‘War on Women’, Neocon Jews pass out the thirty pieces of silver to white Conservative politicians who act the Judas and pass out ‘made-in-China’ Israeli flags to American Conservative masses of dummies. Even the supposedly conservative Mormons in Utah are now with ‘gay marriage’ because the Jewish empire of Goldman Sachs decided to open up its office in Salt Lake City. Jewish media power and Jewish money rule over. Since Mormons wanna do business with Jews and since the price of the privilege of doing business with billionaire Jews is to submit to their favored ‘mormality’, even supposedly conservative Mormons are bending over to ‘gay marriage’, the premier item of ‘mormality’ pushed by Wall Street Jews today. If you want favors from Wall Street, you better bend over its Mammonic mormality of sacred ass worship. MLK iconography, Holocaustianity, and homomania ass-worship all work to undermine white pride, white confidence, and white power. All three say that white people need to surrender their conservatism and heritage since such stand for nothing but ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘homophobia’; therefore, the ONLY way white folks should be allowed to become rich and privileged in the new order should be by ‘spiritually’ bowing down before Jews, homos, and mulattos handpicked by Jewish supremacists. Of course, dirtbag Mormon elites say they are not agreeing with ‘gay marriage’ but only choosing not to fight it; but, the refusal to fight an evil is surrendering to evil. And ‘gay marriage’ is a great evil. Indeed, it’s an especially insidious kind of evil because it’s wrapped in some nice-sounding ideas. There’s the stuff about how homos wanna settle down and be like regular married people, how they want to be committed and responsible, how it’s about rewarding of love, and what is wrong with love? Yes, on the surface, some of the justifications for ‘gay marriage’ certainly sound nice, but if we cut through the crap, it’s a debasement of the true meaning of marriage, the most fundamental moral basis for civilization, by fooling ourselves that homosexuality is the biological and moral equivalent of real sexuality and real marriage. No matter how much it is packaged in the glitzy cult of niceness, the idea of ‘gay marriage’ is an equation of falsehood with truth, and it reduces marriage, the greatest and most fundamental civilizational institution, into an insipid lifestyle redefined by the likes of Lady Gaga and Andrew Sullivan who probably had a tubful worth of Negro sperm shot up his fecal hole. If this is what Liberals think of marriage, current Liberalism is shallow, trashy, vile, and evil. And if increasingly numbers of American Conservatives are embracing this sort of degeneracy out of fear & cowardice, hunger for popularity according to the new ‘mormality’, money & greed, and/or libertarian shallowness, American Conservatism is rotten and worthless. It’s about assenting to mindless conformism, the almighty dollar dictated by elite mormality, and Jewish supremacism that’s been the true driver behind the homo agenda. It’s one thing for Christian Conservatives to say that Jesus was about forgiveness and offered the possibility of redemption to everyone, but it’s totally something other to demean what He stood for by claiming that He died on the Cross for something as demented as ‘gay marriage’. Indeed, that is crueller to His memory that what the Romans did to Him physically. Jesus could take the blows on His flesh, but the notion that His life was about ‘gay marriage’ is a desecration of the very spirit of what Jesus stood for. Of course, we don’t need Jesus or Christianity to see what’s wrong with the filth of the homo agenda. Just take a shit and tell yourself that a penis belongs up your fecal hole. Or, if you’re a guy, watch someone take a shit and then insert your penis into the hole that produced several pounds of shit. It’s one thing for a free society to permit such behavior in the name of individual freedom and tolerance, but when people are obligated – on the threat of being fired and blacklisted – to not only tolerate but to praise such behavior as being of equal biological and moral worth as the norms around real sexuality, I would say we are living in an evil Jew-homo supremacist system. But so many people are blind to this utter corruption because they are under the power of ‘morruption’ or moralistic-corruption. Moralistic corruption is not to be confused with moral corruption. We all know moral corruption when we see it, as when politicians take bribes, preachers say one thing but do another, students cheat on exams, and etc. In contrast, moralistic corruption or ‘morruption’ happens when our moralistic commitment to a certain cause or issue blinds us to our own corruption, especially in relation to our moralistic agenda that, incidentally, may not be all that moral. After all, we can be moralistic about immoral things, and genuinely moral things can be made to seem immoral. In this, morruption is related to mormality. Mormality made the homo agenda the biggest moralistic issue in the West, and, as a result, so many Westerners now see the world in terms of the Good who bend over to homos and the Bad who refuse to do so. Ass worship has become so feverish in the West that many Westerners are in a moralistic crusade to spread Ass Worship around the world. Such is deemed so very VITAL AND IMPORTANT that their proponents are blind to the moral degeneracy of the homo agenda and even more blind to their own morally dubious and corrupt ways of spreading their agenda. But it’s worse than the notion of ends justifying the means because, at the very least, people who operate in that mode are still troubled by the fact that they’re resorting to illegal or unethical means for ‘higher’ ends. In the case of morruption, the delirium of moralistic self-righteous is so hysterical that even the means that are clearly illegal, immoral, dubious, and demented are seen as utterly wonderful and justified. It’s nihilism meets moralism. Those into morruption get a nihilistic high from breaking ethical rules to serve their moralistic ends. With the homo agenda crowd, such morruption comes easily enough because their highest value/goal/end is clearly demented. When one’s highest moral consciousness is rooted in the notion that fecal penetration among men is of equal biological and moral value as real sexuality between men and women, one isn’t very from nihilism to begin with. Also, homos are, by their nature, a vain and shallow people. If you or I am not liked by other people, we’d say ‘what the hell’ and get on with our lives. But narcissistic, hissy, bitchy, vain, and floopy-doo homos take umbrage at the notion that not everyone finds them so lovely, darling, pretty, fancy, beautiful, and ooh-lala. Homos were born with pink totalitarian genes, and it’s no wonder that so many homos served the royalty and nobility with fancy fineries and luxuries. Homos are not so much about "we want the freedom to love one another" as about "all of you better love us!" Homocentrism is like the Jewish cult of the Chosen People. During the Sochi Winter Olympics, consider all the blatantly false reports sent by pro-homo ‘journalists’ and ‘reporters’, homos and straight alike. How could they lie so easily and brazenly? Because they were so into Ass Worship that they found Putin’s Russia to be more evil than the old Evil Empire of Soviet Union days. Never mind that homosexuality is legal in the USSR and there are plenty of homo bars and clubs. But that’s not enough for the homo agenda crowd. Russia must allow homo pride parades down Red Square. Russia must teach students that’s it’s biologically and morally wonderful for guys to stick their penises into the fecal holes of other guys. Because Russia refuses to bend over to such demands, the Western pro-homo radical relishes in the orgasmic ecstasy of gang-raping the truth and ejaculating lies into the portals of Facebook and Twitter. We keep hearing that Russia has ‘appalling human rights record’, but all it really means that Russia won’t bend over to the demands of the homo agenda that is really a proxy for Jewish supremacism. And though some might argue that it’s all just a ‘misunderstanding’ on the part of Jews about ‘pro-Czarist’ Russia, the fact is Jews fully understand what they’re doing and why. There is no misunderstanding. Jews want to take over Russia, and they’ve chosen issues like the homo agenda and the Ukrainian crisis — stirred up with American dollars in the hands of Jews like Victoria Nuland — to make Putin out to be the new Hitler. Saying that the current Jewish hostility toward Russia is due to a ‘misunderstanding’ is like saying Jewish antipathy toward Wasps in America and the Zionist war against Palestinians were based on a ‘misunderstanding’. In truth, Jewish war on Wasps, Jewish war on Palestinians, and Jewish war on Russia have all been based on Jewish agenda of total power, and the fact is Jews will cook up and spread any amount of lies to serve their supremacist agenda. Though some naive and ignorant Jews may be clueless about what’s going on, Jewish elites know full well what this is all about. It’s not about human rights but about Jews using a debased form of ‘human rights’ hysteria to gain control of Russia like they gained control of US, UK, and Palestine. When Netanhayu and Sheldon Adelson lie about nuclear program in Iran, there is no ‘misunderstanding’. No, those filthy Jews know full well what they’re up to and why. It’s all about "Is it GREAT for the Jews?" If a repressive/tyrannical nation is pro-Jewish or with the Zionists, Jews are mum about its human rights record. But if the nation happens to stand in the way of Jewish supremacism, then it is smeared with charges of ‘appalling human rights’ record. UK is a nation where people are arrested in the middle of the night over twitter posts, yet do we hear Jews bitch about it’s ‘appalling human rights’ record? Of course not and why not? Because Jewish oligarches own the UK and use British politicians as their poodles or Jewdles. Consider what Jews have done to Palestinians. Consider how Israelis and Jews in the US have aided and abetted rebel groups in Libya and Syria to subvert and undermine the entire region so that Muslims/Arabs will fight other Muslims/Arabs.. But are Jews and Israel accused of ‘appalling human rights record’ by the Jew-run media for all these dirty tricks? The recent war on Gaza was so extreme that some journalists did cry foul on Israel, but if any nation had done that to Jews, you can bet US government would have declared war on that nation and bomb it back to the stone age. The most that Gazans got was token expressions of sympathy from a handful of American reporters. As for news writers who handed Diane Sawyer the false report that the images of bombed-out Gazans were those of Israelis or as for the newsroom executive who pulled a reporter from Gaza for reporting Palestinian casualties on the ground, I wonder if they face the prospect of losing their jobs. Of course not. They will not only be forgiven but favored for future promotion for having shown loyalty to Israel and Jewish supremacism. There’s a kind of ecstasy in ‘morruption’ that easily blind the ‘morrupt’ to their own lies and abuses. Also, in the age of hipsterism, subversion-ism, and radicalism, there’s an element of Cool Chic in hoodwinking others to get on with the program. Indeed, the thrill of having ‘played’ others is how the ‘truth’ is enjoyed as a sensation. The most sociopathic elements of Jewish con-man mentality and black slickity-slack jivery have come to infect the minds and inflect the styles of white Liberals. Though many white Liberals are overly earnest and naive in their childlike commitment to PC morality, they like to see themselves as hip, cool, slick, & ‘radical’, and this feeling of ‘truth’ comes from the hipster nihilism of telling lies to serve the ‘higher truth’. It’s like the scene in Geoge Lucas’ AMERICAN GRAFFITI where the Richard Dreyfus character, as a means to winning approval from the cool street gang, takes part in stealing from a pinball shop and rigging the wheels of a police car. It doesn’t matter that he’s doing wrong; what matters is he feels ‘true’ because he has the approval of the ‘cool’ crowd. Dorky and shmorky white Liberal boys and girls also want to be considered as hip and cool, and to earn such credentials, they love to pull stunts to win the approval of Jews, homos, and Negroes. So, it didn’t matter that such Liberals told total lies about Russian facilities during the Sochi Olympics. As long as what they won the approval of the crowd that is hip to the Pussy Riot, they felt so ‘true’ and ‘alive’, in rhythm with the vibes of ‘progressivism’ as a rave party. It’s a form of corruption, but their moralistic hysteria peppered with amoral hipster nihilism blinds them to their own rottenness. Same goes for the current Ukraine Crisis. Surely, there are many journalists and commentators in the West who know that the Jewish-supremacist US-led narrative is full of BS. So, why do they go along with the BS? Part of the reason is fear of their Jewish bosses who will fire them or deny them promotion. But it’s also because the current mormality has made the homo agenda such a sacred cow among spiritually soulless Western ‘progressives’. Western ‘progressives’ crave a feeling of righteousness and holiness, but they deny God and are troubled by the truth as truth often undermines the basis of one’s righteousness — truth is never on one’s side all the time. Since Western ‘progressives’ reject God and their own racial & cultural heritage/identity, they need some ‘holy’ cause to cling to. It’s like a junkie craving another fix. And in the West, the Jewish elites have made homomania and ass worship the most sacred things at the moment, and so, most Western ‘progressives’ are crazy about all this homo business. Western ‘progressives’ hate Russia more today than they ever did during the yrs of communism, even when Stalin and his Jewish henchmen were leveling tens of thousands of churches, setting up the Gulag system, and killing millions. They hate, hate, and hate Russia because it won’t completely bend over to the holiest cause of the West today, which is homomania and ass worship, which, by the way, Jews prefer over class warfare since there are so many Jews in the top 1%. Indeed, no social cause/movement has been as lavishly funded by the 1% as ass worship and homomania have been. Silicon Valley and Wall Street have poured in hundreds of millions into ass worship and homomania, and even so-called Mormon conservatives have chosen to defacto accept ‘gay marriage’ so as to welcome Goldman Sachs to Salt Lake City. So, if any ‘leftist’ says he’s for homomania and ass worship, we need to see him for what he is: a dupe, a tool, or an idiot. Homomania isn’t meant to serve leftism but to undermine leftism from within by making the masses serve the asses of fancy-pants homos who are allied with billionaire Jews who fear a real class warfare. Most so-called ‘leftists’ really care more about TV shows, pop music, and movies more than anything else, and they gravitate toward Jew-homo elites since the latter are so closely associated with pop culture industry and identity. Anyway, because ass worship and homomania have become such sacred cows in the West, most Liberal reporters feel utterly moralistically justified in telling and tolerating any amount of lies to bring down Putin’s Russia. It’s been said that some causes are so important that we must sometimes suppress the truth in favor of falsehood for the sake of the cause. For example, the West told many lies during World War II, but as the bad guys were the Nazis and the stakes were too high, lies-over-truth wasn’t only justified but NECESSARY to defeat a Great Evil. In some cases, this is true enough. But the Nazification of whatever-Jews-don’t-like has turned become a very bad habit. So, if Saddam Hussein is said to be the ‘New Hitler’, the media figure any amount of lies is okay as long as it serves to rid the world of Adolf Hussein and turn Iraq into a shining democracy. So, if white ‘racism’ is equated with Nazism, then anything is justified and necessary in order to combat ‘racism’. So, any amount of lies about black crime must be favored over the truth to support the Narrative. Any amount of lies must had to be told and any amount of truth had to be swept under the rug to make Obama the president in order to cleanse this country of the ‘original sin of slavery’. And since Holocaustianity is our collective religion, any amount of lies must be told about Jews so that we will love, love, and love Jews and never ever their doubt their holiness. Today, since Putin is the New Hitler because Jewish supremacists see him as an obstacle for Jewish takeover of Slavic territories, the Western Media feel that any amount of lies is justified and even morally necessary to bring him down. Of course, since the Cold War is a thing of the past, there should be no real reason for anyone in the West to hate Putin and Russia. And most Americans wouldn’t have cared.. But once homomania and ass worship became the new secular religion in the West, Putin suddenly became the New Hitler because he wasn’t with the program on ass worship and homomania. Suddenly, there was intensely passionate hatred against Putin. At one time, since the West was so deeply immersed in the new religion of Holocaustianity, Jews only needed to invoke ‘antisemitism’ to convince the West to hate Russia for its treatment of Jews. But Putin has been very friendly toward Jews, so Jews could no longer use the Jew-card to vilify him. But as ass worship and homomania have become the new red-white-and-blue of American patriotism, morality, and spirituality — what with even Christian churches signing onto ‘gay marriage’ — , Putin is now seen as the New Hitler by lots of insipid and moronic Americans. And armed with such moralistic hysteria, many in the media are willing to aid and abet any amount of lies to hurt Putin’s Russia. Just as anything was said to have been justified to bring down Hitler, anything is justified — no matter how full of shit — if it serves to defame and attack Russia. This is corruption, pure and simple, but the moralistics of passion blind Western media to their wicked ways. They are so swept up on their moralistic self-righteousness that they are utterly blind to the fact that they’re bullshit-slinging propaganda artists for hideous Jewish supremacists who manipulate their emotions. We need to understand the nature of Jewish politics. Except in Israel, Jewish politics is almost entirely negative. In a Jewish-majority nation like Israel, Jewish politics is PRO-Jewish. But in gentile nations, Jewish politics is essentially about ANTI-this and ANTI-that. In America, Jewish politics isn’t primarily inspired by pro-Civil-Rights or pro-Civil-Liberties or pro-Equality or pro-Diversity or any particular gentile group, any particular ideology, any particular principle. It’s all about identifying a certain group as the Main Rival of Jews and then working from that premise to form alliances with other gentile groups to oppose the main rival until it is destroyed. So, whereas Jewish politics in Israel rests on pro-patriotic and pro-nationalist foundations, Jewish politics in America operates in accordance to being anti-whatever-that-happens-to-be-the-main-gentile-power-as-rival-of-Jewish-power. Of course, it’s ultimately about what-is-good-for-the-Jews in both Israel and the US, but Jews in America cannot say that their main priority is to serve their own tribal interests in a nation that is 98% non-Jewish. So, Jews identify the main gentile rival/enemy and negatively target it for destruction by associating it with ‘evil’ things like ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and ‘xenophobia’. Jews claim to be pro-Civil-Rights, but notice how Jews have nixed from the Narrative their own role in the history of slavery in both the Old World and New World. American Jews’ pro-civil-rights stance was really about anti-white-gentile-pride-and-power. And notice how Jews don’t mention the fact that, despite all their yammering about Civil Rights and blacks, most Jews live in white neighborhoods and stay away from black neighborhoods. But if blacks were the most powerful group in America and threatened Jewish power, Jewish politics would be driven by anti-blackness and seek alliances with whites and other gentiles to subvert black power. That’s just how Jews play the game; there’s nothing principled in how Jews deal with gentiles. When Jews invoke principles, they really mean the rest of us should be prostitutes and porn-actresses to Jewish power. Why are Jews today promoting porn-as-empowerment and prostitution-as-liberation? Because it’s like persuading us that slavery[to Jews] is freedom. Jews are always looking for angles to get what they want and need. Of course, Jews aren’t unique in this, but they are the most hypocritical since they operate so opportunistically but hide their dirty deeds in the name of being pro-justice. Yeah right, Americans Jews are so pro-justice that they’ve aided and abetted all the horrors that have been done by Zionists against Palestinians. Because no one calls foul on Jewish misdeeds and abuses — it certainly helps that Jews control the media and all the politicians in the US — , Jews know they can get away with pretty much anything. Though Jews are associated with the left and though its’ true enough that many Jews in the past were truly devoted to leftist principles, this simply hasn’t been the case for a long time. Zionism may have been economically socialist in the beginning, but it was a form of national socialism. It was really a blood-and-soil ideology, and even most Liberal American Jews have been with the program. Also, with Jews being so rich and powerful, why would they want to be genuinely leftist in sharing their power and privilege with the rest of us? I mean seriously. If true leftism prevailed in the US, Jews should comprise only 2% of elite colleges, only 2% of elite judges, only 2% of media controllers, only 2% of finance operators, only 2% of Hollywood. Jews should only own 2% of the national wealth. In reality, Jews of all stripes wanna get richer and richer and emulate guys like Sergei Brin and Mark Zuckerberg who are worth billions. So much for leftism. Jews’ Boy Obama funneled gazillions to Wall Street, especially Goldman Sachs; and even though some Liberal Jews provided lip-service criticism, they’ve gone on supporting Obama who’s just been a shill of super-Zionists and Wall Street Jew-sharks. Jews are all in it together. For this reason, Jews are actually afraid of genuine white leftists who don’t care for homomania and ass worship shtick; true leftists would rather focus on the Jewish-Zionist ‘racism’ in the Middle East and the immense power of Wall Street/Hollywood/Silicon Valley/Big Government/Big Media that is controlled by Jews. Though genuine white leftists are race traitors and no friends of the white right, they are at least consistent in their ideological commitment; they condemn not only rich whites but rich Jews; they condemn not only European/American ‘racism/nationalism’ but also that of Israel that they regard as an outpost of Western ‘imperialism’. They are not only anti-war against the militarist GOP but anti-war against Israel and the Zionist war machine. So, Jews are nervous about such genuine white leftists and prefer to replace them with faux-leftist ‘progressives’ who spend most of their time bitching about bogus issues like ‘homophobia’ and GIRLS TV show. It should be a familiar paradox that being overly moralistic and self-righteous can have a blinding effect on one’s own moral abuses and lapses — or worse, even making one see one’s own abuses and lapses as an extension of moral superiority. But we live in strange times because those who happen to be clearly on the side of immorality scream loudest moralistically. Though the Civil Rights Movement was premised on the false basis of biological equality among the races, it was nevertheless a compellingly moral argument as blacks had been denied basic rights as guaranteed to all citizens in the Constitution. Also there was no going around the fact that blacks had been once slaves and that their descendants had to live as second-class citizens. So, whatever lies and abuses may have accompanied the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, at the very least the core values of the Movement were solidly moralist. But when people get so moralistically worked up over ‘gay marriage’ and ‘trans-gender rights’, it’s immorality as the new morality. Admitting that homosexuals do naturally exist is not the problem since morality should be on the side of truth and honesty. And it’s true that most homos are born homo. And allowing homosexuals to do their thing could also be said to be moral — even if homo acts aren’t moral — since homos feel strong ‘sexual’ urges that need to be satisfied, and they find release in a weird kind of sex. And one can even make a case for protecting the jobs and positions of homos in the professional sphere, i.e. no one should be fired ONLY because he or she’s a homo. But when all of us are forced to swallow the BS that homosexuality has equal biological and moral worth as real sexuality, it goes against truth. A crime against truth is immoral. Also, there’s no getting around the fact that male homosexual acts are downright gross and disgusting — even if they should be legal — , and this is no mere opinion but an objective fact as it simply isn’t healthy to stick a penis up the fecal hole of any human. Sodomy is filth. But then, to fire, destroy, ruin, sue, and/or blacklist anyone who honestly and truthfully expresses negative views on homosexuality and opposes ‘gay marriage’; this isn’t merely immoral but evil. And since Jews are behind it, we must face the fact that Jews are now an evil people. Jewish influence is so poisonous that so many Americans are rabidly moralistic about what’s clearly immoral to any sane/honest person. What we are witnessing is a kind of ethno-economics or ‘ethnoconomics’ in action. Instead of free trade among free individuals around the world, certain ethnic groups get to rig the game so that they themselves are never not penalized for ‘free trading’ for their own ethnic interests, but other groups are penalized for or banned by the US government — controlled by certain elite ethnic groups — from trading with nations and peoples disliked by the ethno-elites in power, to whom US politicians are mere whores. So, American Jews and American businesses can do any amount of business with Israel no matter what Israel does to the Palestinians or the Middle East or how many illegal nukes it has, but Iranian-Americans and all Americans are not allowed to do business with Iran, a nation with no nukes simply because Jews hate Iranians. And if US companies want to do business with Russia, they are forbidden by US sanctions enforced by US government whose politicians are bought and sold by certain ethnic group. The bogus excuse is human rights and Russia’s violation of national borders, but if human rights are really what the sanctions are about, why does US freely trade with repressive Saudi Arabia and brutal Israel that still occupies Palestinian lands? And if a nation that violates national borders should be shut off from the world economy, how come US that invaded Iraq and destroyed Libya gets to play the dominant role in the world economy? Jews pride themselves in having changed American laws from those favoring Northern Europeans to color-blind ones fair to all, but Jewish lawyer-crook-operatives in media, government, and courts have rigged the system to ensure Jewish ethnic advantage over all other groups. Morruption or moralistic corruption is far more dangerous than moral corruption because the latter is easily seen for what it is, even by those who commit them. When a politician takes bribes, he knows he’s doing wrong. When a man cheats on his wife, he knows he’s breaking his vow and doing bad stuff. They may come up with excuses and explanations, but all said and done, they know that bribery and adultery are wrong. Also, even though moral corruption is bad stuff, it’s a natural product of human nature that needs to be acknowledged. Though we are loathe to acknowledge the things that give us pleasure as being ‘morally corrupting’, the fact is a part of their appeal & thrill is the ‘corrupting impact or influence’. Humans existed for over 100,000 yrs, but the oldest civilization goes back only 5,000-6,000 yrs. Outside Near East, North Africa, and East Asia, most civilizations range from 2,000 to 500 yrs. As for most black Africans, they had little or no contact with anything that might be called civilization until the 19th century when Europeans made incursions into the Dark Continent. So, human nature was formed and shaped more by savagery and barbarism than by civilization. Of course, one could argue that savagery and barbarism cannot be said to be ‘corrupt’ since people without civilization don’t know any better; it’s like the children playing with scorpions and ants in the opening scene of THE WILD BUNCH don’t know any better. They are amoral than immoral in their ‘sadism’. One could argue that corruption only exists in civilization with complex hierarchies, extensive laws, and higher ideals. Maintaining such an elevated system requires a great deal in terms of input, investment, agreement, mutuality, idealism, principles, laws and regulations, obligations, conscience, discipline, and etc. It’s like a rock is just a rock, and a simple tool is just a simple tool. A rock is a rock even if it’s broken into a smaller rock. And a simple tool can easily be fixed or replaced. But complex machinery needs to have everything working in coordination; if one part is corrupted, then the whole system can fail and break apart Acting savage or barbaric in the wilderness comes naturally, but if people don’t act properly in a civilized setting, the system/order can turn into something like Detroit. Black politicians and managers of Detroit act like apes and regular blacks there act like crazy apes. So, what may be permissible among black savages in Africa is not permissible in a civilized setting since the system will fall apart. So, the rise of civilization has favored certain traits over others, and such productive traits are more common among Europeans, Asians, Semites, Brahmin Hindus, and etc. than among other groups, especially the ghastly jungle-jiver Negroes. That said, even the most civilized folks evolved for much longer under savagery or barbarism than under civilization. [To be sure, it’s not always the case that civilization will always favor traits that are more amenable to civilization than nature will. Egypt has civilization for much longer than Sweden, Finland, and Iceland — indeed, all three nations were filled with good number of barbaric folks even several centuries ago — , and yet, Swedes, Finns, and Icelanders are more amenable to civilized behavior than so many nutjobs in Egypt. Why is that? It’s because even in their savage/barbaric state, the long cold winters of the upper north favored traits that were more sober, patient, becalming, and focused. Even among savages and barbarians of the world, behavioral traits differed from group to group. Vikings could be murderous and pillage towns of other folks, but they didn’t shake their asses and boogie-woogie like the jigger-jiver savages of Africa and blacks of Detroit and Ferguson. Even in their barbarism, they were more heavy-minded, and this had a sobering effect on their emotional world-view. Egypt was civilized for much longer, but as an empire, it practiced slavery on a large scale and brought many worthless blacks who messed up the gene pool over the millennia. And today, it appears that British civilization is favoring the genes that will make Britons more savage. For one thing, the cult of diversity has opened UK to a whole bunch of savage and barbaric peoples. But also, wild Afro-centered pop music culture embraced by white kids encourages stupid loutish boys to stick their dicks into any bunch of loose ho’s, and all such ho’s are funded by the welfare system to produce more children with extra-barbaric or savage genes. It’s like we can breed dogs to be even crazier and more out-of-control than wolves in the wild. Wolves, though ‘savage’ and aggressive, are at least focused and concentrated in their aggression because tight cooperation and ‘discipline’ are necessary for wolves to survive. In contrast, we can breed dogs just to be out-of-control for the hell of it, and we seem to be moving in that direction in some parts of UK and US with the ‘yobs’, what with pop culture encouraging rap gangsta-thug-pimp-porny behavior among the underclass and the welfare system providing ready funds for worthless ho’s to breed like crazy. It’s a form of genetic indulgence of worst genes.] Because of our barbaric/savage nature rooted in 100,000s years of human existence, even the most civilized people are tempted and thrilled by images, sounds, and words of corruptive violation. For example, though we may scoff at Allan Bloom’s derision of Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones in his book THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND — The Stones were indeed a tremendous Rock band that produced some of the best songs ever — , we would be disingenuous to deny that part of the appeal of Rock music has been its corruptive excitement. A great work of art or entertainment CAN BE corrupting. We can disagree with Bloom’s aesthetic assessment of 1960s Rock music — I suspect that he, as a Jew, conflated 60s musical mania with the Wagnerian antisemitism that engulfed so many of the German intelligentsia at one time — while acknowledging that he was somewhat right about the corrupting influence of Rock music. The appeal of much of Rock music is like that of gangster movies. Most of us would rather watch SCARFACE than some Yasujiro Ozu film about nice law-abiding middle class folks, and why is this? It’s because, even though we believe in law-and-order and lead lives more akin to family dramas than gangster movies — unless you’re a worthless ‘greaseball’ hoodlum or wild-ass Negro punk — , something in us is titillated by the thrill of barbarism. This kind of barbarism is corrupting since civilization cannot function with everyone acting on impulse. There are two kinds of acting on impulse: open barbarism and secretive barbarism. Open barbarism is acting like Negroes who run wild and loot stores; but there’s also the secretive/furtive barbarism of stealing quietly or underhandedly. Shoplifting is a secretive form of barbarism. Your impulse tells you, "get something for free", and so, you ignore the rules of civilization and sneak something into your pocket. Animals are like this too. Animals can howl like crazy and act wild-and-rough in an open-and-brazen way; but they can also be very secretive in getting what they want. So a leopard will quietly sneak up to its prey before pouncing. A baboon will quietly move behind another baboon to steal its food in a jazzy Negro-ish manner. While Negroes sometimes loot and holler openly, there are other times when they’re into silent barbarism mode. In both cases, animals and Negroes are acting on the impulse of getting what they want by breaking the rules.Whether a Negro loudly loots or secretively shoplifts, he’s taking the shortcut to his pursuit of happiness. For most of human existence, this is how humans lived. And even after humans formed tribes and were committed to following agreed-upon rules within the tribe, they saw nothing wrong in marauding and sacking other tribes and running off with the loot. So, while Vikings of a tribe may have respected one another’s ‘rights’, they were happy to loot other towns and villages. Mongol barbarians were much the same. And African tribes were only too happy to raid other pillage other villages, rape women, and sell black captives to slavers whether they be other blacks, Arabs, or Europeans. We don’t want to act like this in a civilization. We want to follow rules and laws; we want to be mindful of principles; and in order to maintain civilization, we must calm our emotions, control our impulses, be mindful of our animalistic temptations, restrain our hunger and lusts, and etc. Only then can we get along with others and work accordingly. I mean who wants to ride an airplane or locomotive in which the pilot or engineer acts on impulse and decides to hump the stewardess when he should be doing his job? How can any store remain in business if most customers act on impulse and shoplift secretly or loot rowdily — or when employees steal, like some guys at the airport in GOODFELLAS who collude with gangsters? And yet, there’s still something us rooted in our predatory-pillaging-hunting background that goes back 100,000 yrs that makes us feel excited when we are tempted with barbarism. And Rock music certainly has had this effect — though the spectacular paganism of Richard Wagner and the theatrics of Adolf Hitler offered something similar earlier. Civilization developed by repressing and moving away from impulse-centric savagery and barbarism, but something wild-and-animal within us feels caged by civilization and wants to be liberated like the creatures in Alfred Hitchcock’s THE BIRDS. Such release may feel liberating, but as in the story of Pandora’s Box, it is also corrupting for it leads to breakdown of order that is so central to civilization. When we watch footages of Woodstock and Altamont concert, there is no doubt that Rock music had a corrupting — as well as liberating — influence on society. Of course, a very repressive and tightly controlled social order can be corrupt too. Consider the old Soviet Union, communist Poland, North Korea, Castro-ite Cuba, East Germany, and etc. But, in a way, they suffered not so much from social/political order but from insufficient impulse control among the tyrants and their kleptomaniac minions. Totalitarian tyrants have lived like ultra-Rock stars, as if the world exists to serve their whims. Consider the degeneracy of Mao Zedong who ate like a pig, banged many ho’s, and urged Red Guards to smash China into smithereens during the Cultural Revolution. And Adolf Hitler waged war like he was on some grand Rock Concert tour or something. And Beria, Stalin’s henchman, went around raping young girls. He knew he could get away with it, like Roman Polanski got away with such things before he got caught; but then, he got away with it just the same because France has a fetish for ‘great artists’ and because the Jewish network protects its own around the world. To Beria, all the fresh young girls were his groupies to conquer. And in such a system where those with special connections have special powers, there’s the temptation to follow one’s natural impulse to steal, and it wasn’t long before communism became a system of theft at every level by the well-connected. Since the elites set such a bad example, everyone else also began to steal as much as possible. And since there was no free media to air out the dirty laundry, things just got worse and worse. But then, the solution to a rotten social order is not less social order but a better social order. After all, what did the collapse of Soviet social order lead to Russia in the 90s? A free-for-all for gangsters and Jewish oligarches. And what did the fall of Hussein’s regime lead to in Iraq? Hell on earth. When Hussein was around, only the well-connected could loot the economy. But once the regime was gone, EVERY Iraqi became a barbarian looter stealing anything and everything he could get his hands on. Anyway, though we loathe the corrupt crooks of GOODFELLAS and the financial gangsters of THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, we have to admit we get ‘rock-n-roll’ thrills from watching them violate the ‘lame’ and staid rules of society and go for the Big Kill. They are barbarians in business suits. We often dismiss as ‘white bread’ people who are diligent, conscientious, law-abiding, nice, and kindly. Young kids look more to rappers and trashy pop stars. And superhero movies, though about good vs evil, reduce moral conflicts into barbarian rock-n-roll concerts where the good guys ultimately bash the bad guys like Pete Townshend bashed his guitars. Since the 1960s, the authorities got smarter and found a way to fence off and manage barbarism in such a way that it became safer and even useful as a release valve: better to have young people blow their excess barbarian energies having fenced-off fun than committing crime or becoming too political. In a way, this development was analogous to changes in zoo design. There was a time when animals were given little space behind/inside small drab cages whereas people occupied most of the spaces in the buildings. It was as if wild animals had to be kept in small enclosures to control their wild impulses, and civilized human presence should dominate the ‘spatial politics’ of the zoo. But since then, a kind of ‘open zoo’ system took hold where some animals were allotted much bigger space and even allowed to share the same space with human visitors. And yet, all said and done, animals were still controlled and only given the illusion of greater freedom. Similarly, while society was truly confused and befuddled about barbaric youth energies released in the 1960s, over time the energies were herded and guided in a way that they profited than threatened the social system. Go to any Rock concert and the barbaric energies are pretty well-contained. The Rock stars are on stage safely distanced from the fans; the rich fans are in the good seats in the front, the less rich fans are in the back, and there are tons of security guards to make sure that everyone is complying with the rules and standards; and of course, even the fans-acting-wild-to-the-music want it that way since their immersion in the collective barbarism will be interrupted if fights or mayhem breaks out. Consider how the concert at Altamont got interrupted by outbursts of barbarism between the Hell’s Angels and the audience. So, in order for the crowd to enjoy their fantasy barbarism, real barbarism needs to be controlled by the professional security apparatus and by mutual respect among fans so that the band can sing barbaric songs and the audience can dance and cheer to the barbaric energies, all the while being shielded from real barbarism that will interrupt the show and inconvenience everyone. So, that’s one of the paradoxes of modern civilization. People want to enjoy barbarian/savage energies as fantasy ,but for that to be possible, they need to be shielded by professional security apparatus from real barbarism. They want to see the world blow up on the movie screen, but they want total order inside the theater. There’s been talk of the militarization of the police, but there’s been a great ‘militarization of entertainment’. That way, we can go to a Rock concert and thrill to the barbaric energies, all the while being protected by the security service that ensures that everyone will stay in his or her apportioned place and not make trouble. So, we are still in the zoo, but it’s an ‘open zoo’ where the controls may sometimes be less visible yet more effective.) Anyway, Assmann is correct to mention that many of the so-called ‘evils’ of Western Christian Civilization can be traced back to Judaism’s culture of ‘intolerance’, tribalism, arrogance, murderousness, ruthlessness, moral righteousness, and etc. But one can equally argue a lot of good arose from the Jewish tradition that provided new seeds and water to Western philosophy and spirituality. Also, the so-called ‘evils’ of the West can also be traced to its pagan roots, as Wolin points out. History is like playing connect-the-dots. One can trace the roots of Nazism to the Catholic upbringing to Hitler, to Christian antisemitism, to Darwinism, to populism, to Greco-Roman paganism, and etc. Or, even to Judaism since Hitler was perversely admiring of Jews as the ultimate People of Blood. It’s like even a hater of rats as vermin can be in awe of rats’ resilient power of survival. And indeed, men like Hitler and Himmler sought to do for the ‘Aryan’ race what Jews had done for the ‘Semitic’ race. In a way, Jews and Germans were bound to clash as Germans were a people of ‘blood and soil’ whereas Jews were a people of ‘blood and spoil’ — maybe Anglos were a people of ‘blood and sail’. Germans felt a strong bond to the land of their ancestors, so German blood and German land were one. It’s like the truth regained by King Arthur in EXCALIBUR: "You and the land are one." In contrast, though Jews were a people of the blood, they existed in permanent exile in lands where they were the decisive minority. Since the soil wasn’t theirs, Jews set about gaining power over the gentiles by spoiling the sacred bond between gentile elites and gentile masses, between gentile body and gentile soul, between gentile heart and gentile land, and between gentile men and gentile women. It’s no wonder that Jews have been so prominent in subversive, divisive, and ultra-vice-oriented industries. Not only were vice industries an easy way for Jews to make a buck, they were effective in de-sober-izing gentiles from their sacred bonds and duties and, instead, making them addicted to the hedonistic pleasures dished out by Jewish junk-hustlers. Of course, such influences could also have a negative impact on the Jewish community — as plenty of Jews succumbed to sexual degeneracy, drug abuse, marriage problems, etc. — , but even conservative Jews often aided the vice industry of Liberal Jews since anything that might weaken the resolve and unity of the goy community was seen as a good. It’s like you have to weaken the breaches in the wall before battering it down. Once they’re weakened, all you need to do is remove one stone, and the rest of the wall will crumble all on their own. The reason why White America is falling so quickly and dramatically — and dementedly signing onto ‘gay marriage’ while being almost totally oblivious to their racial demise and downfall — is because the wall of white community has been weakened by Jews. Each white person is like a brick in a wall. But suppose the cement holding them together has been eroded away and the bricks are remaining without anything to hold them together. Then, you need to just remove a few and the entire wall will collapse. That is happening to the US and EU because white folks failed to notice while Jews were injecting the wall with chemicals to wash away all the cement. So, while the Jewish wall gets stronger and stronger, the white gentile wall is in a state of ruins. Indeed, so much so that white Conservatives are afraid to stand up for true marriage, afraid to call Obama what he really is — a pet monkey of the Jewish elites — , afraid to rise up against the illegal alien tide, and afraid to stand up & argue for their own interests. And even those on the ‘alternative right’ of American politics would rather come across as ‘rational’, ‘nice’, ‘moderate’, and ‘amiable’ than ‘angry’ and ‘extreme’. Of course, in the Jew-controlled socio-political order, promoting ‘gay marriage’ and calling for the firing, silencing, and blacklisting of opponents of the ‘gay’ agenda are characterized as ‘moderate’, whereas standing up for true marriage is attacked as ‘extreme’. Terms such as ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme’ are today almost entirely arbitrary and relative, and their meanings depend solely on the Jewish agenda and control of public terminology. So, ‘extreme’ is anything Jews don’t like, and ‘moderate’ is anything Jews prefer. Since American Conservatism is eager to win approval of Jews, it goes out of it way to purge and cast out anything that is called ‘extreme’. And since many on the Alternative Right sphere are eager to prove that they are not ‘haters’, they put forth the congenial style of Jared Taylor. White guys are not allowed to get angry — unless they are white Liberals attacking their own race — as any white guy who expresses rage in the name of his own race, culture, and people is smeared as a Nazi or ‘white supremacist’. So, even people on the Alternative Right are generally afraid to express their views in an angry or hostile manner. Even when they mock their enemies, they prefer irony and understatement. Among gentlemen, that may be all very well and dandy, but when someone spits on you, punches you in the gut, grabs your balls, and bites off your nose, you should do something a bit more substantial than gently rebuking him to play fair. Though things are going so badly for the white race, white guys are afraid of getting angry and all riled up; they are useless. There’s a time for subtle jabbing at opponents, and there’s a time for rage and war. Suppose a bunch of Turks in Turkey made some cutting remarks about Americans. Okay, no reason for WWIII. We can insult them back with sarcasm or some witty retort. But suppose Turks were taking over all American institutions and forcing an agenda that is devastatingly harmful to the white race. Should white guys respond with appeasement or gentle ribbing/jabbing? No, it’s time to get angry and all riled up because, when the situation grows really dire, one must feel the rage, fight, and kick butt. But over the many decades, white people just kept on appeasing the Jews and refused to fight in kind against the enemy that was doing great harm to the white race. Jews defamed whites, but whites refused to defame Jews. You should always hate a people who hate you, and if you think Jews don’t hate the white race, you’re more brainwashed than the dupes in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. Gentiles must stop being so gentle and get ready to really stick it to the Jew. And gentiles would be stupid to believe that things will somehow work out if they suck up to Conservative Jews since even Conservative Jews will stick with other Jews than with gentiles. I find it hilarious that Conservative Jews bitch about how Obama isn’t doing enough about Israel. Such Jews expect us to side with them against Obama while totally overlooking the fact that it was the overwhelming majority of Jews who put Obama in office. Because of the political preference of most Jews, we have to live with the likes of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor for decades to come. But these Conservative Jews feel no sympathy for us, and they never express antipathy toward Liberal Jews. Instead, they ask us to support their Zionist interests against Obama. Stuart Schneiderman, for instance, refers to Obama as Jeremiah Wright’s protege when Obama only joined Wright’s church to earn street credit among demented blacks in South Chicago. Obama is the real protege, servant, and houseboy of the Jewish elites who picked him out and groomed him to serve their Judeo-homo-globo interests, and Obama has carried out those demands with total subservience to the Jews. Obama hasn’t lifted a finger to help Palestinians or white gentile Americans, but Stuart Schneiderman the ‘conservative Jew’ wants white gentiles to come to the rescue of Jews from Obama — even though Jews did better than all other groups combined during the Obama era. It’s almost surreal. How about ‘conservative Jews’ calling out on the foulness of Liberal Jews who put Obama in the Oval Office?. But ‘conservative Jews’ pretend as though Obama is some ‘secret Muslim’ who is carrying out Jeremiah Wright’s plan and as though helpless Jews need our protection from the ‘antisemitic’ clutches of Obama. What chutzpah! ROTFL. In 2008, 80% of Jews voted for Obama, and in 2012, over 70% of Jews voted for Obama. Among elite Jews, the support is even higher because powerful and rich Jews know that Obama is really their boy. If anything, Obama’s relatively ‘moderate’ tone on Israel — in contrast to the virulent pro-Zionism of McCain and Romney — is exactly what Jews want for it gives the false impression that Jews don’t control America and are at the mercy of Obama the ‘secret Muslim’. So, even though Jews put Obama in the White House, Obama’s lack of hysterical rhetoric in support of Israel is used by Neocon Jews as ‘evidence’ that Obama is ‘throwing Israel under the bus’, and therefore, good white Americans must work extra-hard to support Israel and protect Jews lest Obama and Hamas bring about another holocaust. (This is all the more hilarious, not to mention hysterical, since Obama has been super-servile to Jews by bailing out Wall Street bankers, appointing another Jew to the Fed, abstaining from any meaningful criticism of Israel, and appointing Jews left and right to push Jewish causes like ‘gay marriage’, open borders, amnesty for illegals, and interracism where white women are encouraged to reject their own men and have black babies by race-mixing with Negroes.)When Jews wanna be specious, venal, and repulsive, they really blow away the competition. Schneiderman not only bitches about Obama but the UN when, in fact, UN is a powerless body that, despite its meek protestations, usually caves into the demands of Jewish-controlled US and the EU that is just a puppet of Jewish-controlled America. Besides, it was US-USSR-controlled UN that effected the massive ethnic cleansing of over 700,000 Palestinians from their ancestral homeland in 1948 to make way for Zionist-European Imperialist Israel that continues to treat Palestinians like sub-humans. If there’s any justice to any of this, it’s now Palestinians’ turn to observe the same thing happening to white gentiles who are being ethnically cleansed in America and Europe — their homelands — thanks to the demographic policies enforced by Jews. White Americans and white Europeans cheered on the total destruction of the Palestinians, a people who’d done them no wrong; so, at the very least, Palestinians can now enjoy the pleasure of having America and Europe be demographically flooded with the tide of color at the behest of Jews who are pushing ‘diversity’ in order to secure their tribal supremacism over the goyim via the strategy of ‘divide and rule’ among the diverse goyim. Jews know that homogeneity among gentiles is the biggest obstacle to Jewish domination as the gentile folks can all unite against the Jew. However, there may be exceptions when homogeneity can be more dangerous to the white race — after all, it’s the most homogeneously white/waspy parts of United States and Northern Europe that have come under the greatest impact of Political Correctness; the downside of homogeneity is that the ruling ideology can be transmitted throughout the population more quickly since everyone shares the same identity and values; a homogeneous population is also less likely to have firsthand experience with the negative consequences of diversity due to the insularity of their homogeneous bubble; it’s no wonder that whites in the South and Southwest are far less enthused about ‘diversity’ than do-goody white fools in Maine and Vermont. Of course, if whites living in homogeneous societies were exposed to books, movies, TV shows, and education that detail the many problems of diversity, they would be more likely to oppose diversity encroaching upon their homogeneous communities. But as global culture, media, and entertainment are controlled by Jews who highlight the wonders of ‘diversity’ while suppressing all its dark aspects(except when it comes to danger posed by Muslims to Jews in Israel), so many white folks in homogeneously white societies have come to see ‘diversity’, especially one that increases the number of Negroes, as the eight wonder of the world. And of course, the Jew-run media have made whites in homogeneous societies to feel ‘racist’ and ‘bland and boring’ for not having sufficient ‘diversity’.
Jews also promote the homo-and-trans agenda partly because they fear the virility and pride of the angry white male. If homos, transvestites, and metro-sexual SWPL dorks are made the new ideal of white male-dom(and if white women are made to refuse any guy who doesn’t worship homos and transvestites), then even most straight guys will be mentally and ‘spiritually’ pussified; and this goes for the race issue too, as so many women get their values from garbage like OPRAH, THE VIEW, and ELLEN. In truth, no white man can be a true white man unless he rejects the fruity agenda of the homos and unless he stands for the power and survival of his race against the threats posed by other races; of course, Jews know all about this, and so, they’ve decided to undermine white male-dom by brainwashing white women to love and accept only those white guys who bend over to the homo agenda and worship MLK and Oprah. But then, what is the worth of a white male who sucks up to homos and blacks? What worth is a man who doesn’t fight for his own race, people, and culture but cowers to other races and even to homos? White males today are no different from black males under slavery who were forbidden to serve black power, black identity, black pride, and black interests but had to serve his white massuh, indeed even when his black woman was looking at him ho-de-do before the white master. The irony is just too juicy: Today, for straight white guys to get any white pussy, they must prove to white women that they revere homos who take it up the ass and blacks who want to steal white pussy.

Anyway, returning to the subject of religion, one would be hard-pressed to name any religious thinker in the past two centuries who shifted the intellectual paradigm in any shape or form. (Some might mention C.S. Lewis, but who really takes his ideas seriously? There have been many great scholars of religion and mythology but not from the perspective of faith.) To be sure, religious folks might say this is actually in their favor since religion and spirituality derive their meaning from timeless truths; therefore, excepting rare instances of the appearances of new prophets, religion and spirituality are about continuity of Truth than about open-ended philosophical inquiry — but then, philosophy has also become intellectually moribund and irrelevant with the advance of hard sciences that use empirical methods to determine the true nature of reality and the mind that processes it. Why speculate when we now have the tools to map the actual workings of the mind?
Of course, religions and myths have continued to inspire great thinkers and artist in the modern era, but such figures were thinkers than believers of the many traditions of spirituality and cults, and as such, were rationalists, logical thinkers, or academicians than religious figures. Men like Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, William James, Mircea Eliade, Karl Kerenyi, James Frazer, and Joseph Campbell were thinkers, not practitioners, of religions and mythologies.
Artists like James Joyce, John Boorman, Yukio Mishima, George Lucas, Stanley Kubrick, and Ridley Scott need not have faith in the mythic or supernatural to work their themes. Today, with scientific discoveries advancing at an ever accelerated pace and with new technologies remaking the entire world(with the biggest winners being decided by adeptness at innovation in fields that are far beyond the intellect of most people), fewer and fewer people(at least those who matter in the game of power) have much time or interest in anything but things that really works. In the 60s and early 70s, Steve Jobs’ main passion was the counterculture and searching for the meaning-of-life, but once he got involved with computers and success, technology and economic competition were all that really mattered. In the 60s, many intelligent boomers thought they didn’t need to make much money or be all that successful as long as they communed with the cosmic way of things or devoted their lives to ‘social justice’. For one thing, the income difference back then between the upper classes and middle classes wasn’t so huge. And as the counterculture so prized the search for ‘meaning’, a materially less successful man might be thought to be ‘richer’ if he’d chanced upon greater meaning. Back then, some of the most respected Rock stars were not the biggest hit-makers. They were admired for being ‘artists’. And plenty of young people in the movie business devoted their lives to Personal Film-making in the name of Truth over Selling Out. But as time passed and as the boomers got older, they ‘wised up’ and grew weary of counterculture ‘wisdom’. It was fun to pontificate about ‘what should be’, especially in the naivete of drugged-out youth, but the real world worked according to the rules of power, money, influence, talent/ability, intelligence, and manipulation. What was the point of trying to be ‘true’ when it didn’t get you anywhere? And if it didn’t get you anywhere, how could you even afford to be ‘true’? If you made a ‘true’ movie like Dennis Hopper’s THE LAST MOVIE but no one liked it, you were not going to get a chance to make another movie, true or not. (George Lucas found the perfect rationale to have the cake and eat it too. He made STAR WARS and lots of money with the justification that he would one day use all his resources in the service of true art film-making. He may not have fooled many people, but he sure fooled himself, making him both rich and at peace with himself.) Also, what seems ‘true’ when you’re 17 doesn’t seem so when you’re 37. Indeed, stuff like "All You Need Is Love" or some other hippy-dippy stuff seemed silly already by the early 70s when Beatles were no more? How much truth was there to all the flaky crap Steve Jobs was immersed in his youth? Though he never lost his fondness for the counterculture, he grew into a businessman who was obsessed about what-really-works than what-should-work — though, to be sure, unlike most other ‘geeks’, he did try to shape technology to serve his aesthetic vision, a kind of an idealism. It’s like the time he visited India and realized it’s a foul, smelly, and disgusting hell-hole despite all the spiritual mumbo-jumbo stuff one read/heard in classes about Eastern Mysticism in the West. What did it matter if a million yogis found their so-called ‘truth’ when India continued to be a cesspool of disease, corruption, ineptness, lethargy, decay, and rottenness? And what did those yogis really gain except cactus needles on their ass? Certain counterculture folks praised the spiritual Eastern Way over the so-called ‘material’ Western Way, but how was that working out in India? And how was the moral puritanism of Maoist China — that attacked capitalism as materialistic, greedy, and selfish — working out for the Chinese? And what great thing came of the 1968 May generation in France except for broken windows and dumb slogans about Mao and Che? All said and done, reality is moved by things that work, not things that people say should work. Since ancient times, the Chinese had an elaborate spiritual-and-philosophical theory of how the cosmos worked, how the human body worked, and how society worked, but it failed to advance China as a political, economic, and cultural power beyond a certain point because all that mumbo-jumbo stuff was more in the world of the mind than in the world of matter. Matter matters. The counterculture of the 1960s produced many fashions about how society should be in harmony with fanciful ideas, but most were about hot air. The Beatles experiment of running a business — Apple Corp. — based on ideals of collective decision-making, universal creativity, good vibes and trust, and disregard for expertise/hierarchy turned into their ‘great leap forward’. It was a business disaster, a lesson not repeated by Steve Jobs after retaking control over Apple in the late 90s.
But the problems of the 60s weren’t simply about the flakiness of Counterculture but the bureaucratic culture dominated by the Best and the Brightest. If Counterculture types confused their silly acid-addled visions with redemption of the world through free pot and free love, the bureaucratic elites of Ivy League universities thought themselves very rational, empirical, and scientific. But their programs like the Great Society and other massive government projects were also failures. They too were idealistic than realistic. Perhaps, some of the programs might have worked better or failed less spectacularly had they been pushed at an earlier time when values had been different and when the people would have been more appreciative of authority. After all, when the government began to provide more aid during the New Deal, many American folks — white and black — didn’t take the aid for granted and showed some gratitude. But by the 1960s, with the explosion of youth culture, black rage, drug culture, and budding sexual revolution, the good-willed programs of the government weren’t appreciated but seen as ‘not enough’ or ‘too little too late’. The culture of stoicism and pride had gone away. In the New Deal era, people with pride didn’t want to receive aid but felt they had to because times were so bad. People preferred the pride of working and taking care of one’s own family. So, pride had to be swallowed to receive aid from the government, but since some people were so badly off, the aid was taken with a degree of gratitude — and with the full expectation that it would no longer be necessary once people found jobs again. But the social mores and cultural attitudes had greatly changed by the 1960s when the New Pride — especially among blacks — was to demand more and more freebies from the government. The New Pride was about shamelessly demanding more of ‘what is rightfully mine’ without working for it. And so, the Best and the Brightest who’d cooked up the new government programs were baffled as to why so many people showed no gratitude and merely exploited the handouts to grow morally more corrupt and economically ever more dependent on government. If anything, the programs seemed to encourage moral decay by incentive-izing poor folks, especially Negroes, to have children out of wedlock from a young age.
Also, the change in black attitudes made them more difficult to manage as employees. In the past, you might hire blacks as aids or maids, and they’d work diligently because they really needed the job. But with shift in the culture, blacks began to have attitude beginning in the 60s: even George Jefferson could never stand the lazy-ass maid with attitude. (Because blacks had led servile lives to whites for so long, the cult of Black Pride came to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It denigrated work ethic & decency themselves as servility & ‘uncle-tom’-ishness and favored the Black Dude who stole, cheated, hollered, lied, bullied, and drove ‘honkeys’ crazy. Any decent and kindly black behavior was seen as slave-like; and this wasn’t merely an attack on Conservatism but on Liberalism that, through movies like GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, idealized the upstanding Negro who not only had to proved himself as a credit to his race but as even better than the white race, i.e. blacks had to be super-good and super-decent to be worthy of living with whites. So, the new black culture favored the attitudes of the Black Panthers; and white/Jewish Liberals, who felt a bit guilty for having patronizingly promoted ‘idealized Negro’ over the ‘authentic black’, tried to get with the new program by signing onto Radical Chic. Needless to say, as Fay Stender found out, things didn’t turn out so well under this arrangement. So, the Magic Negro cult sort of made a comeback with the Oprah cult, Obama cult, novels/movies like THE HELP, Morgan Freeman’s ‘ole black Joe’-style of voice-over narration. But then, the desire to be associated with ‘black authenticity’ also lingers among dweeby white Liberals, and this explains why there’s also the worshipful cult of the badass rapper stud-thug ‘nigga’. But because Liberal Jews dominate the media and historical narrative, most people have no idea about the level of distrust and tension between white/Jewish Liberals and Blacks in the 60s and 70s. You’d think they were altogether in the same boat against ‘racist Conservative whites’. Our collective memory has something to do with induced nostalgia. In the strictest sense, nostalgia is a longing for one’s personal past; you can only feel this kind of nostalgia for your own experiences — like Malick’s remembrance of his childhood in THE TREE OF LIFE, though he seems to remember dinosaurs too. But there’s another kind of nostalgia that is collectively induced. Even events and times that you never experienced or took place long before you were born can be made to seem/feel nostalgic by manipulation of images, words, sounds, and music. So, even though the world of DAYS OF HEAVEN by Terrence Malick is before and beyond my personal experiences, its way of presentation puts me in a nostalgic mood. Since Jews have control over sound and image, they can make certain chapters of the American past seem glowingly nostalgic, and one of them is the mythic unity between wonderful Negroes and conscientious Jews. What is almost totally overlooked are the many genuine tensions between the two communities in business, politics, crime, values, and allegiances; even as late as the 80s, Ed Koch referred to blacks as ‘animals’. As there is nostalgia, there is also ‘repulgia’, a feeling of repulsion at certain things of the past: things one either never wants to repress or revisit only to exorcize oneself of the evil demons. As Jews control the sound and image, they’ve made young Americans of all races feel ‘repulgia’ at the notion of White America and 1950s conservatism that are associated with sounds and images of ‘hate’, ‘racism’, ‘white supremacism’, ‘golfocaust’ — exclusion of Jews from Wasp country clubs — , ‘Jim Crow’, KKK, ‘homophobia’, oppression of women, and etc. As Jews control the rules of nostalgia and ‘repulgia’, they control the hearts and minds of most Americans. ‘Repulgia’ might also be called ‘nastalgia’, or angry and bitter remembrance of nasty things of the past.) And the shift in the cultural attitudes also contributed to America’s disaster in Vietnam. Though the US military during the Vietnam era was more indulgent and supportive of its troops — men were fed, housed, clothed, supplied, and cared for better than in earlier wars — , the morale sagged from bad to worse, with ever increasing problems of insubordination and drug use. The Best and the Brightest who devised new programs for the government and the military had grown up in more ‘innocent’ times and failed to take into account the shift from young people to young radicals(among whites) and from Negroes to Blacks; though leftism and radicalism were nothing new in American politics, prior to the 60s young leftists respected and took orders from older established leftists; there was a sense of hierarchy and obedience; blacks took their cues from white progressives and knew their place. All such hierarchy of respect had vanished by the 60s, and boomer radicals and blacks hollered and acted to a different drum. The new generation of Americans in the 60s had very different attitudes, values, outlooks, and expectations than Americans who grew up in the 30s, 40, and early 50s. Negroes, who’d been grateful enough to be given some recognition in earlier decades, were suddenly into the Muhammad-Ali antics of throwing fits, beating up slow whitey, and making lots of noise in the name of black power. The Best and the Brightest experts had the likes of Joe Louis in mind when they concocted new programs to help the Negroes, but blacks in the 1960s began to holler like Muhammad Ali and act like they be the ‘greatest’; they demanded that whiteys better deliver on black demands or more cities will be burned to the ground.(And whites made the fatal mistake of appeasing these black demands. Appeasement almost never works. Neville Chamberlain found that out with Hitler as Der Fuhrer was less satiated than made hungrier and more emboldened. American whites should know by now that Jews cannot be appeased. Give Jews the blue states, and they go after the red states. Give Jews US and UK, they got for EU. Today, they are even going for Russia. Khrushchev learned the same lesson with Mao when he tried to make amends in the 1950s after Stalin’s death. Given Mao’s megalomania, he just blew smoke in the Soviet leader’s face and made more demands. The problem of dealing with non-whites is because the history of white imperialism and/or ‘racism’ complicates the issue. But this was true of Germany during the interwar period too. It was because Anglos and others felt guilty about the collective punishment of all Germans after WWI that they hoped to make amends with Hitler as the representative of the German people. If indeed Hitler had been a man of character, some arrangement might have been possible, but he was, in fact, a megalomaniacal visionary with big plans for German domination of Europe. Same went Mao. Though Khrushchev was right in trying to address Stalin’s abuse and exploitation of China, he failed to understand that someone like Mao works in bad faith and cannot be trusted on any level. Goodwill is good, but it only works when the other side is also full of goodwill. Goodwill met with bad faith is a disaster, and WWII should be a testament to that fact. This is why Putin is making a big mistake in Russia when he thinks he can appease Jews; he needs to purge the ‘Americanists’ in the Russian government just like Neocons purged the ‘Arabists’ from the GOP. With Jews, there can be no good will because they operate on bad faith; same goes for Negroes. Too many Jews are dirty hideous weasels, and too many blacks have evolved into apelike creatures as the result of 100,000 yrs of existence in Africa. The problem is not reversing or undoing 250 yrs of slavery in America. The real daunting problem is trying to reverse the 100,000 yrs of evolution in Africa that made blacks into aggressive and nasty muscled beasts who pose a danger to all non-black races, especially whites as black men lust after white women and find special joy in humiliating the ‘white boy’. The nature of the racial problem between whites and blacks would be more apparent if removed from the complication of history and the burden of ‘white guilt’. Suppose there is Race A and Race B. Suppose Race A is more intelligent, physically weaker, emotionally calmer, and more conscientious than Race B that is stronger, more aggressive, more unruly, more self-centered, and more impulsive. Suppose integrating the two races together will lead to a lot of robberies, bullying, assaults, rapes, and murders by members of Race B on Race A. Given such likelihood, does it make sense to integrate the two races? Of course not. Same goes for whites and blacks. But there is the complication of history. Blacks were forcibly brought to the US. They were used as slaves. They were denied certain basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all US citizens. And so, there is an understandable desire to do right by blacks. Because whites had power over blacks, there’s the view that whites have been WORSE than blacks. But white power over blacks wasn’t the product of white people’s worse-ness but due to their superiority in technology and organization; all throughout human history, those with superiority of technology and organization ruled over other peoples; whites were no different in this; if anything, they treated Negroes more humanely than Negroes done treat one another. At any rate, history and ‘white guilt’ don’t invalidate the facts of biological differences between the two races. Abraham Lincoln understood this problem. To paraphrase Honest Abe, "Look, slavery is wrong, especially as US was founded on the principles of freedom, but I really worry about freeing all them niggers because they are stronger and more aggressive and will likely kick white butt and take white women. So, we have to find a way to end slavery but also to drive out all these crazy niggers out of here." Because the biological argument favors the moral argument for separating the white race from the black race, Jews go out of their way to suppress any biological arguments as ‘racist’. Jews know that their Ace card for controlling white folks is ‘white guilt’, and for ‘white guilt’ to be operative, whites and blacks must live in the same society. That way, Jews can always point to problems in the black community and scream ‘white racism’ and ‘white guilt’. Now, this isn’t to say that white folks are angels. They are not. All humans are animals deep inside. Human nature is a form of animal nature. So, all of us are capable of acting savage and crazy. It’s like even mild-mannered dogs have savage natures within them. If you toss a deer carcass at a bunch of golden retrievers, they will smell the blood and growl and compete for the meat. So, even though golden retrievers are not as aggressive as wolves or other dog breeds, they still have the wolfish nature that can be brought out under certain circumstances. It’s like what the Japanese did in Nanking. Though Japanese history favored traits that turned Japanese into a race of servile dogs, when Japanese soldiers who’d been abused and terrorized by brutal commanders were told that they would run wild and rape and murder and loot freely in Nanking, they acted like how golden retrievers would act with a fresh deer carcass tossed at their feet. The savage nature emerged from Japanese hearts. So, there is savagery in each of us. But, under a system of rule of law and strong governance, most whites-yellows-browns can learn to act in a civilized manner. Blacks, in contrast, feel a great urge to act like savage baboons even under rule of law and civilizational controls. Golden retrievers will act like savage wild dogs if a deer carcass were thrown at them, but they will act nice and decent if fed dog food in an orderly manner. But Negroes tend to act wild with both carcass meat and packaged food. Negroes not only act in ‘hunting mode’ in the steppes of Africa but in stores that they loot and rob with apelike craziness. Even when guided by civilization, they act like wild baboons. Try as we might to pretend that Michelle Obama and Serena Williams are civilized black women, they are genetically meant to be half-naked savages shaking their asses in competition with chimps and gorillas. Lots of Negroes have protruding lower jaws that are downright gorillian. At any rate, the white race needs to realize that demographic invasion is more dangerous than imperialist invasion. Imagine you’re a ‘Polack’ and had to face two options. Option One is your nation is take over by a minority Russian elites who rule over your people as Brits once ruled over India. Option Two is Polish people continue to rule as elites but open borders policy has Poland turn 50% of Gypsy or Negro. So, which option would be worse? In the long run, a foreign minority elite is much easier to get rid of than teeming demographics of non-Polishness. Demographic invasion or demovasion is far more destructive than imperialism. Russians eventually overthrew the Mongol yoke because Mongol overlords were vastly outnumbered by Russians. Chinese now rule over Hong Kong. But Serbs lost Kosovo, their sacred homeland, forever to the Albanian Muslims because the latter won the game of demovasion.) Anyway, what really matters today is how one uses his mind to produce something of real value and rake in lots of money from the masses of consumers/suckers. Whatever one thinks of the Google boys, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and other such people at the personal level, there’s no doubt they’ve made things of genuine value that so many people want and benefitted from. Of course, the super-elites have also used underhanded and lowdown tactics — as Bill Gates was often accused of doing in the 1990s — to gain a bigger pie for themselves, but they used their minds to create genuine products of real value. But there, there’s the problem of finance capitalism. Though finance is important to the modern economy, there’s been the impression — especially following the economic meltdown in 2008 and the mega-Wall Street bailouts — that a lot of sharks are working the industry, and films like THE WOLF OF WALL STREET make us even more suspicious of the banking/investment sector. To be sure, Martin Scorsess’s film is as admiring as critical of the big time crooks. The likes of Jordan Belfort — and Ace Rothstein in CASINO — may be crooks and phoneys, but they are ‘real phoneys’ in the way that Holly Golightly is said to be in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S. Though Belfort and his buddies know they’re pulling one scam after another to live the superduper American Dream, they really believe in the dream and believe that their way of business is as valid as any other since capitalism is all about trouncing the other guys to get ahead. Also, there’s an element of perverse meritocracy to their success since it takes genuine smarts and skills to pull off what Belfort and his cronies did.
So, the big winners today are those who know how to make & sell genuinely useful stuff that we want and those who know how to make & sell mostly bogus stuff that we think we want or need. One bunch of guys dominate Silicon Valley, and the other bunch of guys dominate Wall Street. To be sure, sometimes it’s difficult to tell between the two since Silicon Valley depends on the capital provided by Wall Street, and during the Bubble years, there was no doubt that Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and Wall Street sharks were rigging the system to drive up NASDAQ stock prices sky high to fleece most of America. (Also, there’s tribal networking among Jews among Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and the Ivy Leagues. Sheryl Sandberg may want to ban ‘bossy’, but she certainly wants to serve and protect ‘Jewey-Ooey’.) The truly big Jewish sharks on Wall Street made Jordan Belfort’s shenanigans look like amateur hour, and of course, they, unlike Belfort, kept all their loot and got to loot some more during the housing boom and then made even more with the bailouts and financial revival since 2009. If there was one redeeming factor about Belfort — at least according to Scorsese’s film — , he was honest in his greed and crassness. Sure, he fooled the public that he was running a respectable blue-blood investment company, but in business and life, he exulted in his addiction to money, sex, and good times. He was like Tommy in GOODFELLAS, like Johnny Boy in MEAN STREETS. A scumbag but a total scumbag committed to scumbaggery with a kind of pure devotion. A black angel worshiping the god of mammon. And it’s such guys — Blagojevich, the disgraced governor of Illinois, was also a ‘cowboy’ — are the ones who eventually tend to stumble and fall since they keep upping the dosage for greater highs. Just like Tommy in GOODFELLAS and Johnny Boy in MEAN STREETS, they come to a bad end because they never know when to go slow or stop; but then, it’s such total ‘dedication’ that makes their vulgarity ‘heroic’. If the total saint must resist all temptations of the flesh and pleasure, the total black saint must surrender himself to all his desires and impulses. Saint must love God with pure devotion; the ‘black saint’ must fuc* the Devil in total abandon.
Today, the very best minds go into Silicon Valley or Wall Street as that’s where most of the big money is. Of course, many very smart people also go into hard sciences, but speculative theoretics in physics no longer have the allure they once did. At one time, the likes of Einstein were revered as geniuses who unlocked the mysteries of the universe. And there was a time when men like Picasso were household names, hailed as visionaries who changed how mankind saw art and culture. Even if most people didn’t know anything about physics or cared much about Modern Art, there was at least an understanding that things outside great wealth and power were important and significant to humanity, history, and culture. Today, there are surely many great scientists working in physics, but they lack iconic value. Back when Einstein was a famous figure, many smart people wanted to follow in his footsteps. And young people of real talent and intelligence wanted to be another Picasso, T.S. Eliot, or Igor Stravinsky. But no matter how good a physicist may be today, he won’t get much recognition and therefore will be less of an inspiration for young people; and he won’t become very rich — for all I know, the richest scientist today may be popularizers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku who are better at self-promotion than science. And though one can get very rich in the arts with the right connections, there’s no genuine respect for the likes of Damien Hirt, Jeff Koons, Tracy Emin, and other ludicrousites. We all know it’s a shtick. Such ‘artists’ know that their success depends on knowing the right people, being at the right place at the right time according to notes passed under the tables. They know their success is the result of too many rich people with too much money using ‘art’ as just another investment opportunity. The art world is hardly different from Dow Jones or Nasdaq. They can all thank Andy Warhol as their patron saint/salesman.
That said, there may be great artist working today in sculpture, painting, and what-have-you, but they simply aren’t getting the kind of attention reserved for artists during the aristocratic age(when high art held prestige) and the early Modernist age(when new art stimulated intellectual debates). Same goes for the place of literature in our world. And with the demise of the ‘high brow’, ‘middle brow’, and ‘low brow’ dichotomies, the cachet of being a personal artist has pretty much gone out of the window, which is why so much of cinema discussion revolves around stuff like HUNGER GAMES and remakes of THE PLANET OF THE APES. Given the number of excellent films that came out in 2013, there is reason for us to keep the faith in the art of cinema — especially as new technologies have made personal film-making more affordable — , but then, too much of a good thing no longer makes it special, thereby defusing the excitement level. For instance, KINGS OF SUMMER is so good that it would generated heated praise had it been made in the 1970s. But as so many indie films have hit the market, it got the hugs but not the full embrace. As for public thinkers, intellectualism, philosophy, spirituality, and etc. they’ve all either been exhausted, cornered into dead-ends, stifled by political correctness, bought & co-opted by the marketplace(controlled by a near-total Jewish monopoly), or turned into sound-bite partisan-ism. Most of the ideas that come from the Liberal side is just more shrill Political Correctness, and most of what passes for Conservatism is pretty much, "How can we be ‘hateful’ when we worship MLK, serve the Jews, and even sucking up to homos?" Indeed, there are entire swathes of thoughts, ideas, and views that are simply not allowed to be said. (But then, even without political correctness, ideas and information no longer excite people since there’s so many views and ideas available on the internet.) Ironically, Political Correctness follows the logic of Hitlerism: “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” Especially since the 1980s — ironically the so-called ‘Conservative Age of Reagan’ — , the rise of Political Correctness in the media, academia, and many institutions have been chipping away at our freedom of thought, conscience, and values little by little. (In retrospect, many Conservatives failed to see the dangers since they mistook the rise of Political Correctness as a kind of restoration of order after the crazy 60s and grubby/trashy 70s. And since the sort of people who were pushing political correctness were well-dressed and well-heeled — than dirty and shaggy like the Molotov-cocktail tossing boomer rebels of the Counterculture era — , some Conservatives saw them as reformed radical boomers who, like Reaganite Conservatives, were working to restore social harmony, even if it meant the curtailment of certain freedoms. It was during this period that some on the Christian Right united with feminists to wage a war on pornography. And Republican and Democratic wives came together to call for labeling on Rock or Rap cds with raunchy lyrics. In this light, we can sort of understand Political Correctness as yet another puritanical religious movement in America, albeit one that happened to be based on secular faiths like ‘anti-racism’, ‘feminism’, ‘Holocaustianity’, and ‘homo worship’.) A word here, a word there, an idea here, an opinion there. Little by little, more and more views became ‘unacceptable’, more and more individuals were forced to apologize or were fired even if they did apologize. Of course, some groups were targeted more than others on the basis of their supposed ‘greater privilege’. Though Jews have been the most privileged Americans for quite some time, they were generally immune to such scrutiny because they got the Holocaust cult on their side. Indeed, I suspect that if Donald Sterling weren’t Jewish, he would have been outed long ago for his attitudes about blacks and others. But as with Bernie Madoff, he was indulged because other powerful Jews protected him and did business with him. Anyway, it’s gotten to the point where so-called ‘liberals’ openly call for legally banning certain speeches, ideas, and views. Today, people can be fired and blacklisted for simply saying that they find homosexuality to be gross. Today, a baker can be sued and destroyed by the government because he won’t bake cakes for ‘gay weddings’. Today, not only must you tolerate homosexuality, but, if you want any real success in life, you must praise and celebrate the homosexual agenda — and serve as attack dogs against anyone who is still ‘less evolved’ about issues such as ‘gay marriage’. And if you’re a so-called ‘conservative’, your main concern has to be ‘what is good for the Jews and Israel’, or you will be cast out of the mainstream Conservative Movement dominated by organizations like Heritage Foundation that even fires its personnel under Jewish pressure. In such a political and cultural climate, there’s paucity of real thought. Even Camille Paglia, who fashions herself as a courageous rebel and dissident, dares not spell out it’s Jews who are at the forefront of pushing political correctness and silencing free speech. Though she knows full well that Jews dominate American Liberalism — and even Conservatism through the machinations of Neoconservatives — , she argues that PC Jews aren’t really being Jewish but are merely aping the puritanism of the old priggish Wasps. She has this fixed image of the Real Jew as some radical 60s firebrand or maverick but fails to understand that once Jews gained total power, they don’t want gentiles to rock their boat as they’d once rocked the Wasp boat. Jews may be filled with chutzpah but they sure hate counter-chutzpah from the goyim. Also, though Paglia is right about the overly priggish and judgmental Wasps of the past, she is overlooking one crucial fact: many elite Wasps were as hard on themselves and on their own children as on rest of society. In contrast, while Jews berate gentiles endlessly, they are mostly lacking in self-criticism, self-examination, and the will to be critiqued and called to account by non-Jews.
Anyway, in a cultural climate like ours(controlled by Jews)where so many ideas, thoughts, opinions, or even simple words — like ‘homo’ or ‘tranny’ — are deemed ‘offensive’ and banned by the media and academia(no longer a center of free exchange of ideas), thinkers and critics are primarily concerned with not giving offense, being approved/recommended by the consensus(as laid down by the Jewish-and-Homo or Jomo cabal), and being given warm hugs-and-kisses by the Establishment. People who’ve been to California have commented on how more open and welcoming people there are. They are faster to shake hands, give hugs, and etc. They are more likely embrace you than ‘judge’ you. In some ways, this is a good thing, no doubt. But there’s a catch, an underside, to this. When people embrace you, they mean you better embrace them too on an equal basis EVEN IF you disagree with or detest what they stand for. Indeed, this has long been one of the dirty tricks of Christianity as Christians would go from place to place to share and spread their love, compassion, and blessings of the Lord. Thus, they would emotionally blackmail others by making them feel that they’re not a good people if they don’t return the love of Christians in kind. So, beware of the California Hug for it’s really a PC python embrace. A homo Californian will hug you and say nice things, but the condition is YOU must hug him/her back and agree to ‘gay marriage’ and bend over to the perverted notion that two guys doing fecal penetration on one another is the biological and moral equivalent of real sex involving complementary organs between a man and a woman. Imagine some Fundamentalist Christian in the South giving you a warm hug and saying he or she really really loves you with the softly coercive expectation that you will return the hug and embrace his or her religion and accept Creationism as being the scientific equivalent or even replacement for the real science of evolutionism. You have to be very careful when people treat you nice because their niceness could be a form of moral/emotional blackmail to make you feel guilty and unkind for not reciprocating in kind and agreeing to the conditions laid down by them. This is why kindness can be even more dangerous than hostility. Why did the Trojans fell in the end? They were offered the gift of peace, and they thought they should respond in kind by welcoming the gift within the walls of Troy. Or consider that episode of SANFORD AND SON where Lamont joins some kind of New Age cult and has a whole bunch of people come to his place; they are all hugging one another and making zombie-like noises as if to signify spiritual unity. They are all supposed to be about love, peace, and harmony. When Fred comes downstairs and sees all this nuttiness, he keeps his distance. When a fat white woman tries to hug him, he wards her off and calls her ‘fat stuff’. Just then, everyone in the room gets all angry with Fred as though he needs to accept the embrace of fat white woman, or else be denounced as a ‘hater’.. This is why California has paradoxically been, at once, most famous for being easy-going and most notorious for being intrusive. So-called ‘easy-going’ Californians feel that they are so full of love, understanding, tolerance, and feely-good vibes that they must spread and push their ‘love’ on the 49 other states.
This is something Allan Bloom warned of in THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND, i.e. that the cult of ‘niceness’ can easily be molded into a tool of Political Correctness, whereby Political Correctness will try to spread ‘niceness’ all around with poison hugs & kisses and everyone better partake of the ‘kindly offering’ or else he or she is a ‘bad person’. It’s like the scene in EXCALIBUR where Guinevere(Cherie Lunghi) kindly offers a cup of wine to Gawain(Liam Neeson) in the name of forgiveness and peace over what he said about her and Lancelot, and Gawain is almost tempted to take a sip but refuses because he knows that his suspicions, however rude and disruptive, are true. Of course, Gawain is something of a fool, and he could have brought up the subject in a more honorable & diplomatic manner — he is being manipulated by Morgana(Helen Mirren) — , and his refusal to ‘partake of (Lancelot)’s goodness’ triggers a crisis within the kingdom. Still, he spoke the truth, and he had the courage to do so despite the kindly wine of deception offered to him. Though he comes across as ruffian with bad manners, it was really he who acted like a true knight for knights at the Round Table are supposed to speak the truth — even Merlin says at one point that the greatest virtue of a knight is his truthfulness. Where Gawain failed was he failed to realize that there are smart ways and dumb ways to speak the truth, and he chose a dumb way. Also, even the truth can be manipulated by evil forces, and Morgana does just that to bring down the Arthurian order. It’s like a lot of stuff said about Wasp America by the Jews were factually true, but Jews were selective using certain truths to serve their own supremacist interesting than telling the truth for truth’s sake. (To be sure, it’s impossible to speak all the truth all the time. For starters, what we call ‘history’ is what the elites have chosen to remember and/or what can be recovered or surmised through records, archaeology, and speculation. Most of all that have happened were forgotten for all time. We will never know about most people who lived during the Era of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. We don’t know the names of most soldiers and civilians who perished in Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. But then, even if we knew everything about everyone, we couldn’t possibly hold all that information in our minds; besides most of what most people do are so inconsequential. And even if we restrict our attention to only recorded history, there’s too much for any one man and any one moment(of reflection). So, there is Archived History and Living History. Archived History is all the history that exist in texts, books, documents, and records. It exists in voluminous and copious amounts, but most of it remains latent or dormant, gathering dust or garnering the peek of an occasional scholar. Items of Archived History are like seeds in bags in storage rooms. What really affects most of us is Living History, which is determined by the elites who get to choose which narrative seeds are to be planted and re-planted and allowed to grow and regrow into Story Trees towering over us all. Jews control both Archived History and Living History. They get to decide which seeds of Archived History are given water and sunlight to grow into Living History and which seeds will never see the light of day.) After all, if Jews are indeed truly committed to the ultimate importance of truth, why do they hide so much of the dark histories of the Jews? Just like Morgana in EXCALIBUR, Jews use truth selectively to serve their own agenda. (In this sense, truth can be used just like lies via the art of omission. Though Jews may not deny the Jewish role in Bolshevik mass-killings, they will OMIT it from the Narrative and punish anyone who dares to mention it. Jewish Bolshocaust Omission seems less offensive than Holocaust Denial since Jews, at the very least, don’t deny mass killings, but the purpose of omission is essentially the same as that of denial. Because Jews control the Narrative and Discourse, they don’t have to deny something; they need only to omit it to render it irrelevant and nearly non-existent. In contrast, since anti-Semites don’t control the Narrative, they are constantly under assault from the Holocaust Narrative. Jews can make something disappear simply by omitting it, whereas anti-Semites can hope to make something disappear by claiming it never happened, at least not in the way Jews say it did. Of course, it only makes the anti-Semites look worse since denying the Holocaust is emotionally laden with anti-heretical fury. Also, Jews have rigged the debate so that even revision of certain aspects of the Holocaust Narrative is made synonymous with Denial. If a ‘leftist’ historian like Timothy Snyder revisits the Ukraine famine and lowers the number of dead from 5 million to 3.5 million, such revision is perfectly fine. But when it comes to Jewish numbers in the Holocaust, you better bow down to the 6 million and never raise any doubts because you will be destroyed otherwise. Only a handful of Jews are allowed some degree of revision on the matter of the Holocaust, but even they risk being denounced as ‘self-loathing Jews’, which is amusing since Jews love ‘self-loathing whites’ who suck up to Jews.) If any truth threatens to undermine the interests of Jewish supremacism, Jews rush to clamp down on the truth-tellers and go all out to the perpetuate their favored myths and taboos to keep us under their power. So, Jews will exaggerate the number of people killed by the Holocaust, but they’ll go about suppressing any book or information that reveals how Jewish leftists collaborated with Stalin in the killing of millions of Christian Slavs. Indeed, even to this say, Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book on the Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution hasn’t found an American publisher — as most major American publishing companies are either Jewish-controlled or fearful of Jewish reprisals if they were to publish something Jews don’t like. Or, Jews will hysterically inflate certain facts to the point where many people come to accept it as not only a fact but a universal religion. Consider the Jewish Narrative about black-white relations in the America. While it’s true that some blacks were lynched in America — especially in the South — , the total number is pretty low: :ess than 2,000 over a hundred year period. And surely some of the killed were indeed guilty of some heinous crime. But according to the Jew-run media, Jew-run academia, and Jew-run entertainment, just about any white woman who claimed to have been raped by a black guy was a liar, and just about every black family had one of their father or son lynched by a crazed white mob or had crosses burnt on their lawn by the KKK. This is pure fantasy, but just as Jews wildly exaggerated the true extent of Russian pogroms against Jews, they did the same with the narrative of white violence against blacks in the South. Sure, there were anti-Jewish pogroms in some parts of Russia, but the vast majority of Jews weren’t touched by it — and besides, plenty of gentiles also suffered from pogroms by other ethnic groups; and after WWII, many Jews committed vengeful pogroms against German populations. According to the Jewish narrative, every Jewish family had a grandmother who was raped by Cossacks and a grandfather bludgeoned to death by Slavic mobs, and every American Negro family had one of their members strung from a tree by the KKK. Now, I wonder how Jews would like it if Palestinian-Americans controlled the American media and academia and spread the lie that every Palestinian family’s home was razed by the IDF? At any rate, given the scale of the Nakba that ethnically cleansed Palestinians in 1948-1949, there’s more truth to the charge that your average Palestinian was traumatized by Zionist Jews than to the charge that Russian Jews were traumatized by Russian and Ukrainian mobs. Besides, given the globo-Jewish support of the recent Ukrainian effort to ethnically cleanse Russian-Ukrainians from the Eastern territory — through means that are more violent than the kind unleashed on Jews over a 100 yrs ago — , what are Jews bitching about? And what has happened to the Christian Arab community in Iraq as the result of the Jewish-hatched Iraq War? How many Christian Arabs in Iraq suffered from pogroms, were raped, were dispossessed, and driven to other nations as the result of the war brought upon by Bush II and Neocon Jews? What has happened to Syria as the result of US and Israel’s aid to the fanatical Muslim rebels? Jews don’t seem to care very much, and the Jew-run media hardly mention the extent of the crisis. And yet, Jews still bitch about limited pogroms that happened over a century ago — where, in total, only a few thousands of Jews were killed, a piddling number compared to the millions or even tens of millions of Christian Slavs by Jewish communists in cahoots with Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Felix Dzerzhinsky, and Stalin. Given Jewish lies about the Russian Tsar’s involvement in the Jewish pogroms, I sometimes wonder about what really happened during the Holocaust. And the current Jewish lies about what’s been happening in Russia and Ukraine also make me wonder. What is the real truth when so much of the machinery of ‘truth’ is owned, controlled, corrupted, and manipulated by a tribe of people who are known for their extreme hatreds, extreme vendettas, and extreme personalities? Should any sensible person expect the truth from the likes of James Kirchik, Victoria Nuland, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Michael Kingsley, Leon Wieseltier, Bill Maher, Tim Wise, and others of their ilk? Especially as Jews have spectacularly powerful(all the while hiding their power behind the facade of eternal powerlessness via Holocaustianity), they’ve become ever more arrogant, contemptuous, obnoxious, bullying, hideous, and vile. Of course, such can happen to any group, and today, Jews are the new Hitlers. Recall that even though Hitler was born with an extreme personality, there had been times when he was sensible, judicious, and balanced because he was forced by circumstances. Before so much power was concentrated in his hands, he had to deal with reality and with people well outside his power, agenda, and fantasies. But once he had all the power in the world, he was full of himself and attacked everyone who stood in his way with contempt, derision, intolerance, and venomousness. Jews are the same way. There was once a time when they didn’t have all the power, and so, despite their extreme personalities, they tried to understand and work with other peoples. Today, Jews feel so powerful, so self-righteous, and so arrogant that they spew filth whenever anyone disagrees with them. Indeed, even a suckass like Chris Christie muttering ‘Occupied Territories’ in a speech overflowing with fulsome praise of everything Jewish is unacceptable to many Jews. If Jews say they want ‘gay marriage’, by golly, we better give it to them because subhuman pond-scum like us have no right to think for ourselves or defend our values since the main purpose of gentiles is to serve and obey the Jews. (One of the paradoxes of history is that rationality and sensibleness can end up aiding and abetting craziness. People who study WWII wonder how so many Germans could have become so crazy in their support of mad Hitler. And yet, Hitler was enabled because he was surrounded by very sensible people whose anxious addiction to sensibleness — or appearing sensible — restrained them from acting counter-crazy to Hitler’s craziness. When a oil drill catches on fire, you have to blow it up with dynamite to stop the fire. It may seem counter-intuitive, but you must ‘fight fire with fire’. Hitler was a man of passion and rage, but he was surrounded mostly by men of reason and sensibleness. Most German military leaders and bureaucrats were good and rational men who wanted to remain ‘good’ and ‘rational’ under all circumstances. They failed to realize that craziness can only be checked or defeated by counter-‘craziness’. If a fire burns low, it can be put out with a little bit of water. But if it rages like a burning oil rig, it has to be blown with dynamite. It’s like a rabid dog can only beaten to death. But Hitler was surrounded by mostly sensible and rational people who didn’t want to act ‘crazy’ or ‘counter-crazy’. They wanted to get along, be orderly, and work in the spirit of cooperation and understanding. They were afraid of becoming ‘rabid’ themselves, so they maintained their style of rationality in relation to Hitler. They failed to realize that rationality cannot work with rabidity. Neville Chamberlain found it too when he tried to be rational with rabid Hitler. When a rabid radical howls at you, you have challenge him with counter-rage. Of course, Hitler wasn’t merely a rabid wolf but also a cunning fox who could be charming and disarming, profusely flattering other people and sending a wink-wink signal that his ‘crazy guy’ act was just for show for the dumb masses. Hitler also understood the effectiveness of Power as charm offensive; Mussolini, who had little respect for Hitler as a man, was won over by National Socialism when he visited Germany and saw all the grand pomp, pageantry, and spectacle; it’s like how even American Conservatives are being won over to ‘gay marriage’ since big affluent cities where homos are dominant are so rich, fancy, and glittering with gold; people usually go where the money, power, and privilege are. Anyway, by the time Hitler invaded Poland, it was obvious that he was essentially a rabid radical. Of course, many German military and bureaucratic elites served Hitler out of fear. And many served him because, despite his loathsomeness, they shared some of his anger — about German humiliation after WWI and the international rejection of Germany’s rightful ‘place in the sun’ — and saw him as the lesser of evils as the other options seemed to be communism from the East or Judeo-infected domination of Anglo-Americanism from the West. But many quietly served him because they sought to maintain their style of rationality and sensibleness. They knew that Hitler went ballistic against anyone who disagreed with him, which meant that the only way to deal with such a mad dog was to be counter-ballistic. Notwithstanding the fear of the Gestapo that might come knocking at their doors, many Germans, with their bourgeois self-regard and conceit of respectability, simply didn’t want to lose their composure and be crazy like Hitler. Paradoxically, many Germans supported Hitler because they didn’t want to be and didn’t have it within themselves to be like him: rabid, enraged, crazy, and barbaric. Most Germans wanted to be civil, orderly, and sensible. Even when they shouted ‘Heil Hitler’, they did it in unison and orderly manner. It was Hitler who ranted like a lunatic. Hitler served both as outlet of their repressed passions and as the lighting rod for hostile world opinion. He expressed what they felt on some unspoken level but kept repressed so as to maintain their conceit of sensibleness and rationality. Hitler also took the slings and arrows of world opinion, and in this, he played the Christ-like role of taking the blows for the pride and redemption of Germany. What Hannah Arendt referred to as the ‘banality of evil’ has something to do with the German ideal of rationality and sensibility among elite conservative and bourgeois elements. People who seek respectability want to seem sensible and rational at all times, and when they come upon rabid/radical power, they’re lost as to what to do. If they oppose rabidity with counter-rabidity, they feel the shame of losing their own rationality. To fight craziness, one has to be counter-crazy. This was the appeal of someone like Patton during WWII, at least as long as the war raged. He seemed as crazy as the enemy, as determined to go all out to fight like a barbarian and smash the other barbarian. And there was Curtis LeMay in Japan. And Henry Kissinger came up with the ‘mad man’ theory, i.e. since the North Vietnamese communists were rabid dogs intent on sacrificing any number of lives to win the war, Nixon had to show them that he could be just as crazy. Of course, as Liberals dominated the media, this wasn’t easy for Nixon. While the North Vietnamese fanatics were the objects of sympathy among Western intellectuals, Nixon’s counter-craziness was seen as ‘genocidal’ and ‘Hitler-like’. But, in fact, the only way to fight craziness is with counter-craziness. Jews, of course, understand this all too well. Jews act in crazy mode all the time. They are full of arrogance, nastiness, accusatory-ness, self-righteousness, vengefulness, mocking-ness, sniggering-ness, sneering-ness, viciousness, and etc. But Jewish craziness — that sometimes approaches Hitler’s brand of rabidity — is praised as wonderful ‘chutzpah’, noble passion, great humor, satirical subversion, and etc. Jewish passions are said to pump with healthy and vibrant blood. Because too many Jews act in such manner, the only way to counter them is by meeting their craziness with our craziness. But there are two strikes against doing so. White American-ness is defined by Wasp ideal of rationality and sensibleness, and so, most white gentiles are afeared of acting counter-crazy. It’d be seen as beneath their dignity. It’s like Tom Snyder was steam-rolled by Howard Stern the nasty Jew. But there’s another problem. Jews have rigged the game so that white Americans HAVE TO BE rational and sensible in style and manner — or ‘tired in blood’ — all the time. If white Americans act ‘crazy’, they are attacked as ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, ‘rabid’, ‘virulent’, ‘toxic’ — though if something is toxic against, I’m for it — , ‘demented’, ‘fascist’, ‘hateful’, and ‘divisive’. They are demeaned as ‘angry white males’. Rush Limbaugh got away some passion, but then, he NEVER criticized Jews, the main force behind the destruction of the white race. Some ‘white’ Conservatives are allowed to act in ‘crazy’ mode, but they tend to be Jews like Michael Savage and Mark Levin who generally steer and direct white Conservative ‘crazy rage’ toward Muslims, Russians, Palestinians, Arabs, and sometimes the Chinese... but NEVER against Jews, even Liberal Jews. As for guys like John McCain and Mitt Romney, they are allowed on occasion to go into raging ‘crazy’ mode but always in service of Jews against Russians, Iranians, Arabs, and Palestinians. So, ironically, the reason why so many white Americans refuse to stand up to crazy Jewish power is almost identical with why so many German elites failed to stand up to Hitler. So mindful of being ‘rational, sensible, and respectable’ at all times, they fail to realize that craziness has to be challenged with counter-craziness. Being thus afraid, they seek to maintain their facade of rationality, respectability, and sensibleness by appeasing and serving the power of Jewish craziness in the hope that Jews will permit them to preserve their own conceit of rationality, sensibility, and respectability. So, as long as German elites served Hitler in a diligent and dutiful manner, Hitler allowed them to maintain their conceit of bourgeois respectability, rationality, and sensibleness. And as long as you’re a member of the white elite who sucks up to and appeases crazy Jews, you will be allowed to keep your wealth, position, and privilege as one of the ‘respectable members of society’ who gets to rub shoulders with the ‘best and the brightest’ of Wall Street, Ivy League colleges, upper echelons of government, Big Media, Hollywood celebrity culture, Silicon Valley culture, and etc. Elites are addicted to the ideals of rationality and sensibility, but it’s more a conceit than a true conviction. If given a choice between the maintaining the facade of rationality & sensibility and keeping one’s privilege/prestige AND being truly rational & sensible at the risk of losing one’s privilege/prestige, most will go with the former. Against craziness, the truly rational and sensible thing is to fight fire with fire. If someone spits on you and punches you in the face, you have to grab a baseball bat and smash his skull. That is the truly sensible and rational thing to do since a bully can only be destroyed by counter-violence and counter-rage. But if you want to maintain your conceit of rationality and sensibleness at all cost and at all times, you will have to smile at the bully who spat at you & punched you and beg for mercy & favoritism by kissing his ass so that he will let you go on pretending that you’re sensible & rational on grounds that you will be his ‘bitch’. [This is one reason why Jews side with even crazy criminal blacks against white victims and white police. Against crazy demented blacks, the truly rational and sensible thing is to fight craziness with counter-craziness and kick some Negro ass. It’s like dangerous animals must be hunted down. But if whites are allowed to feel justified in countering black craziness with counter-craziness, they might slip into the mentality of fighting Jewish craziness with counter-craziness. Jews don’t want that.] Today, crazy Jews control just about everything that matters while white Americans maintain their facade of rationality and sensibleness by dutifully and diligently serving Jews than by challenging them with counter-craziness. So, white the staid American styles of ‘rationality’, ‘sensibleness’, and ‘respectability’ are in the service of Jewish rabidity. But because the style is outwardly ‘sensible’, ‘respectable’, ‘rational’, ‘official’, and ‘legal’, most people don’t see the real lunacy of Jewish rabidity that is pulling all the strings. It’s like how Chuck Hagel finally caved before the power of the Big Bagel — just like German generals submitted to Hitler — in order to gain high office so as to play the role of ‘rational and sensible statesman’; ironically, the pride of respectability comes only with shame of servility to crazy Jews. Also, never think that just because Jews are very intelligent and intellectual, they are driven and fueled by rationality: Consider how Stanley Kubrick and Bobby Fischer were highly intellectual Jews who were driven by obsessions at the core of their Jewish hearts, even if some of those obsessions came close to aspects of ‘antisemitism’. Even among the smartest Jews, it’s not so much a case of passion serving the intellect but the intellect serving the passion, and the greatest passion among most Jews is the lust for Jewish supremacist domination. The recent events in Ukraine should leave no doubt that globalist Jewish supremacists are just as crazy as Hitler was, and therefore, the truly sensible and rational thing is to be counter-crazy and take the fight to the Jews. But white American gentiles and even Vladimir Putin think they must maintain their facade of ‘rationality and sensibleness’ in dealing with Jews. No, crazy Jews must be fought fire-with-fire with counter-craziness. If a vile and rabid Jewish bully charges you, the thing to do is to grab an aluminum baseball bat and crush his skull.) That said, today the world of ideas is likely to matter less even if we have total freedom of speech without any constraints of political correctness.
Though Francis Fukuyama was overly simplistic in his declaration of the End of History(of Big Ideas) with the end of the Cold War, there really hasn’t been many new bold ideas for quite some time. Most new -isms are little more than rehashed old ones. Also, people don’t really believe in ideology anymore as compared with the past. Even though anarchists never had any chance of taking power, many people had once been swept up in the anarchist movements in the 19th and early 20th century all across the globe — from Russia to the US where things even got so violent with the arrival of immigrant radicals especially from Eastern Europe. There was a time when, with the fading of Old Truths invested in Christianity and Tradition, a new era in 19th century and the 20th century — at least up to the 60s — unleashed a impassioned scramble for new truths to explain, understand, change, redeem, or destroy the world. Ideas really mattered in those days, and many of the best minds entered into philosophy. But in the past 50 yrs, how many intellectual heavyweights concentrated on philosophy? How many new Big Ideas have really captivated the world? Smart people generally don’t think Big anymore as the consensus is that history has, more or less, shown us what works and what doesn’t work, and it’s only a matter of time before other nations follow in the path set forth by the West. (One obvious reason for the death/dearth of ideas is the rise in basic living standards for most people around the world. Oftentimes, the success of an idea has less to do with its brilliance and truth than its appeal to the desperate masses in times of trouble/distress. A bad idea is more likely to be successful in bad times than a good idea is in good times. It was during bad times that Bolshevism and National Socialism won the support of many people. It was during bad times of the housing bubble collapse that Americans fell for the fraud of Obama-ism. But when people are reasonably well off, they don’t want to be bothered by ideas, even if the ideas may be good. All ideas, good or bad, are disruptive, and when times are good, people just want to carry on as usual. Most poor people through the ages had no use for ideas since they were ill-educated and lived with their hands and stomachs than with their minds. When there are enough of such people, those with bold ideas have an audience and potential following, and something like the French, Russian, and German Revolutions can happen, shuttling men like Robespierre, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler to the top. Benito Mussolini’s idea of Fascism was vague and contradictory, but it appealed to many Italians because of their desire for order, stability, prosperity, and national pride at a time when the nation was being torn apart by strife, dissension, and backwardness. And consider the Taiping Rebellion in China in the 19th century. The idea behind it was absurd — some nutty Chinese guy thought he was the brother of Jesus Christ — , but it had great appeal in a period when so many Chinese were disoriented by the Middle Kingdom in flux. And Mao came to power in the 20th century when things were at their nadir following the devastating war with Japan. But if China had been stable and sound, who would have paid attention to something like Maoism? That said, prosperity can also fuel a passion for ideas because of an excess of idle affluent kids with too much time on their hands. Consider the explosion of youth radicalism in the 60s. If most of the parents of these students had struggled with war, poverty, and putting food on the table, their children who got to attend college in the 60s could put off the future and be idealistic. But then, the love of good times eventually won out even among the ‘boomer’ generation that was too much into Beatles, drugs, sex, clothes, fashion, driving around, having fun, and etc. for a true commitment to revolution. And once college education became a rite of passage for a lot of young people, it was more about partying than protesting, especially as protesting got pretty old and lame once the Vietnam War was over. Anyway, it may be that there are great ideas around today, but there’s no urgent need for them since affluence and/or welfare take care of the needs of most people. If ideas are weapons, people grab for them when their livelihoods feel threatened. So, the problem for both the Right and the Left in the current situation stems less from the validity/invalidity of their ideas than from conditions of affluence that render their ideas non-compelling for the vast majority of people. In our age of affluence, the big passion is what? ‘Gay marriage’ and ‘trans-gender rights’? Of course, those are not ideas at all but mere fashions promoted by the Jewish elites who’ve appropriated leftism to serve their own Jewish supremacists interests. But many people prefer such cosmetic ideas since they distract us from real ideas that may truly be disruptive to the elites and the corrupted middle classes that support them.) Indeed, even the so-called ‘authoritarian’ powers like China and Russia are trying to catch up with the West by enforcing social order in their own manner in the absence of well-established Rule of Law. But then, Rule of Law is also failing in the West because the main objective of the Jewish and homo elites isn’t to partake of the universal set of laws but to alter and tweak them so that the great majority of people who aren’t Jewish or homosexual will live under the thumb of Jewish and/or homo elites. There’s no way we have genuine Rule of Law in this country when so many Jewish Wall Street crooks can get off scot-free and when homos are given the power to rewrite the meaning of marriage by using the power of the court to ‘judgepack’(legally fudgepack) all fifty states into accepting the corrupt notion of ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same-sex marriage’ that sees no difference between healthy & natural sex between man and a woman AND gross & foul ‘sex’ among homos who indulge in fecal penetration. Even so, the West(especially the Northern-Eurosphere) is still ahead of the Rest because it had long developed and practiced greater degree of Rule of Law that protect the rights and properties of people, at least more than elsewhere in the world where power and wealth were apportioned in a more arbitrary, tyrannical, and corrupt manner, with no recourse to a system of judicial fairness. The history of justice is interesting in having gone from favoring the privileges of kings & noblemen(elites comprising the minority class) to guaranteeing equal rights to the farmers & workers(masses comprising the majority class) — thereby making the laws equally applicable to the rich, middle, and poor — , but today, it’s going from democratic equality to neo-aristocratic privilege of allowing Jews and homos to change the laws as they see it to serve their own elite interests and indulgences. How can US and EU speak of Rule of Law when they don’t even enforce laws to stem the tide of ILLEGAL immigration but instead write and enforce new ridiculous laws that only encourage more illegal immigration from the Third World? Rule of Law becomes self-defeating when newly written laws virtually neutralize the essential laws that are essential to the survival and stability of a nation. A nation cannot exist without borders and without a clear sense of who belongs and who doesn’t, and every nation needs a set of laws to reflect who is part of the nation and who isn’t. That’s the only way Rule of Law can be maintained. But what happens when those laws are undermined by new laws — formulated by alien elites such as the Jews and their craven puppets — that effectively do away with border security and strict rules on citizenship? Because of the long legacy of the Rule of Law, US and EU are still leading centers of the world, especially since the rest of the world still has a long way to go in developing legal institutions, and this goes for Japan as well. But, the legacy and the great inheritance of the Rule of Law in nations like UK, Sweden, Norway, and Germany is being eroded by the influence of globo-Zionist elites who don’t like notion of nationalist Rule of Law — except in Israel where they totally love it — because Jews feel that any nationalist Rule of Law in a gentile nation might get in the way of Jewish elite interest that is networked worldwide across national borders. Jews prefer a new globalist Rule of Law that will have Jews around the world decide what is ‘good’ for all nations — again, with the exception of Israel that shall forever be privileged in formulating its own laws — , but of course, what Jews really have in mind is how to weaken the national autonomies of all nations so that they will be like butter to the hot Jewish knife to enter and slice up. When Jews say something is ‘good’ for us, they really mean it’s great for themselves(and of course, bad for us).
Anyway, whatever the new ideology or system may be called by Jewish elites and their goy minions, it’s not really about ideas since we are living in the Age of Power, not the Age of Ideas or Age of Principles — Age of Correctness maybe, but PC is less about ideas than about control of certain ideas that might threaten Jewish Supremacism. (If PC were truly about idealism devoted to egalitarianism and universalism, it would be anti-multi-cultural, anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish power-and-privilege, and anti-‘blue cities’ like New York and San Francisco that are growing richer at the expense of everyone else. But notice that PC’s so-called ‘progressivism’ is purely selective and targets only those groups that Jews don’t like. To be sure, the recent Israeli slaughter of Gaza steered PC toward some degree for recognition of Jewish power and its abuses, but all said and done, the powerful Jews who control the government, media, academia, and cities like NY and SF will ensure that the Zionist ultra-violence in Gaza will be forgotten just like earlier Israeli atrocities and outrages against Arabs and Palestinians. It will go down the memory hole just like the Lavon Affair and USS Liberty. And the Israeli downing of a Libyan airliner Flight 114.) Ideas are pretty much dead, and it’s a good thing in some respects because the Age of Power is more honest in terms of what really works than what thinkers think ‘should work’. Russia gave up on communism because it didn’t work. Whatever ‘truth’ or promise it may have held as an idea, it sure didn’t do much in economic terms in the real world. Nutty as he was, Mao Zedong was a man of ideas, but China under his rule grew poorer and more miserable. With the coming of pragmatic reforms under Deng Xiaoping, China moved from primacy of the Idea to the primacy of Power. Though Mao had been obsessed with power, he would have rejected capitalist market reforms EVEN IF he’d been convinced that they would do wonders for the Chinese economy. Marxist ideals meant that much to him. Of course, some argue that Mao’s commitment to communism had less to do with principles than a gut instinct that totalitarian Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism was the most effective means by which he keep the power. In that sense, Mao was all about power, though more about personal power than national power. Indeed, it’s worth questioning his commitment to Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism when he had young mobs, the Red Guards, attack the very system of rule and governance erected on those principles. Of course, Maoists argued that an extreme form of street revolution was necessary since the government had been taken over by ‘capitalist roaders’ like Liu Shao-Qi and Deng. Still, one could never tell with Mao what was really going on in his mind — and maybe he didn’t either. China suffered from Maoism, Russia suffered from Stalinism, which, despite all its awesome achievements in industry and military victory over Nazi Germany, transformed the nation into one vast prison camp. And nothing good came of Adolf Hitler’s nutty ideas about race that, one way or another, led to unnecessary wars with Poland, France, UK, and Russia. Mussolini’s Fascism was trickier and potentially more promising since it was rather non-ideological, i.e. ideally, Fascism was supposed to be flexible and adaptable enough to entertain and incorporate various ideas and try different approaches instead of dogmatically sticking to a single formula that purports to have all the answers. In this sense, Mussolini was ahead of his time, and it could be said that we are living in Mussolinian times since everything is really about Power and not much else. Sure, all sides still yammer about ‘principles’, but what goes by the name of ideas, ideologies, values, agendas, and principles today is mostly ridiculous, trivial, inane, and childish — ‘gay’ this, ‘gay’ that, transgender ‘rights’, ADL’s notion of ‘hate’, libertarianism’s argument for legalization of prostitution, mania about marijuana(I say legalize pot for all I care, but it’s hardly some miracle drug), ‘slut pride’ parades, the ‘pride whopper’ from Burger King, the paranoia over ‘micro-aggressions’, porn-as-empowerment, call for new Cold War because Russia rejects homo propaganda in schools, reparations for slavery, mantras like ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, claim that Jesus died on the Cross so that homos could marry, hysteria that refusal to provide free contraceptives is ‘war on women’, Obama as the redeemer and messiah, and etc.
Much of what passes for ideas and values in today’s world are just stupid nonsense devised to distract people from the truth of real power in the world that is concentrated in the hands of the globo-Zionist Jewish supremacist elites. Many of the Big Ideas in the past did a lot of damage, and I’m not sorry to see them relegated to the dustbin of history — though, of course, there are still all sorts of political cults all over the world that keep alive the flames of Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism, Marxism, Nazism, anarchism, radical Islamism, this-ism, and that-ism, but they attact tards who will never amount to anything. Indeed, the powers-that-be are only too happy to see disgruntled young people with limited IQs fantasizing about creating a new order through Anonymous, Anarchists, Bolshevik Nationalists, Gramscians, feminist-Marxists, and etc who won’t amount to a plate of beans. They might as well be members of a Christian sect who pray with conviction that the Messiah shall return and favor them over others. Of course, there’s a real chance that the current order will be shaken to its foundations and the masters-of-the-world today will become the losers-of-tomorrow, but the future will have less to do with idealism than with demographic and economic trends beyond the control of even the elites. Of course, all trends are shaped to some extent by ideologies and concepts. For example, the great demographic tide from the Third World into the West is justified by the ideology of ‘multi-culturalism’ and ‘diversity’. If so many Western people weren’t so indoctrinated with such ideas, they would have done something to halt the demographic invasion long time ago; Western peoples are paralyzed to do anything about the crisis since the elites have ideologically convinced them — and foolishly enough, even themselves, especially if not Jewish — of the moral, cultural, and political goodness of ‘diversity’ and all that. But, are the cults of ‘diversity’ and ‘multi-culturalism’ really ideologies? An ideology is a well-thought-out system/program of core principles, premises, and convictions that logically outline how the world works and how a society or humanity might be improved, but there’s nothing truly ideological about ‘diversity’ and ‘multi-culturalism’, which are cultish ideas that mostly center around slogans, taboos, and, most of all, a leap of faith into the unknown. After all, what does ‘diversity’ mean? It can mean a lot of things — good, bad, and neutral. And who says that a society will necessarily be better if diversity just keeps increasing and if various groups maintain their own identity instead of assimilating? There is no real ideology in such argument since there is really no real idea and no logic to something like ‘multi-culturalism’. You either blindly embrace it or you don’t. And because it’s an non-ideology, it can be manipulated in so many ways by the elites that control the media and academia. After all, ever notice that sometimes ‘multi-culturalism’ is about race, sometimes it’s about culture, sometimes it’s about nationality, and sometimes it’s about political partisanship? And sometimes, it says that minorities should stick with their own identities of national or cultural origin and resist the assimilative pressures of majority culture(especially if white gentile and conservative), but at other times, it says all cultural groups in the West must put aside their own cultural differences and submit to something like the homo agenda, worship the cult of MLK, and bow down before Jews as the ‘most tragic and victimized people that ever lived’?
Nakba - Palestinian Tragedy 
(According to Jewish supremacism, nothing so horrible as the Holocaust ever happened in human history. But the contention is worth debating. Minus the context of history, the Jewish claim carries some degree of validity. Suppose there’s people A, people B, people C, people D, people E, people F, people G, and people H. People A got the ‘Armenian genocide’ treatment, people B got Belgian Imperialism in Congo treatment, people C got the Korean War treatment, people D got the Palestinian Nakba treatment, people E got the Great Leap Forward treatment, people F got the Ukraine Great Famine treatment, people G got the Hiroshima/Nagasaki treatment, and people H got the Holocaust treatment. If we ignore the historical contexts of the cases, which people got it the worst? Clearly the case of People H since there was an effort to wipe out everyone: man, woman, and children. To be sure, the Rwandan Genocide of Tutsis followed the same logic, but let’s put that aside for the time being. It’s true that among all the cases above, the case of people H was especially horrific since the agenda was so absolute. It wasn’t merely to gain territory, win a war, punish an enemy, and gain supremacy; it was to wipe out an entire race of people[at least inside Europe]. And yet, we cannot judge history by facts-of-the-acts alone without taking context into account. For example, if you walk up to someone and slap him for no reason in one case AND if you pick up a baseball bat and crack his skull because he was trying to harm you in the other case, the latter would be worse on facts alone. Surely, cracking someone’s skull is worse than slapping him in the face. But in the second case, your violence took place within a certain context; he attacked you first and you struck back either in self-defense and/or enraged response. You may have overreacted but you were reacting to his aggression/nastiness. Suppose US, for the hell of it, dropped a bomb and Japan and killed a 1,000 people. That’d a hell a lot of fewer dead than in the massive bombing of Tokyo during World War II, and yet, one could argue it’d be worse because it was done without any reason or justification. In contrast, as horrible as the firebombing of Tokyo was, it was done to win the war and in revenge for Japan’s attack on an American naval base. It is in this sense that the Ukrainian famine, the Nakba, and other tragedies were worse than the Holocaust. Though what happened to the Jews was truly horrible, Jews had been major players in world history in the modern world. They had been movers and shakers as leaders of radicalism, financiers of wars, parasites of economic depressions, degraders of gentile cultures, pornographers of gentile women, mass killers of Christians in Slavic lands, slanderers and defamers of the white race, war profiteers, stock market manipulators, and etc. Of course, Jews were hardly the only sharks and weasels to manipulate the global system — Anglos, Germans, Japanese, Russians, French, Turks, and etc. did a lot of dirty things too — , but Jews were among the most important players of world events. And just like other globo-imperialist powers, Jews had a lot of blood on their hands. If Jews look upon the black violence against whites in South Africa and say it’s justified given the historical context of Apartheid, then why shouldn’t we see the Holocaust within the historical context as well? Of course, this doesn’t justify the Holocaust, but it didn’t happen out of the blue for the hell of it. It happened because Jews had done enough bad things to drive many gentiles to rage and desperation. Why was it that not only Germans but even non-Germans under German occupation didn’t do much to save Jews? Other than fear of Nazi authorities, it was because too many gentiles remembered arrogant, nasty, abusive, and disgusting Jewish behavior. It was because they had countless personal, social, and economic experiences of being defamed, exploited, and swindled by Jews. Though I wouldn’t take part in something like the Holocaust, given what Jews have done to America & EU and given their war on Palestinians — an innocent people if there was one — & Russia, I wouldn’t lift a finger to save Jews if there were another Holocaust. I don’t hate Jews just to hate Jews. I grew up with too many Jewish friends to hate them on a personal level. But when I see all the dirty things Jews do politically, economically, tribally, morally, culturally, and internationally, I feel loathing and hatred. I feel zero sympathy even though I’d been raised and conditioned by education and PBS to feel great sympathy for them, indeed more than for my own people. While it’s true that what Jews did to Palestinians wasn’t full-blown genocide, it was done to an entirely innocent people. When I say ‘innocent people’, I don’t mean each and every Palestinian is an innocent pure-hearted lamb. Speaking of individuals, your average Palestinian is a corrupt, stupid, childish, and idiotic moron. A people can be weak and innocent on the collective level but dirty and foul on the individual level. Kurds, for a long time, were a powerless and innocent people, but on the individual level, Kurds are turds. Koreans were an innocent and powerless people when their nation was invaded and divided by foreign powers who then triggered a tragic war, but on the individual level, one need only to see some Korean movies to realize that too many Koreans are a bunch of cruel, sadistic, vile, nasty, and brutal dog-eating/wife-beating/child-abusing drunkard barbarians with only a veneer of high civilization. So, just because a people are ‘innocent victims’ of history doesn’t mean that they are good people. We know this from Negroes especially. True, blacks were brought as slaves to the Americas, and on that score, they were indeed innocent victims as a people. But on the individual level, too many blacks are nasty, savage, lascivious, vicious, jive-ass, childish, stupid, and demented apelike louts. So, when I say that the Palestinians have been a powerless and innocent people done wrong by powerful nations/peoples, I don’t mean that Palestinian individuals are good decent people. But within the context of history, what was done to Palestinians was, in some ways, worse than the Holocaust. Though Holocaust was an extreme and insane reaction to Jewish venomousness and supremacism, there was no doubt that too many Jews had been up to no good all around the world. Similarly, though one can make the case that American bombing campaigns over Japan were excessive and came close to genocidal war crimes, they were carried out in response to Japanese aggression in the Pacific, even against the US naval base in Pearl Harbor. And Japanese imperialists acted with extreme brutality and cruelty in China and Southeast Asia; they also treated American prisoners of war most horribly. But what did the Palestinians ever do? They were a powerless desert tribal folks who’d been minding their own business. They didn’t conquer other nations; they didn’t start World War I or World War II. They didn’t come up with communism or Nazism. And yet, they lost their ancestral homelands and are forced to live under Occupation to this very day. United States, the greatest power in the world that prides itself on ‘human rights’, favors the Zionists who are showered with billions in aid and tons of weaponry to keep on crushing and killing Palestinians. And settlement invasions continue to this day in the West Bank with nary a protest from a single politician in America. So much America’s commitment to Human Rights. Other great powers don’t care either. China bitch and yammer endlessly about how they’d been the victims of imperialism but sides with Israel. Russia has very cozy ties with Israel DESPITE the Jewish War on Russia. EU has some vocal critics of Israel, but anyone with any power in the EU sides with the globalist Jew-Zionists. The Holocaust happened because Jews were major players at the game of global power politics. What was done to them was excessive, but those who play the game shouldn’t be surprised when they lose, especially in a big way. Germans played the game and lost WWII, and as a result, millions died, millions were raped, Germany lost its political independence, Germany lost a huge chunk of its eastern territory, millions of Germans were ethnically cleansed, and Germany was divided during the Cold War. All horrible, but they were the consequences of Germany playing the game of power... and losing. If you play the game, you can win big but also lose big. And Jews were among the biggest players of the power game in the 20th century; Jewish bankers, big businessmen, intellectuals, political operators, media bosses, spies, and officials pulled the strings of power/influence in every major nation. In a way, Jews wanna have the cake and eat it too when they discuss the Holocaust. They insist that the Holocaust was the worst horror in all of history by removing it from historical context. Jews say whereas many horrors killed a lot of people — even more than the number killed in the Holocaust — , such still weren’t attempts to wipe out an entire race of people. But then, if one were to bring up the Rwandan genocide and the Killing Fields of Cambodia that were as radically horrific as the Holocaust, Jews pull out the historical/cultural context card and say that what Germans did were worse because Europeans are supposed to be more civilized than savage black Africans and backward Southeast Asians. So, as horrible as the Rwandan genocide was, what do you expect from a bunch of ‘niggers’? And as ghastly as the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields were, what do you expect from a bunch of Oriental Despots? But how could Germans, such a well-educated and advanced people, have done such a thing? Jews also tie the Holocaust to the historical context of European/Christian ‘antisemitism’ and claim that it was a culmination of over a thousand year of irrational hatred for Jews on part of European Christians. So, Jews play very loose with the rules of morality and history to make the Holocaust the worst thing that ever happened. But if we follow the Jewish logic, may we not ask how Jews, a people of such high moral and cultural achievement, could have collaborated with Stalin in the killing of millions of Christian Slavs? How could Jews, after the Holocaust, have stolen the land of an utterly innocent people? How could Jews, a people of such moral clarity and integrity, have robbed so many people through the predatory uses of finance? How could Jews have instigated so many wars in the Middle East that had led to the deaths of millions in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, and etc? If Jews are so invested and interested in the truth, why do they use the media to spread so many lies? If Jews are so into ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’, why do they overlook the fact that they get ever so richer while gentiles get ever so poorer? Of course, the kinds of questions Jews can ask about gentiles cannot be asked about Jews by the gentiles, and Jews can enforce such a double-standards because they control the media, academia, and government that control the Narrative. This is why one would have to be really naive and/or stupid to trust Jews on anything.) ‘Multi-culturalism’ has no ideological or intellectual consistency. According to ‘multi-culturalism’, white Hispanics count as ‘people of color’, but yellow Asians are rendered invisible — not white, not ‘colored’ — whenever elite Californian universities are attacked by ‘progressives’ for their ‘lack of diversity’. If there are lots of blacks on any team, group, or organization(but almost no non-blacks), there’s no protest about ‘lack of diversity’, but if a certain company has lots of whites and yellows, then it’s not ‘diverse enough’. So, black is ‘diverse’ but yellow and Hindu aren’t. And even though we can bitch endlessly about ‘white privilege’ — ‘yellow privilege’ is just bunched together with ‘white privilege’ — , we better not notice that Jewish privilege is the biggest privilege of them all. When it comes to their victimization, Jews depict themselves as a defacto non-white group who are targeted by white ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘racists’ — even Muslim anti-Jewish violence in Europe is blamed on white Europeans — , but when it comes to their own power/privilege, Jews would prefer to hide it behind ‘whiteness’, thus fooling us that Jewish privilege is ‘white privilege’. That way, even a Jewish billionaire becomes indistinguishable from a southern ‘white trash’ hillbilly living in a trailer. So, even though Jewish privilege goes way beyond white gentile privilege, when people hear of ‘white privilege’(that is often Jewish privilege), they are more likely to get an impression of some white southerner than a billionaire Jew in NY or Las Vegas who’s living it up like an emperor. After all, among white people, there are many more gentiles than Jews, so the term ‘white privilege’ will conjure images of white gentiles than of white Jews.
Another reason why Jews often want to be deemed as ‘white’ — and also include Arabs as ‘white’ — is to press home the point that race is just a ‘social construct’ and a ‘myth’. Radical anti-Semites, after all, insisted that Jews were of another race and should not be included with the white race. They argued that Jews were Semites and, as such, should be included with the Arabs. Of course, even the most hardcore anti-Semites knew that many Jews were partially or even mostly European because a good number of Jews had mixed with the goy population through the ages, but they still insisted that Jewish origins were not European but Middle Eastern, and therefore, Jews should not be seen as white. In some ways, it’s correct to assume that it would be good for Jews to count themselves as non-white since Political Correctness tends to favor non-whites over whites — though, in fact, this rule applies only to certain non-white groups as there’s little pressure in the US to place Arab Muslims(hated by Jews), Asians, and even Meso-Americans on the pedestal above whites; favored statuses are reserved for Jews, Negroes, and homos. But, Jews want to count as whites since whites would be less willing to accept as ruling elites a people who are specifically deemed to be non-white. Because Jews count as fellow whites, white gentiles are more willing to accept Jewish power than they would be to accept yellow or brown power in elite positions. But Jews also pose as ‘tragic whites’ because the Jewish Narrative never stops reminding us that fellow whites(the European gentiles) hadn’t treat Jews as brothers but as an alien tribe of the killers of Jesus and then later, even more tragically, as a different race altogether that had no right to exist in Europe. So, Jews are white but a people whose whiteness was rejected by other whites due to bogus racial theories, and as a result, suffered even more than non-whites who had to live under white ‘racist’ imperialism. So, Jews were wronged as both ‘whites’ and ‘non-whites’. They suffered as whites because their whiteness was denied them, and they suffered as ‘non-whites’ since they bore the brunt of a white ‘racism’ that, against Jews, went far beyond the kind meted out to non-whites. Anyway, since white people were deluded enough to mistake fellow whites — Jews — as non-white, Jews would like for us to think that everything that has something to do with racial theories is pure bunk and that the very notion of race is just a ‘social construct’. Such logic is, of course, like throwing out the baby with the bath water. At any rate, one can sort of understand why Jews don’t want Arab-Americans to be counted as a separate racial category. As Jews have Semitic origins, if Arabs are to be counted as non-white, then the same argument could be made for Jews. That way, if we were to see Jews as Semites than as whites and to discuss Jewish power, wealth, and influence apart from those of white gentiles, it will become quite apparent that Jews — and not white gentiles — are the most powerful, most privileged, and most influential people in America. Also, white gentiles, despite all the PC conditioning about their need to embrace diversity and the ‘people of color’, will be less happy about being ruled by Jews if Jews, like Arab-Americans, were to be seen as belonging to a separate racial category. Indeed, notice that while whites get all ecstatic about a token mulatto Negro like Obama, they don’t want to be ruled by Planet-of-the-Apes scenario of authentic blackness. Most white folks just want to appropriate the most clean-cut and Nice Negro elements of the black community and put them on pedestal to show off that they are redemptive, ‘progressive’, and ‘anti-racist’. They don’t want real black rule. Also, even white Liberals will admit that they don’t want to live in a social order where the ruling elites are Mexican-Americans, Arab-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Hindu-Americans, etc. But since Jews and most homo elites are white, their domination of society is seen by many white gentiles as more acceptable.

At a time when many of us know all about the failure of the many Big Ideas of the past, what remains is the need for ‘smaller’ but truer ideas based on observable, demonstrable, or provable worth. Even though small truths may not command the awe of Big Ideas, they can be brought together to produce a new kind of Big Idea that’s far more formidable than Big Ideas of the past that were of philosophically speculative or prophetic nature than of observable reality or proven truths. It’s the difference between a sci-fi spaceship and a real spaceship. The sci-fi spaceship is more awesome because it is the product of our grandiose imagination, whereas a real spaceship is less spectacular since it’s the product of countless tiny facts of mechanics that have been brought together. But a real spaceship can fly whereas a sci-fi spaceship only works as imagination; we can build a giant model of the Millennium Falcon, but it won’t fly, let alone travel at light speed. Generally speaking, the Anglo/American model of thought and development have tended toward small truths coming together to form a Larger Truth made up of sound materials whereas Continental model of thought and development tended toward imagining some Mega-Truth and then forcing reality to fit the mold under Procrustean pressure. So, even though the Continental thinkers came up with more spectacular and awesome ideas — French Revolutionary Thought, various German philosophies, Marxism, anarchism, all the ideas associated with Russia radicalism and Revolution, etc. — , their grand designs were more likely to fall apart eventually since they ignored all the little truths that sustain a viable big truth. It’s like life evolved from simple organisms to the more complex. For the larger organism to be viable, it had to consisted of and be circuited with all the tiny organs that carried out their functions efficiently and diligently. Mankind was not created Pygmalion-like, based on an uber-blueprint. Rather, it is the product of billions of years of evolution where simpler organisms evolved into more complex ones because the smaller functions served as viable and supportive building blocks of bigger functions. Perhaps, not surprisingly, the idea of evolution came more naturally to British naturalists like Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace because Anglo style of thought favored building from small things to bigger things in an ‘organic’ manner. (The vulnerability of the Anglo-cautious manner is it tends to lack in Strong Personality and be intimidated by it. Anglos could be sharp and cutting in wit & demeanor but looked upon Strong Personalities as vulgar, brash, uncouth, and beastly. But the Cautionary Personality is naturally beta to the alpha of Strong Personality. Therefore, for the Cautionary Personality to prevail, it was necessary for Brits to live in an island nation apart from the Continentals, especially the French, Germans, and Italians with their Strong Personalities. Anglos naturally loathed Strong Personalities like Hitler and Mussolini who acted like know-it-alls. But Anglos eventually fell prey to the Strong Personality of the Jews. Jews, with their chutzpah, have some of the strongest personalities in the world, but they slithered into British upper society in snake-like fashion. Unlike Hitler who barked at other nations with a frontal assault demeanor, Jews snuck up on other nations with the smile of a cobra. They held back their full venom and slowly worked on Anglos until they amassed sufficient power to bark out orders at the Anglos who, by then, had fallen prey to the Jews in finance, government, media, and etc. The insidious style of Jews is more deadly than the invasive style of Nazis. Nazis tried to barge in through the front door, whereas Jews slid in through the backdoor pretending to be loyal servants but secretly plotting to take over the master’s house. Jews act like Morgana in EXCALIBUR.) This was why Mussolin’s Fascist Italy didn’t amount to much. Despite all the grandiose dreams and schemes of Il Duce, the small/individual/local building blocks of Italy were too corrupt, inefficient, disorderly, venal, and dishonest to come together to form a viably larger reality of power. It’s like no matter how a man presents himself in outward style and appearance, he is only as good as the little things — his health, natural IQ, learning, self-discipline, instinct, integrity, trustworthiness, skills and talent, etc. — within him that come together to form his real self.
The Latin character tends to favor the grandiosity of style over the minutiae of substance, and it is therefore more likely to mask the deficiencies, malfunctions, and imperfections than assiduously poring over them to fix the problems at the basic level. Instead of identifying and fixing all the tiny problems and rebuilding the new and better system from the ground up, the Latin character just paints or paves over the imperfections with the New Look; Italians are better with fashion than with facts. In contrast, the Anglo-Germanic-Nordic Protestant mental habit had tended to confront the problems at their root/core, take the imperfect machinery apart, inspect the details, and rebuild it from within. The Great Big is made up of countless good. A big fancy car with weak engine looks nice but drives like shit. This is why Latin America is a silly place where narcissistic fools — among elites, middle class, and masses — place a premium on looks and appearance while ignoring the truly dire state of all the little things that fail at the basic level. It’s like Detroit isn’t going to get any better simply because Big Government paves new roads, builds bigger schools, and opens another museum. A truly great city is the product of many individuals working hard, being responsible, paying taxes, having a sense of civic virtue, and etc. But all such qualities and virtues are missing from most Negroes in Detroit who’d rather drink Colt 45 when not shooting it. The economy theory of Commanding Heights can be dangerous because it assumes the health of a society only depends on policy from above. Of course, policy from above is essential for national wealth and power, and perhaps the New Deal policies — as well as those of Hitler before he became a war-monger — did some good. But the fallacious danger is many people — even intelligent or especially intelligent ones as intellectuals often get carried away by Big Ideas — come to believe in it as a universal and timeless panacea. But in truth, what works under one set of conditions won’t work under different sets of conditions. Suppose there’s a bunch of poor Polish kids who want to study and work hard and make something of themselves. If you spend money to build them a nice school and offer them freedom of opportunity to open new stores, they might do well. But the same policy might not work with a bunch of wild-ass Negroes who have no use for schooling and who’d rather loot a store than own one. If you build things for Negroes, they tear them down instead of building more on them. Unless the hearts and minds of individuals can be changed through civic pressure, moral values, and/or spiritual awakening, Big Policies won’t work in a place like Detroit or Haiti where so many individuals are utterly lacking in responsibility, accountability, and self-criticism. No race or people on Earth are naturally hard-working and responsible. All races and peoples had once been savages and barbarians. However, if pressures of civilization were to bear down on a people, some races/peoples will respond to them more productively than other races due to genetic factors. Blacks, being of lower IQ and greater apelike aggression, are harder to ‘tame’. Worse, in America many blacks take special pride in their un-tame-ability and in their power to scare white folks half-to-death. For poor black folks to make any kind of progress in America, they need to respect and learn from other races, and indeed, good number of blacks did so in the past — even though white America was more ‘racist’ back then. Even though many blacks resented white bigotry prior to the Civil Rights Era, they also aspired to be respectable like middle class white folks. But everything pretty much changed in the 1960s with the cult of Muhammad Ali, race riots, Black Power movement, and etc. Blacks, in losing their fear of the white man, felt they no longer had any reason to emulate a bunch of ‘faggoty ass’ losers who were easily whupped by stronger and tougher blacks. If blacks were more intellectual-minded, they might have overlooked the physical factors, but evolution in Africa made blacks judge people’s worth primarily on badass-ness and toughness; therefore, once blacks began whup whites in the boxing ring, in funky music, in schoolyards, on the football field, on the dance floor, on the buses, and etc., they no longer much cared for what they might learn from ‘faggoty-ass whiteness’. Of course, a whole bunch of self-loathing whites egged the blacks on in the 60s and 70s(and even do so today, especially in their admiration of Rap culture). Come to think of it, such whites predated even the 60s. Many white Jazz aficionados rejected white culture, music, and values and thought themselves cool, hip, and ‘liberated’ because they were into Bebop Jazz. And even among the non-hip white crowd, there was this feeling that blacks might be more soulful and tragic because they done sing with them deep voices as when Paul Robeson bellowed ‘Ole Man River’. Some might say white sympathy for the Negro was rooted in ‘white guilt’ over slavery and discrimination, but would white feelings have been so intense if blacks were short & stubby like Mexicans or geeky & gorky like the Vietnamese? Can you imagine some guy named Guillermo or Nguyen singing ‘Ole Man River’ and inspiring intense ‘white guilt’? No matter how much Guillermo or Nguyen’s people(as hypothetical substitutes for black slaves) might have suffered under whites, their iconic value in pop culture and mythology would have been far less compelling simply because Mexicans and Vietnamese lack the commanding presence of blacks. It’s like a suffering gorilla seems more tragic than a suffering gibbon. It’s like if someone equally mistreats a gibbon and a gorilla, you’re more likely to feel sorrier for the gorilla since a big ailing beast looks more tragic than a small ailing one. If Mexicans had been enslaved by whites, and if Guillermo had played the role of Martinez Kingez, I somehow doubt that he’d much of a cultural icon today. Anyway, despite the official Liberal dogma about race being just a ‘social construct’ and ‘all races being equal’, more and more whites began to abandon their sense of whiteness in favor of kneeling down before blackness to suck the Negro and swallow his seed. So, white boy aficionados of Jazz began to ‘talk black’ and call each other ‘cat’. And lots of white girls gave up on white music and went to Jazz clubs.
Oddly enough, the thing that saved something like white musical culture for a while was the rise of Rock n Roll. Though it owed a great deal to black musical sources and styles, white kids took to it with greater enthusiasm and abandon than black kids did. Black kids were less wowed by Rock n Roll since their own music was already pretty raunchy and wild — though, to be sure, there were black folks who were morally offended by Rock n Roll as Devil’s music. So, Rock n Roll had a greater impression on white kids, and that meant more white kids were inspired in developing pop music in new directions, and for a time, no nation contributed as much to pop music innovation as Great Britain where Rock n Roll may have had an even bigger impact since postwar British society was so ‘drab’ & ‘conformist’ and lagged in material terms far behind the US. Soon, Rock n Roll, infused with British sensibility(Beatles and Stones), Jewish sensibility(Carole King, Bob Dylan, and Paul Simon), and white pop sensibility(Beach Boys) turned into Rock Music, a form of music mostly practiced and consumed by white kids. Though there were a good deal of crossover appeal in the Rock scene — though mostly from black to white, not least because blacks tended to see White Rock as either stolen property or lamer imitation of black music — , Rock audiences were pretty ‘segregated’ during much of the Rock era, with blacks sticking to ‘black music’ and whites sticking to ‘white music’. And this became even truer in the early 1970s as Rock merged with country music to form Country Rock, for which the Eagles became the most emblematic band. Even when whites appropriated from black styles, American blacks tended to dismiss anything associated with whiteness. For example, it was white college kids who were first into reggae in the US, whereas black Americans mostly had no use for that stuff. It was because of white fandom in reggae — and white adaptation, as with Police’s reggae-inflected songs — that reggae gained a foothold in the US and eventually came to be appreciated by some American blacks as well; but even today, at any given reggae concert, you’re likely to see many more whites than blacks. Though reggae is black music, its fandom is associated with whiteness. Indeed, even when the music and band were ‘integrated’, the audiences remained segregated. Many white males were threatened by black music since much of it was about black studs singing about love and sex, and what if white girls listened to that stuff and got all jungle-feverishly horny? And at a time when the white community wasn’t yet comfortable with interracism, white girls didn’t want to be associated too closely with black music as they would be seen by their white peers as ‘one of those kinds’. As for blacks, they could never dance to White Rock since it lacked the kind of funky groove and rhythm that blacks like to boogie-oogie to. Blacks felt that white Rock is for people who can’t dance and be bumping into each other and shit. So, it was often noted by culture critics that there were more blacks as instrumentalists on the stage at a Bruce Springsteen concert than in the audience — same has been said about the Tea Party, though to be sure, it’s also true of SWPL white Liberal communities as well; how many blacks showed up at the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert Rally? If one musical form seemed to be bringing the races together somewhat, it was Disco in the 1970s, but its ‘gayness’ got too embarrassing. Things really changed with the rise of Rap and Hip Hop, and today white boys and girls are essentially culturally-sexually-racially owned by the black race, with white girls ‘twerking’ like Negresses to Hip Hop while imagining being banged by some big Negro and with white boys putting on baseball caps at an angle and making apelike movements with their limbs with the hope that some of that black magic will rub off his slow ‘honkey-ass’ self if they act like ‘whiggers’. And if most black music was once about black guys singing about black ho’s, a lot of rap songs are celebrations of racial-sexual victory, as it often sings about how the black dude is so much more masterful than the ‘faggoty white boy’ and how all them white girls be lining up to be humped by some Negro because slow white boys are too boring. If the message of Soul was "I’m a black stud lover for black ho’s", the message of Rap is "I’m a black stud lover to black ho’s and black stud conqueror of white ho’s, and white boys are a bunch of slow and flabby faggots who be kissing my ass as I kick his honkey ass." Indeed, interracism is so much a part of our culture that even Taylor Swift, who isn’t a rapper, made an interracist music video. Even though MTV tries to make interracism into an equal-opportunity thing — Justin Timberlake made an interracist video with some Negress — , any honest observer will note that it’s really about the stronger Negro dude whupping the white boy’s ass and stealing the white girl; and of course, Jews are loving it as nothing makes Jews happier than the humiliation and enslavement of the white gentile race.
Anyway, this is why it’s nearly impossible for many blacks to rise above their lunacy. Not only has their culture reverted to savagery — indeed into something worse than primitive savagery because, at the very least, even primitive savages have their social hierarchies and values based on notions of the sacred, respect for the elderly, the bonds of marriage, and duties of individuals to the community — but many blacks have no interest in any culture beyond Rap, Hip Hop, thuggery, and fornication. Culturally, black America is a cesspool, and even so-called Middle Class blacks like John McWhorter — who’s been critical of black pathologies — are apt to argue that Rap music is form of ‘poetry’. If that’s the case, why not say all songs are a form of poetry since most of them rhyme? In truth, if you remove the music or beat from Rock or Rap songs, what you end up isn’t anything like poetry in the literary sense. It’s like "Be Bop a Lula" works as song but not as ‘poetry’. Indeed, things have gotten so bad with the black underclass — what with even the black middle class wallowing in thug-rap culture, but then, much of the so-called black middle class depends on government jobs and is therefore parasitic than productive — that white Liberals have decided that the only solution is to dilute blackness out of existence through massive miscegenation. After all, the light-skinned likes of Obama, McWhorter, Malcolm Gladwell, Eric Holder, Valerie Jarrett, and Susan Rice seem to be smarter, better self-controlled, and more amenable towards working with whites, so maybe the only solution is to push interracism so that blackness will, by and large, be diluted. If you can’t fix black culture, maybe you can weaken black rawness by having black blood be mixed with white blood. Of course, this will not work, and Brazil is a real testament to that. The South American ‘rainbow’ nation is many times more violent and dysfunctional than United States. Interracism will not turn most Negroes into McWhorters or even Eric Holders. It will just turn a lot of whites into mulattos, most of whom will look to black identity and culture than to the white one. Just look at the loyalties of Eric Holder. The only way to win over blacks to white culture and values is to raise them in a white community, but for a predominant white community to exert that kind of influence, it must be mostly white. In other words, if a community has a 1000 whites and 10 blacks, blacks will feel the pressure to conform to white norms and values. But if a community has 1000 whites and 1000 blacks, blacks will push weaker whites around, exercise their wild anti-values, and either scare white folks half-to-death(and even bludgeon many white folks to real death) or corrupt whites into aping black culture that will be as harmful to whites as it is to blacks. And why would so many white kids imitate black culture? Because people, especially the young, admire the strong and aggressive while looking down on the dorky and geeky. When whites and blacks integrate in a big way, the domination and violence are so overwhelmingly black-on-white that whites either get pushed around by blacks or try to win the favor of blacks by submitting to them as the beta dog to the alpha dog. For white girls, this means putting out to black guys as white guys cannot defend their honor from stronger/tougher blacks, and for white guys, it means playing sidekick servants to black thugs. Some white boys wanna feel so black that they try to expunge their own whiteness by threatening and beating up weaker white boys.

Anyway, times change, and what-had-once-been comes to be no longer. Greece today isn’t Ancient Greece, and what was called ‘Italy’ since the Middle Ages was no longer Ancient Rome. And what had once been Anglo-America is no longer, and if British people of the 19th century could be transported to London of today, they would not only be surprised by the landscape but by the people they won’t recognize as fellow Britons — not only the ‘people of color’ but white Britons whose attitudes and values are so different from and dismissive of traditional Britishness. And Sweden today isn’t Sweden was 100 yrs ago — or even thirty years ago. And as America becomes more ‘multi-cultural’ and ‘tolerant’ — and with the rising Latin population — , it is becoming a sillier place as Latin attitudes favor style over substance. Whatever one may feel about Eleanor Roosevelt, she was a serious woman, something that cannot be said of Evita Peron who was all flamboyant style but zero in substance. Latins like to act and talk big, but when it comes to small details so integral to viability of big things, they are too lazy and/or deceitful to get down to work and do things right. To be sure, there’s sauciness in Latin culture that’s sorely been lacking in the more ‘drab’ and ‘spare’ cultures of Northern Europe and Wasp North America, but there’s a reason why the salty Northern Europe became richer and more powerful than spicy Southern Europe with its preference for color over character. Theodore Roosevelt said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick", a profoundly Northern European sentiment. It surmises that real power rests in the usefulness of the ‘stick’, and for a stick to be useful, it has to be a solid stick constructed of hard wood and cut the right way. In contrast, the Latin way is to overlook the usefulness of the stick and make grand gestures of how great and awesome one is. And even when it came to intellectual ideas, the Latins were more likely to pontificate without minutely examining their ideas of their viability in the real world. This was true of both Italians and the French. (What made Germans stand out was they somehow managed to combine the un-viability of Big Ideas with the viability of super-hard-work and discipline. If Anglos preferred small truths over Big Ideas and if Latins preferred Big Ideas over small truths, Germans devised a way to both manage Big Ideas and gain mastery over small truths; they came to excel at grandiose philosophizing — often about stuff that made little sense to most people — and at diligence at detailed workmanship. Germans got into the habit of building both grand castles in the air and big cannons blowing up stuff into the air. And this duality made them especially fearsome to the British. The way Anglos saw the world, a people could choose one or the other. One could be like the Latins and talk a lot of talk but not walk much walk. Or one could be like the British who were more cautious in their talk but walked a lot of walk. Thus, there seemed to be some kind of natural balance to history and power. Societies that produced too many Big Thinkers with dangerous, flamboyant, fanciful, ludicrous, too-good-to-be-true, and/or too-untrue-to-be-good ideas were bound to remain weak and therefore pose no real long-term threat to other nations. In contrast, a nation that produced less exciting thinkers might be more ‘boring’, but as its foundations of power were built with greater caution and attention to details from empirical observation and experimentation, it was bound to be more prosperous and powerful. So, there was a kind of justice to how history worked: the bold and brash were more exciting but achieved less than the ‘boring’ and ‘bland’ who were sticklers for details. But Germans seemed to violate this rule by creating a social culture that generated both Big Ideas — even more grandiose than ones from Latin societies — and a work ethic that studiously and even fanatically focused on empirical facts of what worked and what didn’t. The danger of this weird fusion of opposites was that Germany might use its awesome might created through empiricism in service of outlandish agendas that flowed out of incautious Big Ideas, and indeed, such fears were realized with German-Jewish Marxism and antisemitic National Socialism. We are liable to think that a mental habit in one area would inevitably affect other areas, but this isn’t always so. Among the Anglos, the culture of caution and restraint affected all their habits in politics, manners, arts, music, and etc., but the Germans did things differently. In some areas, they were very controlled, orderly, and restrained, but in other areas, they could be very passionate and even a bit hysterical, as with the music of Richard Wagner that inspired a generation of Germans with rather wild feelings about their race, origins, and destiny. But Jews are like this too. Just because Jews are such-and-such in one area doesn’t mean Jews are like that in all areas, i.e. just because Jews are conscientious in one area doesn’t mean that they are conscientious in all areas. In some ways, the Anglo-mind had a difficult time grasping at the nature of Germans and Jews because the Anglo-mind is far more attuned to consistency than the Germanic mind or the Jewish mind that could be highly rational in one area but also intensely passionate & irrational in other areas, indeed to the point where the German or Jew becomes utterly blind to the irrationality of his or her purported rationality. All said and done, Any Rand was hardly a rational thinker, but she insisted on the absolute ‘objectivity’ of her philosophy, and the likes of Marx and Hitler were loathe to admit how much their world visions were driven by personal passions than by any truly rational or objective assessment of history, humanity, or the world. As Rudolf Hess said, "Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler", the German mind was likely to think "feeling is thought, and thought is feeling", which I think was Heidegger’s idea in a nutshell. Jews think "chutzpah is truth, truth is chutzpah." Of course, Jews have been much more skillful in concealing how much their emotions truly affect their thoughts, a necessary talent Jews picked up from centuries of existence as hostile minorities in hostile lands. Because Germans felt free to express their emotions in Germany, they came to be known for their passions. Since Jewish emotions couldn’t be so freely emoted in gentile majority nations — it would have been stupid for Jews to scream out JEWISH POWER in non-Jewish lands — Jews became renowned for their obsessions. More often than not, an obsession is repressed passion.
If Anglos, through luck and ability, did manage to stave off and even defeat the German charge, they utterly failed in holding off the Jewish challenge; Jews are a far more cunning and devious people than the Germans. For one thing, for all their deviousness and venality on occasion, there’s something essentially earnest, straight, and thick-skulled about Germans that makes them spill their beans. So, despite all of Bismarck’s cunning, it became quite obvious what he was about and what he sought to achieve. And it was only a matter of time before Hitler let the cat out of the bag and revealed his true nature and agenda — and most Germans dutifully and mindlessly followed along. In contrast, Jews are always hiding behind fronts and buffers, so that even their dirty deeds are always seen as the work of the goyim or ‘white people’. Also, if German power came down to invading other nations through troops and bombs — thereby leaving no doubt as to their true ambitions — , Jews insidiously penetrated other nations through finance, media, academia, and entertainment. It’s like if someone tries to punch you, you know he’s the enemy. But if someone gives you the flu, you have no idea when and how you got the disease, and there’s nothing you can do about it as the fever spreads throughout your body. And precisely because Anglos favored lukewarm consistency, it was easy for Jews to undermine the Anglo system by messing with the temperature. Jews would push whatever button to expose the hypocrisy in the Anglo ideal of consistency, but Anglos, instead of fighting back in kind by exposing Jewish hypocrisies, would only get more apologetic and try to prove their consistency by reforming themselves to be less ‘racist’ and more ‘equitable’. But, the problem was Jews were never looking to be ‘fair and equal’ with the Anglos or with any other goyim. Jews were merely shaming Anglo privilege in order to discredit and weaken Anglo elite power so that Jews themselves could shoe themselves into the power slot. Indeed, if Jews are indeed committed to ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’, why are they so sensitive gentile criticism of Jewish power and wealth? Two rules of power is always know the nature of your enemy and only be fair with a people who are themselves willing to be fair. It’s like it makes no sense to play a fair game with an opponent who is committed to cheating all the time. If indeed Jews had called foul on Anglo hypocrisy in the name of moral consistency for all, that could have been a positive thing, but in fact, Jews only called foul on the Anglos to win for themselves. Notice how Jewish elites throw fits whenever anyone calls foul on Jewish power. Also, if Anglo elites did something wrong, all Anglos must bear the blame, whereas if scum like Bernie Madoff is finally caught, we are reminded that he has nothing to do with the rest of the Jewish community. So, if some Anglos did something wrong, Jews attacked the entire Wasp community for its ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’, but if some Jews did something wrong, Jews insist they have nothing to do with those bad Jews and anyone who says otherwise is an ‘anti-Semite’. So, Jews attack the entire groups of gentiles, but gentiles better only attack individual Jews, and their Jewishness better not be mentioned. So, if a bunch of Wasps acted badly, it was a WASP problem, but if even a larger group of Jews acted badly, no one better notice that it’s a JEWISH problem but only regard it as a problem of some individuals who got caught doing some bad shit. Of course today, Jews can act with impunity at all levels of society because almost no one — politician, writer, pundit, commentator, and etc. — can get anywhere without sucking up to Jews. In this regard, Ann Coulter, Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton, and John McWhorter all have something in common. They all suck up to Jews. Whether it’s Christie singing praises to the likes of Sheldon Adelson or John McWhorter sucking up to Jews at the New Republic and Columbia University — for a black guy, he hasn’t voiced much concern about the plight of Palestinians — , they know they ain’t getting anywhere in politics, academia, or media without sucking up to Jews. Indeed, McWhorter even wrote a book where he recounted how he, as a young child, had a crush on a Jewish girl and bawled like a baby because he realized that he couldn’t master the language — Yiddish, was it? — that might win her love. I’ll bet when he wrote that passage, he was thinking, "Sheeeeeet, the Hymies gonna eat this up and give me preferential treatment." I mean just think about it. There’s this light-skinned white-looking precocious black kid, and he was so besotted with some beautiful Jewish girl that he wanted to learn an entire language to win her heart. Surely, Jews would recognize him as a mulatto ass-kisser of Jewish power, and indeed, he’s been chosen to serve as one of the ‘experts’ on society by the Jew-run media. Don’t expect the nappy-headed fool to ever write a stinging criticism of Israel because that’s when Jews will begin to sour on him and no longer shower him with favors. Indeed, is it any surprise that Malcolm Gladwell’s star began to wane just when word got around that, in his latest book, he was thinking of including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Palestinians in the role of ‘David’? It also didn’t help that Gladwell regained a respect for Christianity. Though Gladwell got cold feet and used the example of Anglo-Irish conflict instead, the damage had been done, and Jews in the media were resolved to knock him down a peg. Of course, dirty Jews pretended that they were pissed with Gladwell over his ideas than for anything to do with Israel, but Jews don’t fool me. If indeed Jews in the media don’t suffer fools gladly, why did they promoted Gladwell to such extent all these years? Why did they SUDDENLY find fault with his theories and feel a great urge to discredit his views about humanity and society? You see, if two thinkers say pretty much the same thing but if thinker A happens to be critical — even in the most mild way — of Jews whereas thinker B happens to be full of praise for everything Jewish, the Jewish media elites will say the theories of thinker A are deeply flawed whereas the theories of thinker B are absolutely brilliant. So, even the veracity of 2 + 2 = 4 depends on more on who-said-it than on whether it’s true or untrue. Sometimes, there’s even a form of intellectual theft or ‘appropriation’. So, if a thinker who is politically incorrect and disfavored comes up with a new insight or challenging idea, the big media and academia controlled by Jews will totally ignore his ideas and simply wait for one of their own to adopt-and-adapt the idea as his own, and then the idea will suddenly be promoted as important. So, if an ‘anti-Semite’ says something important, it will be ignored until a Jew comes along and adopts/adapts the idea for his own purposes, and then the idea will be hailed as ‘ground-breaking’. This goes for styles in art too, which is why the current controllers of the media are loathe to give proper credit to D.W. Griffith, the true father of cinema and to Leni Riefenstahl, whose fascist aesthetics have come to be so influential in today’s Hollywood steeped in Pop-fascism. But of course, all sides do this, which is why the Nazis were loathe to admit that many interesting German thinkers and artists drew their inspirations from Jewish thinkers and artists. And in ancient times, the new Christian Order appropriated many things from paganism without giving credit, i.e. paganism was bad but if certain pagan ideas and idols were adopted-and-adapted to serve Christianity, they were good and not even ‘pagan’ anymore.
Comparing Latin Catholic societies with Germanic Protestant ones, it’s quite evident every advantage has a disadvantage and vice versa. It’s like if you throw out all the old furniture, tear down the walls, and remake the inside of the house, you end up with a cleaner, neater, and more useful house. But if you keep much of the old furniture and add new things to the same old structure, the house will be more cluttered and confusing. And yet, it will have more color, variety, and richness in the contrasts and complementarity between the old and the new. So, I’m not saying that the Protestant North is better than the Catholic South or vice versa. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, its advantages and disadvantages. Northern Protestant Germanic mentality is more prone to ‘do things right’, and when something is worth doing, Germans do a hell of a better job than Italians or Spanish are likely do. But if the thing is not worth doing — like invading Russia or carrying out the Holocaust — , Germans will again will do it with greater commitment, efficiency, awesomeness, and totality. So, even when it comes to doing wrong, Germans do it ‘right’, much more so than the Latins are likely to. Of course, this is faint praise for the Latin way for it implies that the reason why Latins are less likely to be evil(in an extreme way at any rate) is because they suck at it than because they’re good at being good. Paradoxically, the superior moral character of Germanic peoples in qualities such as commitment, trust, loyalty, sacrifice, courage, determination, honor, earnestness, and selflessness could end up serving the greater evil of someone like Adolf Hitler, i.e. smaller virtues corralled to serve a great evil. In contrast, the inferior moral character of the Italian masses evinced in their cowardice, two-faced-ness, cunning, deviousness, opportunism, deceitfulness, cheating-ness, shamelessness, mama’s-boy-ness, hysterics, and general oiliness had the effect of somewhat minimizing the damage of Mussolini’s fateful alliance with Hitler, the degenerate gambler of history. In the end, Mussolini couldn’t make his people do much, not even invade pitifully weak Greece. And Mussolini himself, for all his charisma and grandiose theatrics, lacked the balls to go all the way. When push comes to shove, childish Italians shit their pants and run to mama. It’s like what Earnest Hemingway noted in A FAREWELL TO ARMS: a couple of Italian deserters join the Americans and eat a share of the food, but when the going gets tough, they take off like a couple of craven chickens, and the enraged Americans shoots at them. For some reason, T.S. Eliot has never been let off the hook for observing certain negative traits of Jews, but Hemingway never got in trouble for depicting Italians in a negative light. Shouldn’t he have been accused of anti-Italianism? Thankfully, some Italians are more honest than others, and in Taviani Brothers’ THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING STARS, we are shown some Italians acting just like the Italian soldiers in Hemingway’s novel: they share in the food but then betray the common trust and act in self-interest. But the no-good sumfabitch gets his comeuppance when Allied bombs begin to fall.
Federico Fellini - Ingmar Bergman
In cinema, the Latin Catholicist and the Germanic/Nordic Protestantist outlooks found their greatest contrasts in the figures of Federico Fellini and Ingmar Bergman. Though both became atheist or agnostic in their adulthood, they were marked for life by cultural mentalities of different origins. The mind is kinda like jello. Even when jello loses its ‘shot container’, the molded shape remains. Similarly, even after the mind casts off a particular belief system, its molding may remain. So, even if Swedes have cast off spiritual puritanism long ago, they are still in the puritanical mode of pushing a new idea as the one-and-only true faith with utmost devotion, which is why something like ‘multi-culturalism’ has been so damaging to Sweden. When Swedes embrace something — even something that purports to be anti-puritanical — , they do so with puritanical earnestness. So, if conservatively religious Swedes were absolutely certain that something like homosexuality was a total abomination in the past, today’s Liberally ‘progressive’ Swedes are absolutely certain that the homo agenda is a pure good that every child must be inculcated with from the earliest age. The Swedish jello now sits in a different room for different purposes but maintains the same absolutist mold from an earlier time. To be sure, one could argue that the Northern European character owes more to innate racial traits than the cultural influence of religion — after all, it doesn’t matter if blacks are Catholic or Protestant as both bunch of Negroes be into hollering, dancing, jiving, and booty-shaking more than anything else — , and one can’t help thinking that even if Bergman and Fellini had been switched at birth, the southern-Bergman would still have been like the real Bergman and the northern-Fellini would still have been like the real Fellini. After all, the difference between Anglo Protestants and Jewish Jews isn’t only a matter of culture but of genetics. Even if someone like Alan Dershowitz or Woody Allen had been raised in a ‘white bread’ Anglo community, I can’t imagine him being anything but Jewishy — and even if Mitt Romney or Dan Quayle had been raised in a Jewish family, I don’t see him turning into a stereotypical Jew like Norman Mailer or Dustin Hoffman. Besides, William F. Buckley was raised Catholic, but his personality and characteristics were very Waspy and Anglo than Latin. And Irish Catholicism and even German Catholicism were strikingly different from the kinds in Latin nations. Generally speaking, the Latin peoples tend to be more temperamental, slippery, garrulous, flamboyant, and expressive than the more sober and solemn Germanic peoples, and these differences are surely partially rooted in the genes due to evolutionary pressures. In the extremely cold north, those who could shut up and quietly cooperate had a better chance of surviving than those in the South, and besides, the Southern regions both invaded and were invaded by North Africans and Muslims who passed some of their hot-blooded genes to white folks.
Still, we cannot discount the influence of culture in the differences that developed between Latin Catholic Europe and Northern Protestant Europe. The essence of Catholicism is the masking of God, whereas the essence of Protestantism is the unmasking of God. Catholicism in the South simply couldn’t wipe away all the rich heritages of paganism that had, for so long, defined the world of the Greco/Romans. For Christianity to wipe away all of Romanism as wicked pagan idolatry would have meant the denial, rejection, and the end of all of Roman civilization with all its glories and magnificence. It simply wasn’t doable and wasn’t worth doing since the pagan past seemed replete with unsurpassable richness . But this created problems for Catholicism since pagan idolatry is essentially about providing ‘masks’ for the gods. The ‘masks’ could be in form of sculptures, paintings, altars to their glory, and relics that were deemed to be imbued with the sacred essence of the gods. Thus, paganism placed objects as intermediaries between mankind and the gods(the spirits), or gods were manifested through materiality that served as their ‘masks’.This was all very good for the advancement of the arts, creativity, cult of beauty, and etc. but it didn’t do much for spirituality since the sacred was rendered into objects as representative substitutes for the pure essence of the spirit. After all, no matter how finely a pair of hands could mold a ‘sacred object’, it was the work of man and therefore not truly godly. At best, it could be a glorious mask of god or God, but it could never be the true god or God. Thus, when it came to spirituality, the practice of paganism was something of a lie that, instead of pondering the true depth and meaning of the gods or God, preferred their handsome ‘faces’ or ‘masks’ instead. Indeed, what would have been the need to think about the true essence of God or the gods when He or they could be seen, held, and touched, when offerings could be made at the feet of their imagined replicas in the forms of idols or icons? And Catholicism inherited this characteristic of paganism in its practice of Christianity, and so, many Latin peoples became more invested in rites, rituals, ceremonies, idols, relics, and such things than with the true meaning of God. It’s like MERRY CHRISTMAS CHARLIE BROWN where most of the kids are into the materialist celebration of Christmas and want Charlie Brown to get a big colorful fancy tree, whereas Charlie Brown and Linus find the truer meaning of Christmas by obtaining and adorning a spare tree. After all, what were the life and teachings of Jesus all about? They were about simplicity, humbleness, and meekness — qualities that can be seen in the cruddy tree that Charlie Brown buys. So, Charlie Brown could be said to be Protestantist whereas Snoopy who wins the top prize for his fancy decoration of his doghouse could be said to be Catholicist — the Snooper is certainly a lovably devious creature.
The problem — and beauty and magnificence — of Catholicism was it that kept adding ‘masks’ over the true face of God, indeed almost to the point where the practice of Catholicism in Latin nations became a contest of masquerade. It became less about seriously pondering the deeper essence of God and the best to lead a Christian life than about how to best refurbish the Church and the imagery of Godliness to gain social prestige through show-off-iness and win God’s favor — as if God Himself was into taking bribes. "Look Lord, we built you a great mansion, so please favor us."
It’s like the scene in THE GODFATHER PART II when Fanucci the parasitic don clips money to one of those traveling Madonnas before a cheering crowd. One would be hard-pressed to find such behavior in a Northern Protestant nation. The promiscuous use of idolatry, the tawdriness of the celebration, and the crassness of openly mixing cash and Jesus should trouble the conscience of any sincere follower of Church teachings, but such theatricality had become such a fixture of Italian Catholicism that people became more obsessed with and focused on the ‘mask’ of God than with God Himself; something similar can be found in the vulgar practices of Hinduism.
The mask, no matter how magnificently portrayed in painting-sculpture-architecture-music-relics-jewelry, could never be the real thing, the true essence of God, and so, for a society to fixate on the myriad masks than on the face behind the mask(and the soul behind the face), there was the social danger of subliminally encouraging a culture of lies, deceptiveness, Wizard-of-Oz-like manipulation, crassness, and superficiality over truth, substance, meaning, depth, and straightness.
Though Fellini and Bergman were not religious film-makers, one can see in Fellini’s films the indulgence with lies and in Bergman’s films the intensity for truth. To say that Fellini’s films indulged in lies isn’t necessarily a negative criticism because art is more about emotional than factual truth. To the extent that Fellini was true to his tricky self and exposed as well as exulted in the deceitful and wily nature of Italians, he was a true artist. There’s an element of confession in all of his films that, yes, he’s a liar, he’s a cheat, he’s a fraud, and he’s a con-man, but he is what he is and has at least the honesty to admit his dishonesty — though even his honesty, in its self-pity and self-justification, is a kind of dishonesty that refuses to come clean — and, more importantly, he has the magic touch to turn the lies of life into the stuff of art. So, at one point in
8½, Guido(Marcello Mastroianni), as Fellini’s alter ego, pleads with his wife to accept him as the way he is. He admits he’s never going to change. He’s going to go on lying, cheating, and so forth and so on, but despite all his flaws and failings, there are some things in life that are true, such as his love for her and his passion for cinema. Besides, even though there’s so much talk of Art as the expression of Truth, art itself is artifice, a system of lies and manipulations where something seems truer the more it spellbinds the audience with its power to fool. Paradoxically, the more a work of art suspends our disbelief and makes us believe or share in its artifice, the more we are likely to admire it as a kind of ‘statement’ of ‘truth’. In some ways, one could argue that bad or failed art is ‘truer’ for we never lose sight of its failed artificiality, thus remaining firmly grounded in reality from which to ridicule it. So, for art to be truer, we have to fall under its spell and momentarily lose our sense of reality. When art works, we are apt to feel that what we are seeing is as real or even realer than actual reality. Fellini was a dishonest man and even a dishonest artist — especially beginning with LA DOLCE VITA when he became addicted with playing the role of maestro — , but none of it mattered in his best works as he could juggle tragedy and comedy with the balance of anarchy and expertise of a circus. Instead of trying to clean up his act and trying to be honest, he decided to have fun with the dishonest nature and ways of Italians — how they were so effortlessly and clownishly into the habit of fooling others and themselves, but also how, in their zest for life, were brazenly confessional in their shameless sentimentality. So, a film like I VITELLONI is filled with liars, cheats, and the self-deluded, but it’s also candid about the delusions with which we — especially Italians — live. Though Fellini wasn’t disinterested in the truth, he found the greatest fun in the masks of life — the parties, the dresses, the costume balls, the wealthy, the narcissistic homos, the ridiculous clowns, the hypocritical clergy, the fancy cars, etc. Fellini’s attitude toward life was "why be so judgmental when all of us — especially those who wanna have fun — are liars, cheats, frauds, and hypocrites in one way or another?" A kind of homo version of Fellini with similar attitude is Spain’s Pedro Almodovar. Both not only love the masks of life but to smear them with more lipstick and makeup. Sadly for Fellini, this just got staler and staler after 8½, and his films became increasingly like the dejected showgirl whore with falling feathers in the harem-fantasy sequence in 8 ½. Despite the increasingly desperate showmanship, Fellini had really run out of ideas and imagination soon after 8 ½.. It’s one thing to favor the mask and makeup over the face and the soul but quite another to give up on everything except for the ever-expanding mask piled on with makeup to make up for sapping inspiration. Though Marcello in LA DOLCE VITA and Guido in 8 ½ never come anywhere near the truth — personal, moral, or spiritual — there’s a sense that they are at least striving for something more than the bawdy and loud distractions of life-as-a-celebration; but in most of Fellini’s later films, the tiny two-dimensional characters are little more than puppets of Fellini’s megalomania whose deflating originality is substituted with inflation of hot air. Indeed, the essence of the entire history of the Catholic Church — and even Italian Fascism — can be gleaned from Fellini’s career. In its incarnation and early development, the Catholic Church did wrestle with the meaning of Christianity and the problems resulting from the fusion of Christian ethos and paganist idolatry. But eventually, the Catholic Church became a moribund institution that no longer grappled with the deeper meanings of Christianity — and even with the creative possibilities of artistic expression in the glory of God — and merely expanded to justify itself with more pageantry and grandiosity as if such pomp-and-production-values could mask the fact that it had nothing to say and wasn’t even adhering to the old values. Like Soviet Communism of the 1970s that had nothing new to offer but also couldn’t sustain the original communist values, the Catholic Church was failing in terms of both the new and the old. It was too conservative and stagnant to offer answers for a changing world, but it was also too corrupt and compromised to convince honest people that it was repository of old virtues. So, what was left but to maintain the loyalty of the ignoramus flock with more displays of pageantry, rituals, and theatricality? Pretty much the same happened with Italian Fascism in a much shorter time period. If the early Mussolini was genuinely working toward some new way to blend the traditional and the modern — and the left and the right — to formulate a new way for Italy, he eventually settled down to the maintaining the loyalty of the masses through ever bigger rallies and more outlandish speeches about how Italians were a great race of warriors and he-men. Same thing happened with Fidel Castro.
Contra Fellini, Bergman was all about the ‘unmasking’ of God and man to claw at the deeper truth. But just as pointing to Fellini’s dishonesty isn’t necessarily a negative criticism or a condemnation of his character, pointing to Bergman’s (cult of)honesty isn’t necessarily a positive appraisal of or a compliment to his character. For one thing, Bergman was no less dishonest than Fellini on the personal level. In some ways, he was crueler and a bigger hypocrite. At the very least, Fellini admitted he’s a liar and learned to live with himself — and asked the audience to forgive/indulge him — accept him as he is — because he couldn’t help being what he is, a rascal. In contrast, because Bergman took his commitment to truth more seriously, he was more judgmental about the lies of others and increasingly more neurotic about his own(which were legion), not least because he had numerous affairs with women and cooked up all kinds of rationalizations to justify his backstabbing betrayals. At his worst, Bergman was something more than a rascal: a scoundrel. Also, if Fellini could reminisce and laugh about the problems of his childhood, Bergman remained bitter about certain aspects of his childhood and his parents all his life. (Even their historical consciousness differed markedly. While both came to develop negative views of Fascist/Nazi rule over Europe and though neither was particularly political in a partisan manner, Fellini regarded the Fascist era as a nasty circus — but circus nevertheless worthy of hilarity and mockery — , whereas Bergman became morbidly guilt-ridden over what happened in Germany though he was Swedish and had nothing to do with World War II and the Holocaust. The mere fact that he once held favorable views of National Socialism prior to the war made him intensely sensitive of what had happened to Jews.) A part of Bergman hated his father for his sternness and ‘judgmentality’, but in his inability to let bygones be bygones, he became very judgmental toward his father and set himself apart as the son-liberated-from-the-father’s-tyranny, but in fact, he treated many people in his life worse than his father had treated him. At the very least, Bergman’s father, for all his weakness and failings, thought he was doing the right thing by God when he was overly harsh with his sons, whereas Bergman knew full well what kinds of dirty tricks he was pulling when he manipulated and hurt people whose lives crossed with his. If FAITHLESS honestly portrays some of the nastier sides of Bergman, the real Bergman was indeed a cretin.
So, when I say Bergman was an artist of honesty, I don’t mean he was an honest person. I mean his art was obsessed with the masks(of individuals, society, psychology, spirituality, etc.) concealing the truth. And yet, the problem is one can never be sure if truth is possible without the mask. According to Fellini’s world-view, truth is either too much for his intellect — it’s like Marcello in LA DOLCE VITA admires the intellectual world of Steiner but doesn’t fit in and like Guido in 8 ½ feels stumped by a writer collaborator who is more educated and cerebral — , too banal to be worth the bother of unmasking, or too troublesome for us to obsess over. The banal side of truth says that we’re born-live-and-die, so why not just accept it for what it is? Why not just have a good time, and if good times are to be had through trickery, manipulation, and childish antics, invite the guests and start the party. Besides, one might just stumble upon the truth in the most unexpected way from the most unexpected thing. Truth is as much what feels right as what is right, and even apparently silly things can feel so true to a person at a certain point in life. Steiner in LA DOLCE VITA knew so much art and philosophy but failed to find any truth that ‘felt’ true, whereas some Fellini characters find the most beautiful feelings in the shallowest and or most ridiculous things. It’s like even some cheapie orange soda can taste like the most brilliant drink to an exhausted and dehydrated person. On its own merit, it’s just some crap beverage, but in the moment of thirst-quenching for a person crawling out of a desert, it’s the bestest thing in the whole world. At his best, Fellini was masterly in capturing the moments when ‘ordinary’ persons find extraordinary meaning(or at least epiphany-like respite) from what we usually take to be valueless. After all, the meaning of True Love comes to the bride in THE WHITE SHEIK and to the cheating lover boy in I VITELLONI only because they fell into stupid misadventures. As for tragic side of truth, it is certainly powerful but also a kind of dead-end. So, Zampano at the end of LA STRADA is racked with guilt and convulses in agony, but how many films could Fellini have made to drive home the same point? (Likewise, Satyajit Ray wrung all the tears worth wringing in the Apu Trilogy. Vittorio DeSica’s SHOESHINE, BICYCLE THIEVES, and UMBERTO D have genuine power in their pathos. Tragedy must feel true. It has to come from the heart, so if an artist were to make one emotionally drenching movie after another, one begins to suspect the tragic has been turned formulaic, in which case it’s less tragedy than soap. This was one of the problems of humanism of the postwar era. Though many people were deeply moved by humanist neo-realist films that addressed the problems of war, poverty, and corruption, the cathartic can become cartoonish if turned into an emotional habit.) Or, if Fellini really espoused such a dark view of life, shouldn’t he have joined a monastery than stick with film-making? Besides, artists like Robert Bresson had already staked out the territory of gloom and depression. Great as Bresson was, the world doesn’t need too many like him because (1) we’d all be depressed to death and (2) it’s difficult to do depressiveness well, which is why most downbeat films are drab and dreary. Perhaps, happiness is a lie that makes life bearable(but then, there’s an element of happy lie in all of art since art works by separating the wheat of truth/beauty from the chaff of mundaneness that surrounds us at all times in all places; if we want truth, we have to take the wheat and chaff, but art doesn’t work like that).
Maybe Cabiria(Giulietta Masina) is yet again falling for an illusion as a smile flickers on her lips in the final moment of THE NIGHTS OF CABIRIA(after being robbed of her life savings by some hustler who’d posed as an admirer), but life is nothing without hopes conceived of illusions. Life isn’t only about remembering hard lessons but about ‘forgetting’ them to ‘live the same lies once again’. (Though entirely failing to remember the lessons is stupid, casting lessons in iron is also stupid in implying that there’s only one truth to derived from the lesson. Think of all the disasters that resulted from the misuse of fire. So, should humanity have forsworn fire-as-evil for all time. As the old man taught the monster in THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, "Fire good, fire bad." When Prometheus gifted fire to man, it was understood it’d be both a blessing and a curse. The problem of animals and children is they tend to either totally forget the lesson or totally cling to it as the only truth. An animal or a child will make the same mistake over and over — as if incapable of learning from experience — or fearfully avoid something based a single frightful experience. A child who got bitten by a dog might see all dogs as bad. Animals and children often operate on total amnesia or absolute single-minded memory.) Indeed, why did biology make it so that women are apt to forget the true extent of the pain of childbirth? Because if women remembered full extent of the agony with absolute clarity, they’d never want to have another child again. It’s because women are apt to forget the full agony that they are willing to have more kids. In the end, everything we do is pointless — and maybe Buddhism has a point in this regard — , but if we stick with such absolute truth at all times, we might as well do nothing. So, Cabiria has learned her lesson and knows something more about the ways of men and the world. But if her negative lesson becomes the centerpiece of her entire life, she might as well just give up on the joys of life as well and become like Miss Havisham in GREAT EXPECTATIONS for whom time stopped upon the realization of how awful men could be. The characters of Bergman films are more focused on the truths of their lives than are the characters in Fellini films and, as such, have a more difficult time forgetting and moving on in life. Consider the pregnant woman in THE BRINK OF LIFE who looks forward to an easy childbirth but goes through hell on earth during a long painful procedure. Judging by the look on her face, she’s unlikely to have another child again or even feel much love for the child she brought into the world. In some of Bergman’s films, characters would rather commit suicide clinging to some powerful truth than let it go and re-enter the pageant of life. (There’s a sense that the real truth is dark & depressing, and therefore, one is only face to face with the real truth when one is most depressed, ground down by life, and weary of life. It is the moral purpose of man to attain the truth, but if the truth is unbearably depressive, then truth is anti-life, implying one’s life isn’t worth living and another life is not worth bringing into the world — though Bergman had plenty of children. So, there’s the paradox. The purpose of life is to attain the truth, but the truth negates life. It is when the circus master in SAWDUST AND TINSEL feels most depressed near the end that he feels closest to the naked truth. He inhales the fullest force of life when most suffocated by it. He tries to end his life in this moment of truth, but he just can’t make himself blow his brains out and diverts his agony upon ailing bear with a mix of cowardice and mercy. The difference between animal and man is the former feels only misery when miserable whereas man dreams of happiness even when most miserable. But if he returns to life, he will be back with the circus — in both the literal and figurative sense — filled with diversions and distractions. Most troublesome for someone like Bergman, there’s an element of privilege/luxury in pain-as-truth that may be a tad too self-indulgent, perhaps even phony and bogus. Though the circus master at the end of SAWDUST AND TINSEL is at the end of his tether, he is still the owner of the circus, has people who care about him and look up to him, and has some means to indulge in his fits of self-pity and despair. He has his own private space in which to mope and feel sorry for himself. This is even truer of the woman in PERSONA who, though clearly depressed, is taken care of society and allowed to indulge in her dark neurosis. If some Bergman characters make too much of their misery and failings, the woman in PERSONA withdraws from life when she is most successful and famous, which makes her depression even more outlandishly privileged. For most living organisms, truth is a matter of fight-or-flight; they have no refuge in some monastic-like zone of safety in which to indulge in their depressive moods. So, this adds an element of guilt to someone like the Liv Ullmann character in PERSONA — as well as to other characters in Bergman films who, though understandably miserable, don’t have to face the problems faced by most people around the world revolving around hunger, violence, crime, war, and/or oppression; they are better off than 99% of mankind but mope around like they’re in the gloomy pits of hell where the fires have gone out.) And yet, there’s no doubt that Bergman was the more serious and committed artist than the more festive and ultimately more restive Fellini who eased into his assured role as maestro of Italian cinema. Fellini was perceptive enough to notice the Wizard behind the Oz, but he, wink-wink, made peace with life as a big party. Such self-realization did wonders for the ending of 8 ½, one of the great peaks in cinema history, but it couldn’t sustain the future arch of his career that became flabby and gluttonous, rather like the latter days of the Roman Empire.
In contrast, Bergman’s art went in the opposite direction, growing sparer and severer. If Fellini donned ever bigger masks — on himself and on everyone/everything around him, culminating in the tasteless scene in CITY OF WOMEN where a theater-full of men and boys are collectively and worshipfully masturbating to a goddess on the silver screen — , Bergman became obsessed with tearing away at the theatrical and cinematic touches that had made his films so powerful dramatically and visually. Perhaps, Bergman began to feel that his films were too technically accomplished — arty verging on artificiality — where everything looks just right and everyone said just the right word at the right moment. Everything fit in too neatly into the symmetricality and circularity of the overall design. But given the dark, chaotic, and violent nature of the world, could such orderliness really be the face, let alone the soul, of truth? In his early years as director, because Bergman lacked the expertise and total control that would later catapult him into ‘master’ status, his first films tended to be a bit rough and disjointed. (Some people[including myself to some extent] prefer these early films because their ‘imperfections’ allow for more ‘spontaneity’ — something other than trademark Bergmanisms — in their worlds.) But once he mastered the art of cinema, his films were sealed airtight in all their dimensions, almost to the point where every frame, every utterance, and every movement became unmistakably Bergmanesque. Bergman made several masterpieces, but one couldn’t help feel a bit claustrophobic as every square inch of space seemed to be filled with only his breath. In some ways, Bergman’s cinema could be even more isolated, contracted, and restrictive than the vision of Robert Bresson whose films, though often dealing with insular and/or incommunicative characters(or a donkey), addressed the brutal reality of the world; indeed, the power often derives from the obstinacy of characters in face of the obliviousness of the world filled with opportunism of the unscrupulous. MOUCHETTE and AU HASARD BALTHASAR are extremely subjective in seeing the world through their protagonists, but we also feel the full blows of the world upon the characters. In contrast, Bergman’s world seems to exist apart from the real world, but then, maybe Sweden itself is like that because it’s been too prosperous and too safe for too long. Many of Bergman’s characters suffer, but more often not, their problems seem to be self-inflicted by the privilege of neurosis. Though FAITHLESS is as fine as a film can be, a voice inside my head couldn’t help thinking, "You idiots could have been happier if you weren’t such spoiled jerks."
Bergman was probably aware of the limitation of his vision, and his two films of the early 60s, THE SILENCE and WINTER LIGHT(aka THE COMMUNICANTS), were prepared to destabilize the perfect system from within. Even though the two films, like earlier ones, were tightly constructed, meticulously composed, and finely executed with exactitude verging on excruciating, it was more challenging to discern the direction of the plot, the meaning of the words(as well as prolonged silences), and the significance of the ‘conclusions’, if as such they were intended. Though Bergman’s earlier films were hardly adorned in the ripe Catholicist manner, their sense of order and self-contained wholeness may have fallen into the conceit of idolatry. After all, who is foolish and imperfect man to construct such a ‘perfect work’ to lend the impression of truth as materially realizable through art? Who is man to create any work that pretends to have arrived at a conclusion about the truth of life? Every idol is a form of ‘conclusion’ for it features God or Truth in finite form. But if God and Truth are infinite and eternally mysterious, than an honest work can only be a scratch on the surface of God or the Truth. If Bergman began to realize and grow anxious about this, it isn’t surprising that THE SILENCE and especially WINTER LIGHT offer nothing like the kind of conclusive emotions that rounded out SAWDUST AND TINSEL, SEVENTH SEAL, and WILD STRAWBERRIES. Though without conventional happy endings or the Answer, they do offer a sense of the summation of life.
WINTER LIGHT - Ingmar Bergman
Anyway, if Catholicism became accustomed with the various ‘masks’ of God, Protestantism sought to tear away the paganesque idolatry placed between God and man, thereby bringing each and every Christian soul closer to the essence of God that could only be accessed through the heart(than through the senses). So, while the outward manifestations of Protestantism could be stark and rather ‘drab’, its followers were convinced they felt the presence of God with greater directness, clarity, and totality. But it also meant they could feel the burden of sin, guilt, and conscience with a heavier heart.
Catholics could be very anxious — like superstitious folks of pagan cultures — because God existed in their culture through so many ‘masks’, signs, and relics. How could they know if they’d carried out all the necessary rituals in the proper order? On the other hand, the fear of God among the Catholics was less absolute since they could find some degree of relief and alleviation through Holy Water, Confessions, Rosaries, saying Hail Mary, and such stuff. Thus, one could rely on the rite even if his soul was not right. And such an attitude is very much alive in the works of Fellini. While his films are not without conscience and guilt, Fellini’s characters often look for some clever or convenient way out, as if their moral/spiritual compromises could be bargained with through a lot of flowery talk and colorful gestures.
But no such bargaining is possible in the Northern Protestant Soul. One must truly be right before God, and there’s hardly any ticky-tacky stuff to alleviate one’s moral failings in life. And since the connection between God and man was direct, one couldn’t hide from God, and God was hidden from man through so many ‘masks’. But, to the extent that God cannot be seen but only felt, the Northern Protestant could never be sure what God was really thinking. Still, as there was only God and man in Protestantism, the feelings of guilt were likely to produce depression than anxiety. With Catholicism and Fellini, even when things seem pretty foul and corrupt, there’s the recourse to ritualism, pomp, and various other antics to justify oneself and maybe impress others. It’s like the lover-boy guy in I VITELLONI always has an handy excuse for every crisis and has practiced his routine to perfection. He’s so slick and smooth in his lies that even those who know he’s a liar usually forgive and forget because he’s not just a phony but a real phony; he’s utterly faithless but utterly faithful in his art of faithlessness — a kind of innocence in corruption. But there are times when he goes too far, and he realizes the hard way that not every problem can be absolved with charm and style.
Fausto the Slick Clintonite of I VITELLONI
But one doesn’t have to be garrulous and extroverted to master and practice the Catholicist way.
Consider Michael Corleone in THE GODFATHER who stands as godfather to his baby nephew, all the while plotting to kill the baby’s father — and the heads of the Five Families. One might ask, how could a man stand inside a Church and stand over the baptism of a baby while plotting something so bloody and cruel — and possibly evil? It is because, no matter what one does, Catholicism offers various means and methods by which one could at least be partially absolved. Because such an mind-set is so endemic in Catholicism, a Catholic’s relation to God is somewhat corrupted. Instead of dealing with God-as-God, he relies on the ‘mask-and-machine politics’ of God controlled by the clergy as a buffer. Thus, the Catholic doesn’t worry about total purification that Protestant may seek in his Faith. Rather, the Catholic figures he can only be incrementally absolved and redeemed through various rituals, routines, and ceremonies.
But then, while it’s difficult to be purely good in Catholicism, there’s the advantage in that one cannot be totally bad either. If you’re a Catholic and killed someone, you might say a few Hail Mary’s, sprinkle some Holy Water on yourself like cologne, and feel at least partly forgiven by God, whereas no such antics could do you any good in Northern Protestantism where it was all a matter of the purity of the soul. So, a Northern European Protestant was less likely to be as morally ambiguous and two-faced as the Corleones in THE GODFATHER. For a Northern Protestant to stand over a baptism while plotting the murder of the father of the baby would have been impossible to morally/spiritually reconcile. If Michael Corleone was a believer — and we don’t really know — , he would to confess to God that, yes, he’s sinner alright, but he could still rely on the Church to provide him with various methods and means by he could be at least partially absolved. But such an opportunity would be lacking to a Northern Protestant. He would simply have to accept that he’s a rotten soul lost to God forever OR he would have to get down on his knees and totally repent before God Almighty in utmost sincerity. (We must be careful not to confuse Northern European Protestantism with just any kind of Protestantism. In some ways, Protestantism can become far more corrupt than Catholicism. Paradoxically, the ‘idolatry’ that corrupts the Catholic Church also has the effect of protecting the image of God. The problems of the Church can always be blamed on the masks and methods than on God Himself who always retains His dignified aura and distance from mankind. It’s like in communist nations, one could find problems with the system but could always rely on the dignified wisdom of Marx and Lenin esteemed as lofty elevated figures. In contrast, because of the direct connection between man and God in Protestantism, the very essence of God Himself could be corrupted by morons and nutcases. In Northern European Protestantism, God was an austere, solemn, and judgmental figure. He was not to be taken lightly. But there are populist Evangelical churches and ideologically fashionable Mainline churches in the US for whom God is either a ‘good ole boy’ or ‘social activist’. If a Catholic might posit such a silly idea, the vast machinery of the Church would serve as a bulwark against overt populism and social fashionableness. Catholic Church might consider it for debate, but it would not leap to conclusion that God is a "good ole boy" or a "social activist in favor of ‘gay marriage’". But because there is a direct connection between man and God in Protestantism, a ridiculous person could easily conclude that God likely agrees with him on everything since he feels it in his heart.) In a way, it appears Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola realized that the problems of Italian criminality and lack of character stemmed at least halfway from the Catholic Church. Though GODFATHER PART III is pretty dreadful — a real missed opportunity — , it is nevertheless interesting that much of the intrigue happens within the Catholic Church itself. The Church and its rituals were only incidental to parts I and II, but part III outlines the commonalities between the Italian Mafia and the Catholic Church that is presented as vast labyrinth of compromise, corruption, conspiracy, and etc. — sort of like the Fed. When matters of morality and conscience have become so bureaucratized within a complex and veiled system of power interconnected with the world of politics, finance, media, and even organized crime, what does it mean for Catholics to be on the right side of God? If all things must be favored, supported, denied, or forgiven through the system of a superstructure that no one can really fathom, and when this superstructure stands between you and God as the powerful arbiter of what is right and wrong — and if this superstructure’s judgements can be affected with money and clout — , then how does on distinguish the fingerprints of man from those of God? What is true right and wrong, especially when the superstructure that claims to be the main instrument of God happens to be riven with so much dirty politics, paranoid competition, and egotistical vanity? To be sure, Protestantism has its problems too, as just about any fool can form his own denomination, claim to have a direct link to God, and push a really crazy spiritual agenda as the real truth of God. It can produce someone like Jim Jones, Rev. Mhoon, David Koresh, or the shallow clods who think Jesus died on the Cross so that homo fecal-penetrators could get married. Jesus may have forgiven homos who repented, but He still would have judged them and condemned their silly fruitkinish behavior with sex organs being shoved into fecal organs. Surely, Jesus understood why God provided and fitted humankind with certain organs. If God had meant the anus to be a sex organ, how come He connected it to the large intestine and made it ooze with poo, or pooze? So, when we see too many whackjob Protestants running amok, Catholicism doesn’t seem so bad. But, when the Catholic Church becomes accustomed to favoring rite over right and insisting only on the ‘bureaucratic’ intermediation of the Church between God and man, Protestantism has the substance of a truer Faith. One thing for sure, because Protestantism allows one the freedom to seek God on his or her own terms — at least according to the ideal of Protestantism as there are some Protestant denominations that say you better do as THEY say or you will burn in Hell — , a Protestant has to be more responsible than a Catholic. Unlike a Catholic, a Protestant cannot just leave it to the God’s government, which is what the Vatican is, to carry the main burden of righteousness. He or she must look into his or her own heart and expunge what he or she finds to be wicked and sinful. And he or she must take full responsibility for his or her own wickedness. (Some people have wondered about young ones who died before they got to know Jesus and about all the people around the world who died without knowing about Jesus. If Christianity says that one will burn in Hell unless one is saved through the Lord Jesus Christ, is it fair to condemn all those people who never got a chance to know about Jesus? I mean think of all the Hindus living a thousand years ago who heard of Jesus. Or what about a baby that died in childbirth? Perhaps, we could surmise that for such individuals, there’s a kind of pre-purgatory where their souls are matured into adulthood — if having died in infancy or childhood — and gotten to know about Jesus. If they accept Jesus in this pre-purgatory, they go to Heaven, but if they reject Jesus, they burn in Hell. As for people who lived a full life and died without having known about Jesus in non-Christian lands, maybe they will be exposed to the teachings of Jesus in the pre-purgatory — like getting a GED among those who failed to graduate from high school — , and if they accept the Jesus, they go to Heaven, but if they reject Jesus, off to Hell they go.) Anyway, THE GODFATHER Part III only manages to sensationalize the problem of how the gangster-mind-set of the Italians may be rooted in the Catholic tradition. Any organization that is more invested in its bureaucratic power and the importance of rites is bound to fail in inculcating and encouraging the growth of a truly independent moral sense among individuals who, instead of looking into their own hearts for moral/spiritual meaning, will do whatever that serves their selfish interests and then lean on the Church for the minimum requirement of holiness and forgiveness to be ‘saved’. But then, maybe the problem was less the Catholic Church than the messy and corrupt cultural character of Southern Italians. After all, Northern Italian Catholics weren’t so bad, and Austrian Catholics were almost as good as the Northern Protestant Germans. Maybe Italians in the middle and southern regions messed up Catholicism than the other way around. After all, Negroes have been notorious in befouling both Catholicism and Protestantism. If Mexican Catholics and Norwegian Protestants were to swap religions, I’d wager that Norwegian nouveau-Catholics will do a much better job than nouveau-Protestant Mexicans. Indeed, many Mexicans have switched to Protestantism(in the shallow conviction that God showers more dough on Protestants), but they seem to be stuck in the same rut. Even so, we can’t discount the power of culture in a wholesale manner. One thing for sure, Hinduism, for all its richness and profundity, hasn’t been very good for the moral character of Indians, most of whom are contradictory, confused, cunning, and confounded like the so many gods, heroes, taboos, and tenets of Hinduism.
It seems true enough that, by and large, Protestantism did more to develop the moral character of Europeans than Catholicism did. That said, it’s ironic that so many European kings and princes adopted Protestantism not for moral but for political and personal reasons, the most famous being Henry VIII’s switcheroo to get a divorce or something. Even sillier is Russians deciding against Islam because it forbade vodka and other drinks.
Anyway, even though Protestantism(at least the Northern European kind) fostered a more serious and sincere moral culture, it also produced a cultural personality that could more severe, prickly, difficult, irascible, and just plain unlikable — like the stepfather minister in FANNY AND ALEXANDER. By and large, Fellini was more lovable than Bergman though Fellini was the more shameless liar in art and life. But Fellini’s gaiety and confession of his hopelessness with truth made him less of a hypocrite in his failings. He was a thrower of parties than giver of sermons. Since Catholicism was into the celebration of God through rituals and pageantry, one need not be morally dense and introspective all the times. One could join in the festivity as the Catholic procession crossed the village square. One could participate in the spirit of the moment without the overt soulfulness. (To be sure, Irish Catholicism was pretty heavy and ham-fisted, so maybe again, the difference between the South and the North had less to do with religion than with linguistic, ethno-cultural, and/or genetic factors. After all, Poles were Catholics but more like Northern Europeans in their outlook than like Southern Italians. On the other hand, Poles have generally lacked the sense of focus, unity, and determination that came to characterize the Northern European Protestants. Incidentally, there’s a greater sense of loneliness in Northern Protestantism. Even when parishioners are together in a church, each feels a degree of isolation from the others. Whatever one may notice of the problems of idolatry and sensualism through ecstatic music in Catholicism, they serve as bridges and doorways through which the members of the gathering could commune and connect with one another. Before the movie begins, everyone sort of feels alone and isolated in the theater, all too aware of himself or herself apart from others in the audience. But once the movie is projected onto the big screen and the speakers are booming with Dolby Stereo sound, everyone shares a kind of collective consciousness. Catholicism, which appealed more to the senses of eyes and ears — and even the tongue with wafers and wine — , has the power to make the flock forget and put aside their individualities and join in the ceremony and celebration about the glory of God. It’s like a Hollywood Movie. In contrast, the Northern Protestant church service was like sitting in a theater where the movie is never shown on screen. Instead, one must seek the ‘inner movie’ between oneself and God. This ‘inner movie’ must be found from within, like in the subconscious opening scene of PERSONA. Because of the spartan barrenness of anti-idolatry-ism in Northern Protestantism, every individual was more aware of himself or herself apart from others — as with the characters in WINTER LIGHT. And yet, because Northern Protestantism was also anti-pride and pro-humility, one couldn’t feel confidence in one’s individuality. This led to a kind of neurosis. Northern Protestantism said it’s sinful for people to rely on idolatry to come together and feel as one; salvation can only be found through the truthfulness of one’s own soul, not by relying on the feel-good aura shared collectively by all. This led to a more powerful sense of individual self in isolation from others, but then, Northern Protestantism also said one shouldn’t be too sure of oneself since that would be vanity and pride, which are sins in the eyes of God. So, it was like damned if you do, damned if you don’t. You had to be more of an individual soul in Northern Protestantism, but this individuality had to suppress its pride and be even more servile before God. It’s like telling a slave that he has to develop a stronger sense of self, all the while bowing down before massuh with even greater devotion.). The kind of teachers you dislike the most are the strict and judgmental ones who take their jobs very seriously and, in turn, expect the best from their students. They believe it’s their calling to fully devote their lives to teaching and go out of their way to inculcate the students with the proper lessons. And since their own efforts are so true and sincere, they are less likely to tolerate students who aren’t giving their best in turn. Also, they believe in honest grading and would be offended if a student asks for favors. In contrast, there are teachers who are more colorful, forgiving, and willing to compromise. They try to understand the students better and be lenient with all the imperfections. Such teachers are clearly more likable, but the downside is they may be too easy on their students as on themselves. Also, they might be willing to let students slide with inflated grades if they like the students enough on a personal level. There’s certainly a human touch to this, but it’s also corrupt. One might say the strict and severe kind of teacher is Protestantist, whereas the more compromising and forgiving kind of teacher is Catholicist(at least in style and attitude), but on the other hand, it was the Catholic Schools that developed a reputation for strictness in America. But then, many of them were Irish-Catholic than the sunnier kind of southern-Catholic, but then, it could be the Irish just like to be ham-fisted and like to beat up people. Also, strictness, in and of itself, isn’t necessarily about moral seriousness. After all, the military in all societies is a place of strictness and discipline, but it’s all about following orders and obeying commands than about building moral character where it really counts — in the soul and ethical reasoning. So, even though Catholicism could be as or even more strict than Protestantism in some cases, it was more likely to emphasize the message that what mattered most was collective dogma than individually unearthed truth. It’s like Pat Buchanan had a strict upbringing, but his mind was drummed to stick with the traditional dogma and rites than search for his own truth in relation to God. His autobiography should maybe have been titled RITE FROM THE BEGINNING.
To be sure, Protestantism could also be antithetical to individual soul-searching and thought. For one thing, it could abandon or lose its sense of discipline, a quality so important for those unmoored from strictures of tradition/dogma, and degenerate into promoting mindless impulses, which explains why so many Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal churches are ridiculous in fostering childish behavior in their flocks who love to shake their bodies, holler, and act like silly hillbillies, crazy Negroes, crass philistines, or Rock n Rolling hedonists. A whole lot of church services have become little more than standup comedy routines or feely-good stuff modeled on Oprah — or maybe it’s the other way around. Though they may win the popularity contest, they serve up easy truths and ready-cooked emotions. Surely, even rite is better than trite.
But then, even Protestantism with hardy discipline could be a spiritual, moral, and intellectual dead-end because the fundamentals of Protestantism, as laid down by men like Martin Luther and John Calvin, were about spiritual purity and correctness than spiritual freedom and enlightenment. Martin Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church not for religious freedom & tolerance but for religious correctness against what he deemed to be spiritual corruption of the Church. If anything, he was offended by the Church’s tolerance for the impure. He thought he had the answers, and his followers shared him grim attitude. So, Protestantism tended to produce minds that were obsessed with purities than with possibilities. And this is one reason why Northern Europeans lose to Jews. The Jewish mind has its own powerful sense of righteousness, but Jews are more apt to ponder the possibilities of meaning of their religion than Christians are of their own religion. The Old Testament or the Torah is filled with strikingly contradictory stories, and Jews added the Talmud, another vast source of Jewish thought, to their spiritual tradition. In contrast, the New Testament is rather slim, and even though there have been countless works of literature produced by Christians about their religion, most of them merely reiterate than further or expand on what had been expounded in the New Testament. There’s a sense in the New Testament that suggests there aren’t more truths to be found as Messiah arrived and said everything that needs to be said. Indeed, even Martin Luther’s rebellion against the Catholic Church didn’t really produce a new idea but merely reminded people to go back to the true source. (The Old Testament is about development, indeed the absolute necessity of development. Though Jews were mindful to remind themselves of the Laws of God, they also understood they had to keep growing, thinking, and developing. Jews couldn’t simply look to the age of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Saul, or David for all the answers. Each significant figure added something to Jewish culture, but each was also greatly flawed and a mere brick in the Temple of God. Jews looked back to the great men of their history for lessons and inspiration but not for the absolute truth or answer. After all, even the great Moses was denied entry into the Promised Land for having displeased God. So, even though Judaism can be Orthodox, it cannot be ‘fundamentalist’ since no single figure, idea, law, or value in the Old Testament holds the fundamental key to the Answer of God and life. Jews believed that they had to keep on searching and thinking in order to grow nearer to God. And yet, there was a paradox to this Jewish search for God because the more the Jews thought of the meaning of God, the more abstract God became, and the more abstract God became, the more intangible and distant He became, ever more difficult to grasp and sense.) Thus, the notion of Lutheranism didn’t add much to the New Testament. Calvin was more creative in this regard, but his doctrine of Predestination made it rather pointless to take an active role in life, intellectually or otherwise, since everything had been predetermined by God. Even though the New Testament came considerably after the compiling of the Old/Original Testament and even though Jews seemed to cling to old tradition whereas Christians seemed to embrace a new vision of life presented by the Messiah, paradoxically it was the Jews who were, in some ways, more forward-looking than the Christians. Though Jews seemed to be looking back to their sacred past as described in the Old Testament whereas Christians appeared to be marching forward with the confidence of the Messiah’s arrival, as the years passed Christians found themselves looking back to the most sacred time in human history when Jesus had arrived, preached the truth, died on the Cross, and then was resurrected. Though Christians believed that Jesus would return yet again one day, their spiritual history had pretty much ended with the coming of the Messiah. All that was left for them was to live a good life according to the tenets of the New Testament and seek salvation by praying to Jesus. In contrast, even though Jews seemed to be looking back to the sacred past as recorded in the Old Testament, their spiritual history had yet to be resolved since their Messiah hadn’t arrived yet and because God promised them that the Jews would be blessed by Him and gain domination over the entire world — and the goyim would be blessed through their subordination and service to the Jews. Since Jews never held such power as promised to them by God through most of history, they could only look forward. Oddly enough, Jewish power really began to take off when modern Jews turned to secular forms of power in intellect, science, business, and culture. Paradoxically, Jews had to reject God in order to finally fulfill the promise of God; today, Jews do indeed control and own much of the world, and so many goyim, especially in the West seek redemption through the approval/blessing of Jews who’ve elevated themselves to god-saint status via Holocaustianity. And yet, there must be something in the Jew that clings to the Old Religion in the ‘essential’ if not religious sense since Jewish identity and culture are meaningless without the connection to Jewish tradition. Indeed, this is one of the huge problems of Jewishness and modernity. If indeed modern secular Jews no longer have any need for nationalism, tribalism, and other ‘atavistic’ passions & tendencies, why do they cling to their Jewishness? In the past, Jews could argue that, in some societies at least, they were still regarded AS JEWS despite their best efforts to assimilate, and so, they had no choice but to stick with Jewishness because gentiles kept reminding them that they were JEWS. But then, there were also plenty of societies where Jews could entirely give up their identity and become part of the crowd. This is certainly true of America today. If a bunch of American Jews decided to totally abandon their Jewishness and become gentiles and blend in, who would object, especially when so many goyim are willing to marry and mix with Jews — and don’t care about their own identities or origins? It seems more likely that, even in the past, many gentiles continued to see Jews as Jews even after Jews converted because many Jews had converted to Christianity or abandoned their faith in bad faith or out of deceit. Observant gentiles would have noticed that even Jews who claimed to have dropped their Jewishness tended to act Jewish, hang around Jews, and support other Jews than join fully with the goy society. So, it seems more likely that Jews have always wanted to have the cake and eat it too. They wanted the goy world to abandon its tribalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, and traditionalism, etc, but they themselves never wanted to let go of their own tribalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, and traditionalism. Also, if Jews are truly sincere in wanting to become fully modern, universalist, and secularist, even something like the Holocaust is no excuse for Jews to argue that they were and forever shall be to FORCED TO BE JEWS under goy pressure. Putting aside the issue of Jewish sincerity in their effort to fully assimilate into goy society, the Holocaust excuse is just so much obfuscation. Suppose all the redheads in America just want to be seen as fellow white Americans, but some nutjob comes to power and calls for the extermination of redheads. As a result, suppose 50% of all redheads are killed before the crazy regime is finally overthrown, and America returns to normality where redheads are treated and accepted as any other people. Would it then make sense for redheads to insist on their separateness for all eternity because of the crazy thing that happened with redheadocaust? Of course not. Similarly, in the modern world — especially the modern West — where Jews are so fully accepted and embraced as fellow Europeans or Americans, there is no need for Jews to cling to their Jewishness on the basis of the Holocaust. German Jews can just be Germans, Polish Jews can just be Poles, Russian Jews can just be Russians, English Jews can just be English, and American Jews can just be Americans. So, why do Jews cling to Jewishness? If anything, Jews themselves seem to be using the Holocaust card to favor and defend Jewish supremacist identity and power over gentiles. Mind you, I’m not blaming Jews for maintaining their sense of Jewishness. If I were Jewish, I would do the same because the Jewish culture has a great history and rich heritage. Nevertheless, Jewish identity is rooted in the ‘atavistic’ emotions and concepts of tribalism, irrationality, nationalism, ethnocentrism, traditionalism, territorialism, nativism(Jews reclaimed Israel/Palestine on grounds that it had been their original homeland), and etc. Personally, I don’t mind such ‘atavistic’ emotions, passions, concepts, and values because I don’t think any people, culture, history, heritage, or nation has much meaning if it were just some bland, modern, logical, universal, technocratic, legalistic, scientific, and secular order/system. While modernities are good and necessary in order to maintain the world we live in, there must be other values and visions for a people to be possessed of a rich sense of who they are, where they came from, what is sacred to them, and what they must do as a people to secure their survival, power, and progress.
Indeed, suppose there’s an amnesia drug that can wipe out all the ‘avatistic’ knowledge and emotions from all white folks — Gentiles and Jews alike — in the West. Suppose we hand them to every white person in France and England. The next day, the white folks of England and France will continue to go to work, produce goods, manage hospitals, invest in banks, and run the government. But the English wouldn’t know they’re English and know nothing about their English history and heritage, and the French would feel the same way. Also, let’s suppose they don’t even speak English or French anymore but find themselves speaking a kind of universalese that anyone in France or England can understand. Furthermore, suppose every Jew in England and every Jew in France no longer know of their Jewish identity, history, heritage, religion, and etc. They still have their wealth and their place in society, but they simply feel as one of the masses than as a special minority with a unique ‘atavistic’ set of outlooks and emotions that make them feel apart from the rest of society. Would the French and English would want something like this outcome? Maybe the PC-brainwashed among them would welcome such since they’ve already been uprooted from their past, history, traditions, identity, and even territoriality. PC-brainwashed drones in England and France seem willing to allow their own nations(that produced unique peoples with unique traits and cultures) to be drowned in endless floods of hordes from the Third World. Despite the horror of the demographic transformation, all they can do is mutter ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ in the ‘struggle against racism’ and yap at other white people who won’t give into the globalist-Jewish agenda of destroying the West so that white gentile folks can never unite as a overwhelming majority to challenge hostile Jewish elite power. And it’s possible that some dumb shallow Jews would also welcome the anti-atavism amnesia drug because they have no use in Jewishness at all. But I’ll bet many Frenchmen and Englishmen will refuse to take the drug because, despite all the PC-brainwashing done to them by the Jewish globalists who run the elite institutions, there’s something deeply buried within them that insists that a meaningful life isn’t merely about well-functioning governments, productive economies, and clean hospitals; it’s also about a sense of what you are, which people you belong to, where your people came from, where your people built their homeland, and what your people did to define themselves uniquely apart from others. After all, even though Britain and France had been invaded by various peoples all through the ages, most of them were fellow white Europeans, and in time, the various tribes did finally settle and develop unique societies and nation-states. This is why we teach in history in schools. Humans are different from animals in that animals have no sense of what-had-been before they were born. Indeed, most animals even forget who their parents and siblings were in due time. So, a mother leopard and daughter leopard will separate from each other and later meet against as enemy-strangers. And among primitive tribes without much in the way of written memory, historical consciousness is very limited. On the other hand, the primitives may have a stronger consciousness about their communal past since everyone in the tribe regularly comes together to share the same stories over and over; and since they rely on oral tradition, there is a greater emphasis on memorizing and passing down such sacred knowledge in the form of living culture. In contrast, even though or especially because written language allows so much knowledge to be stored and preserved, we tend to be more lax about collective memory since we know we can always find something when we need it. In oral tradition, the fire of collective memory has to kept lit in order for it to be passed down; in literary tradition, we can let the fire go out since we can always light it back it on. In taking the retrievableness of the past for granted, we are apt to ignore it and forget that it ever existed. (We are more into remembering, retelling, and ‘rebooting’ superhero stories and pop culture fantasies than our true histories.) We know it’s always there when we want it, so we tend to forget about it, whereas the primitives know that their culture will be lost unless the entire community comes together to tell and hear the stories again and again and pass them down through an oral tradition. It’s like the Book People at the end of Ray Bradbury’s FAHRENHEIT 451 are committed to reciting the books over and over since the books will be forgotten unless they keep alive in oral form. Anyway, without a sense of where we came from and what land & culture defines what we are, we might as well be a bunch of Stepford automatons or mindless animals who live for simple pleasures — like the clowns who run riot at Walmart on every Black Friday, which really has become a day of the wild Negroes and Negro-ized ‘white trash’. If production and consumption are all that matters, then KFC and McDonalds should be the symbols of every nation and every city. I’m not knocking fast food franchises — as I like KFC too — , but the idea that societies should only be about production and consumption sounds pretty soulless. (Some will defend anti-nationalism on grounds of cosmopolitanism, a rational and enlightened consciousness and appreciation of cultures and ideas around the world. Personally, I like cosmopolitanism as long as it’s not radical cosmopolitanism, but then, I find merit in every -ism as long as it’s not radical and extreme. Extraneous cosmopolitanism is indeed a great thing. The best of the Ancient Greeks were ‘extraneous cosmopolitans’, that is to say they were proudly and profoundly Greek but also interested in other peoples & cultures and appreciated the benefits of trade and communication with other worlds. But ‘core cosmopolitanism’ is a soulless and suicidal world-view because it reduces cultures and ideas into mere commodities for consumption on the premise that each individual is just a ‘free agent’ who should shop around for cultures like he does for shoes, clothes, fashions, and restaurants. Core cosmopolitanism is based on the notion that people shouldn’t have core cultures; they should merely be culture-consumers who take a bit of this from here, bit of that from there, and etc. and mix them all together and become his or her ‘own person’. Perhaps if people had all the time in the world and had IQs of 1000, this would be possible. But as we are creatures with limited life-spans, memories, and abilities, the only way to preserve the richness of cultures is for us to embrace our own culture as their core culture. If a people only stick with their core culture, they can become isolated, ‘xenophobic’, ignorant, and static. So, all peoples have much to benefit from extraneous cosmopolitanism. But when everyone feels that he or she owes no special allegiance to the race/culture/nation that produced him or her, then it’s a death-knell for cultures. Cultures cannot survive when everyone around the world sees every culture, including his own, as a commodity. We can treat other cultures as commodities, but our own culture should be sacred and essential to us. For example, if some German or Greek wants to sample and enjoy elements of Hindu, Arab, Chinese, Turkish, Mexican, and etc. culture as commodities and consumer choices, that’s all very good and fine. But for him to see his own culture in the same manner would be an act of deracination and deculturalization, whereby he would be reduced to nothing but a cultural consumer than a cultural being. To a Japanese, non-Japanese cultures can be enjoyed and appreciated as commodities, but his own culture should be something more than a commodity or choice; it must be a history, a heritage, an identity, and an obligation. To a German, non-German cultures can be enjoyed and appreciated in all their variety, but Germanness must retain its special meaning. Otherwise, what’s the point of BEING German? Of course, other-cultures-as-commodities can, in time, become an essential part of one’s own culture. German peoples adopted the opera from Italians, but in time, German opera became part of the German cultural tradition. But such a process takes time and must happen organically. Other cultures have to be digested and made one’s own. Of course, Jews understand this very well. While Jews have indeed been cosmopolitans who sampled, tasted, traded in, adopted, appreciated, and appropriated — and even absorbed — the cultures of many other peoples, they were careful not to fall into the trap of cosmopolitanism. At the core level, Jews remained Jews with their Jewish identity and sense of heritage. Even as Jews enjoyed much of the gentile culture, they understood the difference between Jewish identity and gentile culture. Even when Jewish culture changed under the influence of gentile culture — the development of Yiddish and Jewish literature/art — , Jews maintained a powerful consciousness of how Jewish attitudes remade elements of gentile culture into something uniquely Jewish. When Jewish scholars study Bob Dylan or Philip Roth, they don’t merely regard him as some Jewish guy who participated in gentile culture but as a Jewish guy who absorbed, digested, and transformed gentile cultures into uniquely Jewish ones. Of course, some people reject the idea of core culture/identity because it seems stifling. For those from weak or non-great cultures, there may not be much in the way of pride in sticking with one’s core cultural identity. I mean if you’re a Hawaiian, what has your culture produced except for roasting pigs in the ground, munching on melons, growing fat, and talking like babies? As for those from great cultures, there core identities may not hold much in the way of excitement since their cultures are so well-established and even universalized as a world-wide generality. What does it mean to be of the culture of Shakespeare when everyone reads Shakespeare around the world? What does it mean to be Greek when everyone knows of the Parthenon? What does it mean of the Germanic musical tradition when the likes of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven have become world standards of excellence in music? So, if a people of a non-great culture may feel trapped in core-cultural inferiority since their people didn’t produce much of worth, people of a great culture may feel a bit tired in being associated with stuff that have become world standards; also, when one’s cultural glories are so copiously associated with the past, they may serve as a hindrance to moving forward, a disadvantage among the French vis-a-vis the Americans. It’s like if you have to learn Greek and Latin, you have less time and energy to try out and master new stuff. Nevertheless, the danger of greatness is that it can become established as a universality and lose its particular association with the culture of a specific people. This is why Jews were insistent on remaining Jewish and not becoming Christians because if Jews were forgo their unique Covenant with God, their culture might become commoditized into a universal spiritual consumer product, as Woody Allen notes of Catholicism as a commoditized religion in HANNAH AND HER SISTERS. After all, Christianity did get off the ground as a cosmpolitanization of Judaism.And in our world, we see the problems of such a cosmopolitanization as the Vatican is being overrun by Asians, Africans, and Latin American mestizos. Jews, in contrast, believed in a universal God but created the myth of the Covenant whereby God was bound especially to them. The Japanese film FACE OF ANOTHER raises an interesting question about the dangers of radical cosmopolitanism when a doctor creates a facial-masking technology that will allow anyone to switch faces and become someone other. In the film, a Japanese guy takes on a face of another Japanese-looking guy, but the implications go further, not least because Tatsuya Nakadai looks somewhat ‘western’ and because the philosophical exchange happens at a German restaurant/pub in Japan. If indeed no one is bound to any identity, individual or cultural/national, what are we? We are now at a point where people not only think of abandoning one’s own culture in favor of the cosmopolitan-commoditization-of-identity but even think it’s great to change one’s sex through ‘gender-reassignment’ surgery or one’s race through plastic surgery, as Michael Jackson and so many Asians have done. It replaces roots with toots, as our society grows ever more tooty-frooty day after day. It’s one thing to have a center and have other things revolve around that center, but it’s quite another to be adrift in the cosmos without any gravitational loyalty to any particular system. Some might argue that there is a kind of gravitational center to ‘core cosmopolitanism’ in that one allows the cultures of the world to revolve around oneself. One could argue that culturalism, as opposed to cosmopolitanism, is about the individual, as a planet, revolving around a clan, tribe, or nation as the sun, whereas cosmopolitanism is about the all the cultures of the world as planets revolving around the self as the sun. But, such a ‘core cosmopolitanism’ strikes me as imbued with the hubris of Ptolemy-ism. Can any self be powerful enough to serve as the gravitational center of all the world’s cultures? It sounds like the conceit of libertarianism with its cult-worship of the so-called ‘heroic individual’ as a godlike figure, which is rather funny since the issues that most libertarians are obsessed about are drugs, gambling, whoring, and guns. As important as the sense of individuality is, our lives are short in the epic span of history. Though we must insist on our freedom and liberty, we are all part of a heritage, a legacy, and a narrative. The winners of history don’t forget their identity and legacy. Of course, they might try to make other peoples forget their own identities and legacies — as a mind war game — , but then, the kinds of people who fall for such mental baits are the losers of history because, without a common identity, legacy, and sense of unity, a people cannot come together to work and fight for their own survival and power. This is why Jews have been trying to erase the sense of identity, legacy, and duty to blood-and-soil among white gentiles, all the while emphasizing the need for Zionism, Jewish consciousness, Jewish cooperation, Jewish unity, and Jewish righteousness among the Jews. Jews are NOT core cosmopolitans but extraneous cosmopolitans; they are core culturalists. Why do Jews appreciate anthropology? Jews find a parallel between the anthropologists as members of a superior culture/civilization studying primitive/inferior peoples AND Jews as members of a superior tribe studying and manipulating the cultures of dumber gentile peoples. Of course, most Jewish anthropologists have been ‘left-wing’ and have argued that non-Western cultures are NOT inferior to Western ones, and yet, if we closely observe the Jewish practice of anthropology, it’s premised on the view that modern Jewish thought is immeasurably superior, morally and intellectually, to the those of gentiles, especially white ‘Aryan’ ones. Jewish anthropologists imply that while the modern white man is no more advanced morally and intellectually than some naked savage, the modern Jewish scholar is light years ahead of ‘racist’ white rightist scholars. Even when Jews seem to totally take part in a non-Jewish system, ideology, or culture, they go out of their way to turn the culture inside out in something stamped with a powerful sense of Jewishness. After Ayn Rand got through with American ideals of free enterprise and individuality, it was no longer the moderate Anglo kind but a radical Jewish monstrousness that revolved around the cult of her own personality. Ayn Rand also had no regard for nationalism... except for Zionist nationalism in Israel. Of course, she justified her pro-Zionism on grounds that Israeli Jews were advanced and modern whereas Arabs were a bunch of tribal savages, but using her logic, weren’t Western imperialism and ‘racism’ justified on grounds that advanced whites had every right to maintain supremacy over savage, barbarian, or backward non-whites? Besides, suppose Palestinians and Arabs were just as advanced and modern as Jews in Israel. Would Rand then have argued that Zionism must be ended, and Jews must share the land equally with Arabs and Palestinians who are just as advanced and modern? If you think that’s how Jews think, you’re either crazy, dumb, or incredibly naive. I believe it is the duty of every people to preserve their core identity and culture. Or, if they must assimilate to a bigger culture, they must sincerely try to become part of that culture. Only then does cosmopolitanism have value. Cosmopolitanism, by its very nature, can never be truly core-ist. Cosmopolitanism is like world buffet where you can sample lots of different stuff. Even when you admire the culture of another people more than your own, you have an obligation to maintain the preservation of your own culture/identity since no one else will, and then it will be forgotten. Who wants to be like a bunch of trashy and insipid Filipinos? If Armenians don’t preserve Armenian identity and culture, who will? Sure, non-Armenians can study Armenian culture and appreciate its arts and literature, but that’s not the same thing as preserving Armenian-ness. If every Armenian were to become like Kim Kartrashian the mudshark skank fuc*er of Negroes, you can kiss Armenian-ness goodbye. It’s like people all over the world study Roman culture, but that doesn’t make them Roman. Greek identity survives because Greeks preserved it, but Roman identity is lost because people who’d been Romans failed to preserve it. As such, people who’d been Roman turned into greasy and oily ‘eye-talians’ severed from their roots. When a people lose their identity, they lose an organic connection to the past. And when an identity loses a people, it becomes just a museum piece. We can admire the wonders of Ancient Egypt, but they have no bearing on Egypt and Egyptians today. But Jews and Chinese have maintained their cultural connection to the past, and that makes them truly formidable and great peoples.) Of course, the globo-Zionist-corporate world push ‘Cultural Marxism’ to make the entire world sing in perfect harmony in the church of Coca-Cola — though maybe the new global anthem is PSY’s "Gangnam Style" or some Kanye West song about how white girls around the world should be whores like Kim Kardashian and suck his dick. Globalist Jews want to sever the roots between white gentiles and their identity/heritage/territoriality. Jews want white gentiles to feel that such emotions are ‘irrational’, ‘sick’, ‘phobic’, and ‘demented’. To be sure, Jews will play on such emotions when it’s to their interest. For example, notice how Jews have fanned the flames of aggressive nationalism in Ukraine and Georgia to bait and bleed the Russian Bear dry. And in the US, Jews fan the flame of ‘brown power’ to encourage ‘Hispanic’ resentment and hatred against the ‘gringos’ and ‘yanquis’. In the end, it’s all about "Is it good for the Jews?"
This is why Jews are especially eager to push stuff like ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay adoption’ of kids. In truth, we know that all children are the products of their biological parents. So, ideally, children should be raised by their own parents. If the parents were to die or abandon the kids, then the kids should ideally be raised by a father figure and a mother figure so that they’ll come to the proper realization about the natural processes and harmonies of life. But, such an understanding would strengthen the view of specific origins and specific obligations. It means kids should respect their parents and ponder about their origins, biological and cultural. It would mean that whites should adopt white kids, blacks should adopt black kids, and etc. It would mean that kids belong to their parents or, at the very least, to their own peoples who are like extended families. Such a mentality, though rife among Jews, is something Jews don’t like in other peoples for it tends to strengthen bonds within the family, within the racial community, within the nation. So, Jews wanna push stuff like ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay adoption’. Jews tell white children that their white parents are NOT anything special. According to Jewish morality for gentiles, it’d be just as well if their white parents passed their white kids for adoption to a ‘homo couple’ made up of some black homo and yellow homo who boof each other in their fecal-smelling bungholes. And if you’re a white father, forget about any sense of obligation to take care of your own kid. It’d be just as well to pass the kid to some lesbian couple made of some Jewish dyke and bald-headed lesbian Negress freak. So, Jews not only tell white kids that their own white parents aren’t anything special but tell white parents that it’s perfectly okay to just hand over their own kids to homo freaks. Never mind that homosexuality cannot produce any life, and never mind that homos practice a gross(among homo men) or ridiculous(among homo women) form of ‘sex’. Jews tell white parents and children that there’s no special meaning to the creation of life through real/proper sex and there’s no special bond between parents and children. Humans are now just dogs and cats to be traded around across the globe. It’s amusing that Liberals sneer at Creationism but promote the notion that homosexuality is just as biologically valid and legitimate as real-sexuality or heterosexuality. The idea that the fecal bunghole is a sex organ makes about as much sense as the notion that a woman was created from the rib of a man. While Liberals lose no time in demonstrating how Creationism cannot be true since biology doesn’t work that way — and of course they are right — , they also insistently exclaim that homosexuality is just as legitimate as real sexuality even though biology has no use for homosexuality and even though the process of reproduction(which is what sexuality is all about) has basis in a guy sticking his sexual organ in a defecatory organ or two women grinding their poons together. So, Liberals laugh at the false biology of Creationism but preach the dogma of how homosexuality is just as biologically useful as real sexuality is. According to Liberalism, we must favor evolution over Creationism because biology has always progressed through evolution and not through some act of Creation, BUT we should not favor real sexuality over homosexuality even though the only kind of biological reproduction known to function among insects, fish, crustaceans, spiders, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and humans is the one that involves real sexuality with proper sex organs. Indeed, considering the fact that homo ‘sex’ involving fecal-penetration among males or poon-grinding among females haven’t created a single life-form in the billions of years of Earth history whereas real sexuality filled the entire world with countless life-forms, wouldn’t it be a stupid article of faith to say that homosexuality is just as valid, legitimate, and valuable as real sexuality is? Biology favors what works over what doesn’t. Indeed, if it didn’t work, it wouldn’t be a biological truth. True, biology naturally produces stupidity, and stupid people believe in Creationism. But that doesn’t mean that Creationism is equally valid or valuable to biological truth because biology produces people stupid enough to believe such nonsense. Similarly, biology naturally produces sexual freaks of nature such as homos, and homos are perverted enough to indulge in their gross or ridiculous ‘sex’ acts, but that doesn’t mean that biological truth prizes homosexuality as it does real sexuality. It is only real sexuality that ensures the survival of all life-forms whereas homosexuality does nothing but lead to leaky over-stretched bungholes and/or anal cancer. If a dumb Conservative is someone who thinks Creationism makes as much sense as — if not more than — evolution, a stupid Liberal is someone who thinks homosexuality makes as much biological sense as real sexuality does.
Naturally, Jews would rather have white folks believe in the ‘truth’ of homosexuality than in the ‘truth’ of Creationism. After all, as retarded as Creationism is as a science, it does foster a deep sense of origins, identity, tradition, and community. At the very least, it is not antithetical to ideologies centered around many conservative values of tradition and heritage. The homo agenda, in contrast, has a more insidious influence on one’s view of history and community since it says nothing matters more than individual sexual peccadillos. The homo agenda reduces sex to just some globalist-consumerist search for individual pleasure; it says kids of any race or color should be traded all over the globe like so many dogs and cats. In contrast, Creationism at least fosters a sense of the communal past and the need for a communal future. It says God created man and woman to be fruitful — not fruity — and multiply and to take care of their families, love their own children, and respect & honor their parents, and etc. So, even though Creationism is bunk as biology and science, it is not entirely without value as a means for a community to remain together with a powerful sense of origins, heritage, and values. But then, Jewish hostility to such traditionalist or ‘atavistic’ views isn’t always consistent. After all, Jew-dominated TV made an entire series based on ROOTS that said blacks should never forget their ancestral homeland in Africa and their historical roots in America. And, if some non-white tribal people were to insist on preferring their own myth of origin over explanations offered by science/biology, Jewish Liberals would be full of praise for them for sticking to their culture. But as the Christian Right became a focus of white identity, Jews are filled with nothing but contempt at white folks who prefer their own myth of origin(though ironically, it’s a Jewish myth of origin, and maybe that’s another reason why Jews are angry with whites who claim the Biblical truth as their own when Jews see it as ‘stolen history’)to actual biology/science.
Needless to say, Jews have far fewer problems with ‘atavistic’ tendencies among their own kind, which is why even so-called Liberal Jews are flag-waving Zionists.
Also, even though secular Jews endlessly carp about all those extreme Muslims, dumb Christian Evangelicals, and reactionary Catholic Church, they are far more easy-going and even admiring of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Jewish sects. While secular Jews may not much care for the Hasidim, if push comes to shove, secular Jews will side with the Hasidim even against secular gentiles with the most Liberal credentials. And yet, it’s not a simple case of Jewish hypocrisy as there are indeed many Jews who fall for the cult of hedonistic-consumerist-degeneracy. Though elite Jews ideally want to maintain a powerful sense of identity among Jews while softening the identity and unity among the gentiles, it doesn’t always go according to plan as some Jews become drunk or addicted on the stuff they’re supposed to be pushing on the gentiles. It’s like what they say in the narcotics trade: "never get high on your own supplies". You’re supposed to push the drugs onto others and turn them into junkies dependent on your supplies, for which they will pay and whore themselves out to you. It’s like the British meant to use the opium trade to soften up the Chinese so that the British could more easily take control of the Chinese market and Chinese soul. It’s like white folks sold ‘firewater’ to ‘Injuns’ so that the American Indians would grow weak and give up their lands for a bottle of whiskey. But then, some Anglos got addicted to drugs too, and many white folks turned into drunkards, which is why the Prohibition Movement came around. Similarly, some Jews really do become addicted to their own supply. Though they are agents of the Jewish agenda committed to the softening of gentile folks as preparation for Jewish supremacist takeover, they’ve become hooked to the very poison they’re peddling. To be sure, not everything Jews push and peddle is poison, just like not everything the Anglos were pushing on the Chinese was bad stuff. Indeed, much of it was good medicine, and the main reason why China finally broke out of its historical straitjacket(or bound feet)was because of the effect of imperialist aggression led by Great Britain. Though the British could be awful nasty, they also introduced many ideas, values, methods, and forms of technology that would do wonders for China in the long run. Besides, a closed social system can become addicted to its own self-produced poison and become blind to its own problems. Indeed, look at miserable closed systems like Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, and Taliban-run Afghanistan. Though such peoples feel awful proud for having fended off outsiders and invaders, their closed-minded-ness and closed-system-ness make them hopelessly fall behind the rest of the world. So, it is wrong to be mindlessly hostile to everything introduced into gentile society by the Jews. Even as we need to be wary of Jews, we must study their contributions as they’ve studied the cultures of gentiles. Jews learned a great deal from the gentile world to improve and increase their own power. And Japan learned from the West in the latter half of the 19th century to make Japan strong enough fend off Western imperialism. In contrast, China fell behind under the closed system of Maoism after the communist takeover and only made economic and military progress with the open door policy beginning in the1980s. So, we need to be open to Jewish influence but also critical in assessing its facets and implications. Most things in this world are mixed blessings.
At any rate, even though some Jews do become mindless addicts of their own degeneracy(the actual intention of which is to corrupt and weaken the goyim), even degenerate Jews tend to ultimately catch onto the meaning of what it’s really all about. Though initially they may swallow and wallow in the junk — and even end up dying like Amy Winehouse — , most of them are smart enough to eventually realize that they must grow out of the addiction and use the poison to gain control of the dimwit gentiles. Even though younger Jews may sometimes get out-of-control, many of them do mature and grow out of the recklessness and/or stupidity. For one thing, their generally higher intelligence helps to set them back on path. But another factor is that older Jews are more likely to reach out to younger Jews and show them the ropes than older whites are likely to reach out to younger whites. For all their individualistic tendencies, Jews are fiercely tribal and communal when it comes to Jewish identity. Also, it’s no problem for a Jew to be Jewish-minded and help other Jews, whereas it’s considered to be morally and socially dubious for white people to lend a hand to other white people the basis of shared white identity and interests. Also, whereas Jewishness is culture-specific, ‘whiteness’ is too bland and broad. After all, even Jews count as ‘whites’. So, what does it mean for a white person to reach out to other white people? It’s more easier for a Jew to reach out to a Jew than for an Irish-American as a ‘white person’ to reach out to other ‘whites’ such as white Italian-Americans, white Lithuanian-Americans, white Russian-Americans, white Polish-Americans, white Greek-Americans, and etc. So, it wouldn’t be a bad thing for white Americans to become more ‘hyphenated’ in their definition of whiteness, i.e. if you consider yourself as a German-American or a Polish-American, you are more likely to think in terms of a shared identity and community than if you just see yourself as ‘white’. Though the notion of ‘white American’ has roots too, the fall of the Wasp elites led to the American Narrative being ‘rebooted’ to emphasize the mass arrival of immigrants in the late 19th century & 20th century and their ‘multicultural’ right to maintain their separateness from the founding mythology laid down by Anglo-Americans who have since been vilified for their ‘racism’, slavery, genocide, imperialism, and etc. (When leftism used to be mostly economic, it de-emphasized cultures, which were deemed to be ‘atavistic’, in favor of class power and workers’ unity. But in fact, the horrific Soviet experiment scared off and disappointed a lot of Western liberals and progressives. Also, many progressives and liberals in the West were rich folks and didn’t want a real class warfare that would bring them down. And as Jews got richer, they got into the habit of pushing communism abroad but not in the nations in which they lived and hoarded millions. So, Hollywood Stalinists would praise the Soviet Union but would never want to live under Stalinism themselves. So, the emphasis of leftism went from class to anthropology. Also, the issue of class failed to properly address the problems of prejudice that seemed to be at the heart of struggles against Western imperialism and white ‘racism’ in both the West[especially in the US] and in the Third World. Thus, a kind of merging of ‘atavistic’ right-wing tendencies and left-wing radicalism took place: Vietnamese and Cuban communists were also staunch nationalists. Early Zionists took pride as both nationalist Jews and leftist socialists. The Communist Party still rules China but essentially as a ultra-nationalist party. This contradiction has yet to be resolved, and it probably never will be.) Even so, many non-Wasp white immigrants who arrived from Eastern and Southern Europe in the late 19th century and early 20th century did become Wasp-ized Americans and felt it an honor to be thought of as Americans whose children looked to men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as their national forebears. Partly, the ease of cultural transition among immigrants was due to the fact that many newcomers had been dirt poor, woefully un- or undereducated, and hadn’t much of a stake in their nations of origin. Many didn’t even know much of their own culture as they never had time for fancy learning and cultural privilege/pride that were mostly the preserve of the aristocracy and the upper bourgeoisie. It was in America that, for the first time, they really felt free and were imbued with the power to control their own destinies. And since America, the nation that filled them with a powerful sense of national involvement and consciousness, had been conquered, founded, expanded, settled, and built mostly by Wasp-Americans up to the first half of 20th century, there was a profound sense of gratitude to Anglo-made America.
Even though many Jews also arrived as poor folks and were eager to become American, it so happened that Jewish immigrants, more than any others, were better-educated(despite their levels of poverty) and more imbued with their own intellectual culture and historical consciousness going back for thousands of years, indeed far longer than any Anglo hisotry. Also, if national consciousness(of their original homelands) hadn’t been a major factor among many poor gentile immigrants arriving America, it had been a key factor among Jews for 1000s of years. In most gentile lands, political identity and ideology had been dominated by the elites. It was only in the 19th century that nationalism began to become a mass ideology in the more advanced European nations. Poor and backward nations had a weaker sense of national consciousness since nationalism was spread largely through mass schooling, mass media, and mass politics. It’s like for most of Japanese history, average Japanese folks were farmers who didn’t know or care much about anything outside their local community. They had a village than a national consciousness. It was with the spread of mass education, mass media, and mass politics(even if demagogic than democratic) the Japanese masses began to develop a powerful nationalist feeling. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, many Eastern and Southern European immigrants came from miserably poor communities, and them folks hadn’t been much affected by nationalist sentiments back home, especially as many of them came from areas that were still under imperialist control of either the Russians, Germans, or Austrians. So, they were introduced to modern nationalist passions for the first time in America as Americans. In the Old World, most poor folks were just to keep their heads low and work on the farms and just leave everything up to the aristocrats or imperialist overlords who supposedly knew better about political affairs. But in the US, the national ideology said freedom and power belonged to every American and that was what America was all about. So, naturally, many immigrants were proud to be American and happy to see their kids get real schooling for the first time and learn about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the cowboys. The cowboy story was compelling for the immigrants since cowboys were common folk with freedom, horses, and guns. In the Old World, it was the aristocrats who had the guns, freedoms, and horses whereas most common folks only had potatoes to dig from the ground.
But Jews were different. Though there were rich Jews and poor Jews, the sense of Jewish identity was more about blood and culture than about class and privilege. Indeed, this goes back to the origins of Jewish culture as described in the Bible. In many pagan cultures, spirituality centered around how the kingly lords were gods, descendants of gods, or divine in some way. The Ancient Egyptians believed that the Pharaohs were the reincarnations of gods. Japanese worshiped their Emperors as descendants of the sun god. Greek kings traced their lineage to the heroes who were part-god. Since rulers were godly/divine whereas the common folks were just common, this created a cultural-conscious-wedge between the rulers and the ruled, i.e. the rulers were much greater than the ruled, and so, the ruled should shut up, keep their heads low, and do as ordered by the great masterful divine rulers. This led to caste/class consciousness. In contrast, while Jewish society was also very hierarchical and could be repressive at times, its mythology began with the notion that no man, however rich or powerful he may be, could claim the mantle of godliness. There is the one and only God and all peoples are tiny insects compared to Him. So, no man could claim to be god, part-god, or the equal of god. All had to bow down before the great one and only God. The psycho-political impact of this on the Jews was that it made the higher Jews, middle Jews, and lower Jews feel closer as a community bound by blood and heritage. No matter how rich or powerful a Jew may be, he too had to bow humbly before God like the poorest Jew. Thus, there was less of class/caste-consciousness divide among the Jews, and this may partly explain why a Jew like Karl Marx was offended by the very notion of class. Since all Jews, no matter how rich or how poor, were equal before God, Jews developed a powerful sense of common bond and identity. Jewish gentry were less likely to turn up their noses at poor Jews in the way gentile aristocrats did with gentile poor folks. Pagan or gentile aristocrats thought themselves so great while the poor, even among their own kind, were seen as servants and chattel who should just shut up and put up. (Athenians did have democracy that involved all free people in government, but as Hellenic politics was about reason, opinions, and power, it had more of an argumentatively divisive than unifying effect on the Athenians. In contrast, the Jewish emphasis on blood, heritage, and humbleness before God had more of a binding impact upon the Jews. As for the Spartans, their extreme military elitism divided their society between minority elite rulers and masses of helots, the majority of whom were enslaved Greeks. Such social consciousness couldn’t last for long.) Also, the exclusive idea of Jewishness as defined by blood and the rejection of non-Jews made for a stronger sense of unity among all Jews, rich and poor. While Romans could accept Jews as Roman citizens, Jews could not accept Romans as Jews — though there were exceptions as some gentiles were allowed to convert to Judaism. Though Christianity spread the Jewish notion of God far and wide, it was also bound to foster class/caste consciousness since Christianity was ill-defined in terms of blood. Since anyone could be a Christian, Christian social orders could never be as cohesive as the Jewish order. And since Christian rulers expanded their empires, they naturally came to rule over foreign peoples who were regarded as different and best kept subservient and docile. So, the power of class division became useful for Christian rulers. So, while Christian/gentile elites had a powerful sense of identity and blood for themselves — especially since their privilege was premised on noble blood —, such a socio-cultural consciousness could not be shared with the masses whose livelihoods were limited to tilling the soil and digging up potatoes. Also, since most gentile folks worked on farms, they didn’t have much of a chance to come together to form a powerful sense of united identity. That only began to happen when masses of gentile peasants began to move to cities to find work as the proletariat. Jews, in contrast, were more likely to live and work in cities(or sometimes in ghettos, and of course, the ‘persecution’ of Jews also had a cohesive impact on Jews since, rich or poor, they all shared the same socio-political disadvantages; and Jews have applied this lesson to black politics so that black political cohesion will be weakened with mulattos like Obama, Holder, Jarrett, and John McWhorter being bought off by the Jews and distancing themselves from the politics of Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan), so Jews were more frequently in contact with other Jews than most gentiles were in contact with other gentiles. Even a poor Jew in the city was bound to feel more Jewish from being around other Jews than a semi-literate Polish farmer was bound to feel Polish toiling over a potato field in Poland. Also, the impact of the Catholic Church also had a class-divisive impact on the gentile socio-political order since its cult of idolatry made privileged the rich over the poor in spiritual worth. If you had more money, privilege, and power, you had more access to the Catholic elites who might bless you more. You could also worship in bigger Cathedrals and wear fancier religious jewelry. As Catholicism practiced a form of holiness via ownership of fancy trinkets and precious objects, the rulers who possessed such things could feel closer to God and look down on the masses who only had crude wooden Crosses. As Judaism forbade such idolatry, no Jew could put on airs as being holier simply because he owned a very expensive Star of David made of gold. It’s no wonder that the Polish gentry were so snobby and full of sneering contempt for the masses of ‘dumb Polacks’ who were ordered to till the soil and dig up the potatoes. If there was a strong sense of social hierarchy among Jews, it had to do with race and blood. Though no individual Jew could claim to more Godly than other Jews, Jews as a people could claim to be more Godly than all the goyim since the Torah said God had made a special Covenant with the Jews by having the men cut off their foreskins. Also, even though Judaism said Jews should be humble and meek before God, it didn’t say they should be humble and meek just for the sake of being humble and meek at all times. As the Ecclesiastes says, there’s a time for everything, i.e. Jews should be humble before God but could be full of pride when dealing with filthy dumb goyim. But according to Christianity, meekness for the sake of meekness was a virtue at all times. Jews felt they should obey God but had every right to unite as a tribal community and fight/resist the enemies of Jews with fiery passion and nasty chutzpah. Indeed, one reason why so many Jews couldn’t warm up to Christianity wasn’t merely due to theological differences; it was because Jesus told Jews to surrender their chutzpah and be meek & nice at all times. That simply wasn’t acceptable to most Jews. It was telling Negroes that they shouldn’t holler and shake their booties like baboons anymore. Chutzpah was as much a part of Jewishness as jungle-jivery has been to Negroes.
But Christianity said the people should just be meek and humble and turn the other cheek as a universal social/moral principle. Since the Christian ideal was impossible for the Christian elites to follow — anyone practicing such an ideal was bound to fall and be ground to dust — , Christian societies became divided along class lines between the powerful aristocracy who employed power & privilege and the masses who were instructed to be meek and humble. So, a division of collective personality formed between gentile lords and gentile masses. Gentile lords could be lordly and aggressive, but gentile masses had to be meek and obedient, as Jesus had preached. Thus, gentile masses became rather dim and submissive, and gentile lords became rather complacent in their power since they ruled over ‘meek and humble’ folks. But Judaism never said a Jew had to be meek and humble for the sake of being meek and humble. He better be meek and humble before God in the Temple, but in the social sphere, he could gesture with his hands and stand his own ground against other Jews and especially the gentiles. As even poor Jews could be pushy with rich Jews, and since even rich Jews could be confronted by other Jews — rich and poor — , Jewish power never became complacent in their standing and power.
Anyway, this may account for some of the differences between Jewish immigrants and gentile Eastern-and-Southern European immigrants in the late 19th century and early 20th century. A lot of gentile immigrants had the ‘meek and gentle’ style. In the Old World, they’d grown accustomed to shutting up and just working for their masters and doing as they were told. Their identity revolved more around class/caste than race/nation since the cult of bloodline among the gentiles was really reserved only for the aristocrats who were BORN aristocrats. And as all the social/cultural pride rested with the aristocratic classes, they monopolized ‘tribal passion’ for their own caste/class. Even so, aristocrats often favored class/caste power over tribal power. Aristocrats of one kingdom or state were likely to be cordial and sociable with aristocrats of other kingdoms and states, all the while sneering at their own poor folks.
Worthless Polish Noblemen
(This was true of someone like William F. Buckley, a wanna-be-aristocrat, as well. He generally sneered at the conservative masses and preferred to dilly-dally with the rich and privileged. As Jews were rising fast as the neo-aristocrats of America, Buckley cozied up to them to be in their good graces. And this is also why class-anxious GOP elites are cozying up to homo elites who are closely allied with Jewish elites who are the ruling elites in America. Vanity and status insecurity are what the GOP is all about. Buckley’s worthless son Christopher even voted for Obama to win plaudits from the neo-aristocratic Liberal crowd he hangs around with. Sure, Buckley pretended to admire Rush Limbaugh to show off his street cred as a populist, but it was pure hokum. And besides, with all the millions he’s raked in, Limbaugh himself has chosen to ally with the homo elites to keep more millions rolling his way. And even after Wall Street and Jews put Obama in the Oval Office, the Limbaugh’s message to the conservative masses is they should defend Wall Street and Jews from Obama. It’s so ridiculous.) So, an aristocrat, instead of being obsessed about expanding the tribal power of his people, was more concerned with guarding his class/caste privilege from masses of his own ethnicity. And in a way, this is why Poland ended up so badly. Though Poles claimed to be among the first modern democratic social orders, the power of vote was reserved only for the nobility who made up the top 5% of the population, and most of the nobles cast their votes to protect their own privileges than to do anything that might have been good for Poland as a whole. In a way, the rule by an autocratic central government did more good for the peoples of Prussia because it reined in the extent of class privilege. Though the Prussian central government ruled by a powerful king was hardly acting in the name of the People — though there was some idealism in that regard — , its power over the noblemen had a restraining effect on the nobility’s attempt to foil any changes, transformations, and progress that might undermine their own class privileges.

Frederick the Truly Great(though he might have been a fruiter)
Anyway, the poor gentile immigrants to America were likely to be far more ‘disempowered’ in their outlook than poor Jewish immigrants were. In their memory, their main fact of life was that they were poor folks who served the rich folks. So, a poor Polish immigrant was ‘poor powerless folk’ first and proud Pole second. And if he was poorly educated, he might not even know much about Polishness except for the customs of his local community. So, when those immigrants came to America, they might have truly felt ‘empowered’ with a national identity for the first time. In America, class consciousness was secondary to a proud feeling of American-ness — at least in theory but also reflected in reality to some degree.
In contrast, while a poor Jewish immigrant might have been materially just as ‘disempowered’ as a poor Southern Italian immigrant or a Polish immigrant, he arrived with an already ‘empowered’ mind-set since Jewishness had always been about the tight unity of all Jewish folks, rich and poor. In a way, it’s possible that many poor Jews became especially bitter and turned to something like socialism/communism in huge numbers because they viewed the rise of successful secular capitalist Jews as a kind of betrayal of Jewish tradition. As some Jews became secular, made a lot of money, preferred to hang around gentile elites — and even purchase aristocratic titles — , and turn up their noses at other Jews, it’s possible that poorer Jews felt that the social covenant among the Jews, rich and poor, had been violated. All through their shared history, rich Jews and poor Jews had felt as one people under God. Though class divisions did exist in the Jewish community, class consciousness was suppressed because all Jews felt ‘empowered’ through the conviction that every Jew was equally holy in the eyes of God who didn’t judge Jews by their material riches. But once Jews began to become secularized and gain class consciousness as they dilly-dallied with rich gentile aristocrats and bourgeoisie, poor Jews turned to salvation in something like communism or anarchism that preached the abolition of all classes for once and for all. Given such mentality, Jewish immigrants were bound to be socially & politically more aggressive than gentile immigrants. If gentile immigrants, as ‘poor humble folks’, found ‘empowerment’ in Americanist national consciousness and were grateful for it, Jewish immigrants arrived with an ‘empowerment’ mentality — or empowermentlaity — already in place because Jewish culture had instilled in the hearts of all Jews that they were the Chosen of God, and no Jew, no matter how rich, better pull rank on other Jews simply because he happened to be richer; besides, even the rich Jewish merchant had to show reverence to the Jewish Rabbi in cultural prestige. (Though Christian orders had respected members of the clergy as well, the highest prestige went to the warrior class of aristocrats who stood for class privilege. So, the Christian merchants and bourgeoisie wanted, above all, to emulate the class consciousness of the aristocratic elites. In contrast, as Jews lived in gentile lands, there was no specific Jewish warrior class to represent Jewish power. Jews had to rely on the power of the gentile warrior caste elites. So, Jewish society was dominated by merchants and Rabbis, and as such, the connection between the Jewish merchant class and Jewish Rabbi/scholar class grew stronger than the connection between Christian merchant class and Christian priest/scholar class. As far as Christian merchants could see, the highest prestige and respect were with the aristocracy. It is then no wonder that the Jewish merchant/business class came to be more involved with ideas; traditionally, they were most closely with the Jewish scholar class since there was no effective Jewish warrior class to emulate. Since the Christian clerical class was subservient to the warrior class, it lacked the prestige that the Jewish Rabbinical class did in the Jewish community. Things may be different in Israel where the prestige of the IDF and Zionist warrior class is almost Sparta-like. At any rate, one reason why the Rabbinical class exerted a bigger influence on local Jewish communities than Christian priestly class did over Christian communities was because Rabbis were only meant to serve Jews and none other. In contrast, even though Christian clergies did serve local communities, the Christian ideal was for the Church to care for all people around the world. So, while a Rabbi would never leave his Jewish community, an English minister who’d grown up among his kind all his life could, one day, decide to serve new converts in Africa or China. No matter where the Jewish Rabbis went all around the world they were only serving the Jews, whereas Christian clergies rendered their services to other races and peoples as they moved around the world.)
So, in a way, Jews had been sort of ‘American-ish’ for thousands of years even before America was discovered. In America, ordinary Americans developed a sense of shared pride through the ‘covenant’ of the Declaration of Independence that said "All men are created equal." So, even common Americans didn’t necessarily feel lower or inferior to someone simply because the latter happened to be rich, privileged, or got some fancy learning. Americans might have seen this as a kind of revolution in thought, but, to an extent, Jews had been feeling this way for thousands of years because of the ‘spiritual democracy’ of Judaism that said God blessed all Jews equally, and even a poor Jew was dear in His eyes. Of course, one could say Christianity was also democratic in spirit since Jesus said ‘meek shall inherit the Earth’, but Jesus preached passivity not only before God but toward one’s fellow man. Thus, the feeling of being ‘empowered’ was egotistical and prideful, therefore sinful. Jesus believed that men should surrender all their power & property, love their neighbor & turn the other cheek to their enemies, and pray to God. Men should leave it up to God who shall be the final arbiter of justice in the grand scheme of things. After all, there was the matter of the afterlife which would be an eternal paradise for those who suffered nobly and eternal hell for those who indulged themselves ignobly. In contrast, Judaism said that, while Jews should be passive and submissive before God, they need not be so humble and gentle with other Jews and certainly not with goyim who were thought to be ‘filthy’. When it came to the material world, Jews could ‘empower’ and be as pushy as they wanted to be.
If democracy isn’t only about equality of dignity but about the equality to gain power, then the Jewish spirit is actually closer to democratic principles. Jesus said surrender all power to God and also surrender all power to fellow man. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s." And if someone kicks you or steals from you, don’t resist and just turn the other cheek and say, "take it, brother, for I love you and forgive you." But according to Judaism, a Jew has every right to work and fight for his property, to struggle for what he deems to be rightfully his and to hustle for what he wants from the goyim. So, even though a Jew must submit to God, he doesn’t have to submit to his fellow man. Therefore, Jews arrived in America with a pre-‘empowered’ mind-set, and so, they were more likely to feel impatient than grateful toward Anglo-Americans when not everything went their way. Also, even though many Jewish immigrants were woefully under-educated, they were still, by and large, considerably better-educated than most gentile immigrants. If European gentile societies had been organized around privilege, Jewish community had been organized around knowledge. So, even poor ill-educated Jews had a greater respect and hankering for knowledge. Also, with their higher IQs, Jews could find bits of truth and wisdom even in trivial and seemingly unintellectual things. Take the Marx Brothers for example. Unlike Karl Marx, they didn’t spend years in the British Museum doing research and writing a vast tome about economics and history, but instead, indulged in jokes and pranks about seemingly stupid stuff, and yet, their antics, wit, and humor revealed something about the dynamics of power, human nature, politics, class, values, Jews vs goyim, and so on. It’s like, if you have genuine talent, wit, insight, and imagination, you don’t need a full orchestra to make interesting music. Bob Dylan mostly toyed around with a guitar and harmonica, but he produced some of the greatest musical works of the 20th century. In some ways, DUCK SOUP and NIGHT AT THE OPERA are no less brilliant and insightful about the way of the world(especially the conflict between Jews and Wasp gentiles) than learned tomes written by heavy-duty Jewish intellectuals. Anyway, since Jew arrived with greater knowledge and obsessiveness than other immigrant groups, they were bound to be less enthralled and awed by the founding principles of Wasp America. While dumb Polish and stupid Italian immigrant parents were impressed when their kids came home from school with knowledge about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the cowboys, many Jewish immigrants weren’t quite so blown away by what their kids learned in goy schools. And Jews of radical bent were convinced that something like Marxism or anarchism was the true wave of the future, the final destiny of mankind, and so, they scoffed at the Wasp ideals about reform and gradual progress as lame conceits of the lazy rich whose real interest was maintaining their own power and privilege over the stupid masses who were led around like cattle drugged on the bourgeois-enforced opiate of ‘freedom and equality’; there could be no true freedom-and-equality unless capitalism was destroyed.
Jewish Immigrants to America. Hopefully, this family didn't turn into hideous anti-white radicals.
Though scholars and critics of Jewish power have looked to Jewish ideas for answers as to why Jews behave the way they do, it may be more illuminating to to focus on the Jewish mentality, Jewish emotions, and Jewish personality. For example, the likes of Howard Zinn and Oliver Stone cannot be understood merely through their ideas/ideologies that are actually the expressions of deeper underlying personalities and obsessions that are full of aggressive pride and power-lust. Some might say their passions are about ‘thirst for justice’, but they are actually more about the megalomania of righteousness than about being right in one’s righteousness — this is why Stone can never let go of his JFK fixation. They just love the power of feeling that they are better, truer, and holier than anyone else. Their books and movies are less about "this is wrong about America" than "I’m better than all of you because I and only I have the vision and courage to say it like it is." The so-called THE PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF AMERICA should really be called ZINN’S STORY OF SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS. After all, the book wasn’t written by the people but written in the name of the people by Zinn himself. But then, who anointed Zinn as the spokesmen of Americans who, by the way, benefitted greatly under Wasp rule and would have been reduced to chattel under the kind of radical leftism championed by Zinn and his Stalinist-Maoist friend Bob Avakian the psychopathic Armenian-American — Avakian, who never amounted to anything, still considers himself a great revolutionary theorist & moral crusader even though he’s never been troubled in the least by all the tens of millions killed by Stalin and Mao in their discredited revolutions. A radical leftist is someone who mistakes his own putrid voice as that of The People, who are seen as nothing but an echo chamber of his paean to himself.

Anyway, if many gentile immigrants found the principles of American democracy to be revolutionary, revelatory, liberating, impressive, and even ‘empowering’, Jewish immigrants(with their pre-‘empowered’ mentality and intellectualized obsessions) found them wanting, and so, it’s not surprising that Jews would later cause so much trouble for the Wasps instead of, like most gentile immigrants, trying to fit in, assimilate, and show gratitude to America. Though Michael Stivic in ALL IN THE FAMILY is featured as a ‘dumb Polack’, there’s really much that is Jewish about him. Of course, in the 1960s, plenty of young gentile boomers had been infected with counterculture radicalism, so Michael Stivic being Polish-American than Jewish-American is plausible enough, but his aggressiveness, self-righteousness, and dogged pushiness are traits more common among Jews than among ‘Polacks’ who can’t figure out how to screw on a lightbulb. The Jews behind ALL IN THE FAMILY surely meant Stivic to be a kind of Jewishy character but made him a gentile to mask the fact that much of the cultural battles in the 1960s had been defined by Jewish attack on White Gentile America. Similarly, Arthur Miller, David Cronenberg, David Mamet, and Stanley Kubrick often masked Jewish concerns/issues/obsessions with goy characters and settings. In DR. STRANGELOVE, Kubrick went so far as to hide the wickedly perverse Jewish personality behind a ‘ex-Nazi scientist’, a joke that most people still haven’t gotten or don’t want to get, as the implications are too disturbing. (Our world today is driven by Jewish obsessions posing as Jewish conscience and by Jewish neurosis posing as Jewish intellect. If the Anglo/American philosophical ideal was to separate objectivity[reason, logic, facts] from subjectivity[emotions, passions, personality], the Jewish philosophical style has been deeply psychological in uniting emotions and thought. It’s hard to tell where Jewish emotions end and where Jewish reason begins, where Jewish subconscious ends and where Jewish consciousness begins. In this sense, Jewish intellectual culture has more in common with the Germanic philosophy that also loosened the barrier between subjectivity and objectivity. To an extent, this is a problem that pertains to ALL philosophies, and it’s a conceit that we can be purely objective, at least in social and political thinking. Even when it comes to hard sciences, we tend to favor studies of things that are of usefulness or relevance to us as a species. Why is more money spent on scientific research into fossil fuels than into the possible uses of oatmeal? Because fossil fuels make the world go around. To some extent, Jewish thinkers were right to poke fun at Anglo/American intellectual conceit of perfectly separating the mind from the emotion, indeed as if one’s brains weren’t somehow connected to the rest of the body, especially the genitalia. Freud and Cronenberg were obsessive about navigating the connections among the mind, the genitalia, the entrails, and bungholes. But the dangerous side to Jewish thinking is many Jews cannot tell the bunghole from the brain, which is why so many Jews think and behave like a**holes. It may also explain why so many Jews are with the ass-centric homo agenda. Though, in objective terms, homosexuality makes no biological sense, Jewish subjectivity conflates the homo agenda and the Jewish agenda as being complementary, and such a view is enough for Jews to use their power over the media, academia, and politicia to disseminate the supposedly ‘rational fact’ of the bio-moral viability of homosexuality and then to enforce it as a matter of faith that attacks and destroys anyone who’d dare to question its holy truth. So, you see, Jewish subjectivity turns into objectivity, and Jewish ‘facts’ turn into matters of faith. If indeed Jews really respected the world of facts, why would they lean on taboos[rooted in faith-centered emotions] to enforce their ‘facts’? It’s because a lot of Jewish ‘facts’ are not real facts but cases of objectivity distorted and warped by virulent & vindictive Jewish subjectivity. If Jews FEEL something, they believe their feelings are sufficient evidence for their feelings to be declared as facts, and the rest of us better worship these ‘facts’ with the purity of faith. No wonder so many goyim are so dumb and duped in Jew-run America and EU. Of course, Jewish feelings get a lot of mileage due to Jewish talent in verbal skills. Even when Jews FEEL something totally ridiculous, they can put it into words that sound so intellectual. It’s really a verbal con-game, but so many goyim — even smart ones — are just like the suckers in David Mamet plays and films. To pull off a con, one needs not only talent but will and drive, and it just so happens that many white goyim are smart but lack the will. It’s like the guy who gets conned by Tony Roma in GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS doesn’t lack for brains. What he lacks is balls, and so, his beta-ness is steam-rolled under the alpha-ness of Roma. Jews got bigger balls than white goyim. Jews know the world is as driven by balls as by brains. When brains are severed from balls, the brains will go off to side with the bigger balls. The fall of White Power owes as much to loss in ball power as with brain power to the Jews. Before Jews became the new masters of the West, white gentile brains and white gentile balls were connected. White gentiles knew they’d done some bad shit, but they also knew they did a lot of good stuff, and besides, all of humanity did bad shit. So, white gentile balls were pumping its hormones of pride into the white gentile brains. But Jews took over the media & academia and spread ideas that functioned as guilt-baiting scissors that severed white gentile brains from white gentile balls. Thus, white gentile brains were no longer fueled by prideful hormones from white gentile balls. But then, all brains need doses of hormones from the balls to feel a sense of purpose in life. The sudden vacuum of white gentile hormones in the white gentile brains made the latter crave for the hormones of Power, and the new supplies came from the obsessive balls of Jews, raging balls of Negroes, and swinging balls of homos. Anglo/American brains were especially vulnerable since, more than in any other peoples, Anglo/Americans had separated objectivity from subjectivity. Jewish thought was about the unity of emotions and thoughts. So was black thought. And homo thought was always about mental sodomy, connection of the bunghole to the brains. So, emotional alpha instinct and intellectual beta focus existed side by side among Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Intellectualism on its own is more ‘beta’ than ‘alpha’. It’s about disassociating oneself from the one’s ego & subjectivity and giving oneself over to the objective facts of the real world. An emotional person chooses to see the world in ways that buttress his passions and conviction, whereas a rational/empirical person is willing to forgo his own prejudices and biases in favor of what is proven to be true. An emotional person distorts the world to serve his world-view, whereas a rational person is willing to surrender his favored world-view in favor of better truth determined by science and/or factual data. Because the Anglo/American intellectual ideal became so unemotional and blank-slate-ish, the connection between Anglo/American alpha balls and Anglo/American beta brains was always somewhat tenuous. Even so, there was a time when the Anglo/American warrior class and patriotic passions had been connected with the world of Anglo/American ideas and intellect. But once Jews severed that connection by morally discrediting the Anglo/American historical foundation and narrative[and also by tying it with Nazism even though UK and US played a huge role in defeating the Nazis], the Anglo/American intellect became isolated, impotent, and anemic, as it was no longer pumped with doses of alpha hormones from Anglo/American balls. And yet, the mind cannot live on ideas/intellect alone. It needs some degree of emotions and passion. Since Anglo/American beta intellect could no longer get its hormonal supplies from Anglo/American alpha balls, it found substitutes from the Jewish alpha balls, Negro alpha balls, and homo alpha balls. [Yes, even homo balls are alpha as all kinds of ballsean juices are of an aggressive nature.] So, Anglo/American beta intellect found new supplies of alpha ball juice, BUT this Jewish, Negro, and homo alpha ball juice didn’t boost Anglo/American pride of mind but only encouraged Anglo/American shame of heart. Paradoxically, the new doses of alpha ball juice didn’t support but subverted the beta intellect of Anglo/America. Suppose there’s a cerebral little beta brother who’s grown accustomed to being accompanied and protected by its bigger brawnier alpha brother. But suppose this bigger brother is exiled. The little brother is now without company and feels lost. He still has an emotional need for an alpha figure, and so, another one is supplied to him. But instead of protecting him, suppose this new alpha guardian enjoys beating on the little beta nerd and making him feel worthless. And yet, because the beta nerd has such a need for alpha male company, he takes the beating & humiliation and tries to win the favor of the bully. This is why Anglo/America is in such bad shape. The Anglo/American mind is severed from its own alpha balls and is supplied with hormones from alpha Jewish, Negro, and homo balls that are hostile to White Power. Thus, white brains are without the fire of white balls, and white balls are without the guidance of white brains. So, both white brains and white balls serve their Jewish masters or Jew Inc. White beta brains lacking in confidence seek the approval of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Meanwhile, white balls, no longer guided by white brains for the sake of united white power, are manipulated by the Jewish media to direct their rage and passion against nations and peoples who pose no threat to America but whom Jews hate or dislike. There are still many angry white Americans, but since American Conservatism is controlled by Neocons and their shabbos goy stooges of Jew Inc., most American Conservatives[who get their views from Talk Radio] think patriotism is all about sucking up to Jews, worshiping MLK, hating Iran and Russia, and laughing like tards at the images of dead Palestinian women and children. Some idiot Conservatives with alpha passion have been brainwashed to believe that the US should hate Russia and start a new ‘cold war’ simply because America has ‘gay marriage’ but ‘homophobic’ Russia doesn’t. Jewish brains and Jewish balls are one. Negro brains[though meager] and Negro balls are one. Homo brains and homo balls are one. Chinese brains and Chinese balls are one. Iranian brains and Iranian balls are one. But white brains and white balls are not one. White brains get their hormonal supplies from Jews, Negroes, & Homos, AND white balls get their orders & instructions from the Jewish/Zionist brains-balls-power complex. All this ‘white guilt’ stuff is not about white conscience over ‘historical sins’. It’s the result of white beta brains having been severed from white alpha balls, and so, guys like Ken Burns can only ‘think’ in terms of seeking approval from the stronger will-to-power of Jews, Negroes, and homos. Jews love to separate the natural unity white power. When it comes to white power, Jews insist on the need for more ‘checks and balances’ among white-dominant institutions; but when it comes to Jewish power, Jews try to interconnect all facets and areas of Jewish power in media, academia, government, religion, entertainment, finance, high-tech, and etc. No checks and balances when it comes to Jewish power. Consider the Jewish global strategy for Russia and Europe today. The economic arrangement between Russia and Western Europe is a natural one. They are all part of the same continent, and western Russia is indeed part of Europe. So, it’s only natural that Russia should sell oil and gas to Western Europe, and Western Europe should sell technology to Russia. But such an arrangement means Europe/Russia can become more independent of Jew-controlled US, and so, Jewish operatives and agents have done everything to sever EU from Russia economically, politically, and culturally. It’s no different from how Jews severed the connection between Anglo/American brains and Anglo/American balls. White intellect divorced from white will-to-power is impotent and weak. That is why there’s so much of this stuff about ‘white guilt’. It has less to do with morality and more to do with personality as the result of severing white brains from white balls. White beta intellect on its own simply doesn’t have the will, determination, and passion to fight for power on its own. It needs to be supplied with the hormonal will-to-power from the alpha balls, but the pipeline between white alpha balls and white beta intellect has been severed. So, white beta intellect takes its supplies of will-to-power hormones from Jews, Negroes, & homos, and the impact of this is that the white brains no longer work for white power but for the power of others. So, it’s less about ‘white guilt’ than ‘white geld’. Jews hate Russia because it is the one major white nation where the white brains[though Russians don’t have much] are still connected to white balls. It’s like Jews seek to sever the sacred connection between white males and white females so that white males will be reduced to a bunch of ‘cuckold porn’-addicted wankers while white females become ‘mudsharks’ and have mulatto babies with black men whom they find to be racially-sexually-athletically superior to ‘faggoty-ass’ white boys. If you trust Jew Inc., your people are toast.)
Anyway, the notion that something is ‘atavistic’ is always bound to be highly subjective and politicized. In most cases — usually when Jews say it — , it really means little more than "nationalism for us but gutless globo-consumerism for you." So, if Germans want to maintain a nation that is mostly German in blood, culture, and territory, most Jews will condemn it as ‘atavistic’, but if Jews want to defend and preserve Israel on the same principle, that’s just the healthy and progressive passion of a wonderful people. If Europeans or white Americans look to their ancestral, cultural, and genetic roots for inspiration and meaning, that is ‘atavistic’, but if Jews tirelessly study, remember, recount, and glorify their own history and heritage that goes back 3,500 years, that is absolutely noble and wonderful. (Oddly enough, the only way white gentiles are allowed to enjoy a bit of ‘atavism’ is by becoming like the John Goodman character in BIG LEBOWSKI and becoming even more pro-Zionist than actual Zionists are. So, if Sarah Palin were to ever stand up for her own race, she would be attacked by all Jews, even Neocons, for harboring ‘atavistic’ volkish attitudes. But she is adored as a useful whore by the likes of David Mamet and Jonathan Haidt because she goes out of her way to be ‘more Zionist than Zionist’.) And if a gentile were to say that Jews are being ‘atavistic’ for their clinging to an identity, culture, and tradition that stretch back to ancient times, he would be attacked and demeaned as an ‘anti-Semite’ who not only lacks proper respect for Jews(who should be revered by all) but maybe even wants to wipe out the Jews. Jews are very proud of their long tradition and history as well as very anxious about their loss of identity and territorial dominance(in Israel and their occupied zones all around the West like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, London, Paris, Kiev, and Warsaw), and Jews see nothing wrong in feeling the way they do about their obsessions. And they bitterly resent anyone telling them to let go of their past and just blend in with rest of modern humanity. Jews also resent gentiles pontificating about true meaning of what it means to be Jewish(even when it’s full of praise and sympathy for Jews), but Jews are always telling non-Jews what it means to be a true American, a true Russian, a true Japanese, a true Muslim, a true whatever; and of course, in every case, the ‘true’ or ‘ideal’ gentile is a lapdog to Jewish power. Jews say, "We can think for ourselves on the true meaning of Jewishness, but you gentiles better have us Jews think for you for you to become ideal gentiles."
If indeed most modern Jews are so ‘progressive’ and leading lights of the socio-political avant-garde, why do most of them cling to their sense of Jewishness when their identity serves to divide Jews and gentiles? (The Jewish community came to favor multi-culturalism because they wanted to have the cake and eat it too. They wanted to pose as ‘progressives’ on the side of universal values but also to guard their tribal identity from the embrace of universalism’s war on cultural particularism. It’s no wonder that Jews put forth the myth of ‘Liberal Zionism’ so that they can pose as both progressive ‘socialists’ and proud ‘nationalists’.) How can Jews ever fully see themselves as part of the political left if they continue to cling to their sense of Jewishness that is essentially a form of tribalism, nationalism, and even supremacism as it’s predicated on the notion that Jews are the special people ‘chosen’ by God and, at least according to some sects of the Jewish community, the rightful rulers over gentiles whose main purpose of existence is to serve Jews? Why cling to Jewishness when Judaism is exclusionary in identity and loyalty? Why cling to Jewishness when Jews say that they’d been persecuted through the ages simply for being Jewish? Isn’t Jewishness a mere shackle that should be dispensed with when the gentile community is all-too-willing to embrace Jews as fellow gentiles. (But then, Jews today don’t so much want equal treatment as special treatment and respect. In the past, gentiles looked upon Jews and thought ‘them Jews as opposed to us Christians’, and this led to discrimination against Jews. Today, Jews have more to gain from gentiles by being identified as Jews. If gentiles see some white guy who’s gentile, he’s just another guy. But if he’s identified as a Jewish guy, he’s favored for special praise, treatment, recommendation, and etc. Every gentile wants to prove to the world that he’s a good person because he loves Jews, works with Jews, works for Jews, hires Jews, hugs Jews, parties with Jews, etc. It’s gotten to the point where John McCain would probably think it an honor if Joe Lieberman fuc*ed his wife Cindy. When Jewishness had been a social burden, there were many Jews who really just wanted to be equal with gentiles and even abandon their Jewishness; and this is why some German Jews tragically failed to depart from Germany during the Nazi era; they felt themselves to be German than Jewish. But today, it’s a huge advantage to be identified as a Jew, especially a Jew who can pass for gentile. Everyone knows Jon Stewart is Jewish, but his being a ‘Stewart’ than a ‘Lebovic’[his original name] flatters white gentiles that, gee whiz, Jews and whites are so alike. Besides, why would Jews want to be seen as generically white when whiteness has been smeared by Jewish elites with the worst evils of the world: ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘homophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘sexism’, ‘patriarchy’, ‘imperialism’, ‘slavery’, etc.? Jews are to be seen as ‘special whites’ who were the main victims of generic whites. And how could one bunch of whites have been the main victims of whites? Because generic whites, in their boundless wickedness, came up with the false notion of race, an idea so ridiculous that a lot of whites began to hallucinate that white Jews were somehow different from generic whites. This is rather odd since Jews had been insisting on their difference in spirit and blood for thousands of years, indeed even before white folks became Christian, but why bother about such details of history when the Jewish-favored Narrative must be favored over all? Paradoxically, Jewish advantage of today is justified on Jewish disadvantage of yesterday. As long as Jews seek special power and treatment, they will not give up on the cult of past disadvantage. If Jews only seek equality, assimilation, and acceptance, they should give up on Jewishness because the history of Jewish-Christian/gentile relations was one of mutual arrogance, distrust, and hostility. [Besides, it was Christians who were willing to allow Jews to become Christian whereas Jews closed off their religion to everyone. Jewish attitude has been, "We will forever exclude you, but how dare you exclude us?" or "Include us while we exclude you."] But in the present when white gentiles have been infected with the bacillus of ‘white guilt’, anyone group that can claim past disadvantage under white rule of yesterday are slated for special advantages, protections, favoritism, and preferences of today. And Jews want those special treatments because they no longer want to be equal with the rest of us. They want to be richer and more powerful than us forever and ever. This is why Jews support Affirmative Action. While it’s true that some Jews-as-whites do lose out to blacks and other non-white minorities as the result of the policy — though white gentiles bear most of the brunt — , Affirmative Action is premised on the cult of ‘white guilt’ that says past disadvantage should be redressed with present/future advantage. In a way, the biggest ‘affirmative action’ scheme revolves around Jewish power. Though specific Affirmative Action policies don’t necessarily favor Jews over non-Jews, the psycho-political concept of ‘affirmative action’ is why Jews are allowed to get away with so much foulness. Specific Affirmative Action policies may not favor Jews for jobs and positions of power — nevertheless, the Jewish tribal network already serves the role in the preferential elevation of Jews — , but the ‘affirmative action’ mentality that dominates our politics, society, and culture oblige us to remain hush-hush about all the dirty, hideous, and foul things Jews do in politics, media, academia, Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc. Indeed, if Wasp-Americans, Russian-Americans, Iranian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, or Indian-Americans were to possess the kind of power that Jews have and were to abuse their power like Jews routinely do, there would be a firestorm of outrage. But since Jews are protected by the ‘affirmative action’ mentality of our socio-political order that says past disadvantages must be redressed with present/future advantages — and since the Holocaust is deemed as the ‘worst and greatest evil of all time’ — , Jews get preferential/protective treatment in the game of power and privilege. Without such an ‘affirmative action’ mentality, we would freely call out on all the foul things Jews are doing. Blacks get preferential hiring from Affirmative Action, and Jews get preferential non-criticism from our culture’s ‘affirmative action’ mentality.) And why is Jewishness(which goes back to ancient times when people harbored very weird notions about morality, society, and science that would be laughable or offensive to us today) so important to modern Jews whose pride rests in their commitment to ‘progressive’, ‘liberal’, and ‘universalist’ values and agendas?
Some Jews really stretch their tortured logic by arguing that Israel had originally been founded on ‘liberal’, ‘progressive’, and ‘cosmopolitan’ principles and became ‘ultra-nationalist’ only recently. Now, it may have been true enough that many early Zionists had ‘leftist’ or ‘liberal’ views on the economy and all that, but the fact remains that the very conviction that Jews needed to reclaim Palestine/Israel by ethnically cleansing nearly 800,000 Palestinians on the basis of some mystical connection to the land of their forefathers IS ‘atavistic’ and deeply ‘reactionary’ — and ‘irrational’. After all, the National Socialists were actually ‘leftist’ on many social and economic issues, but they still harbored ultra-tribalist notions when it came to race and nation. Modern Japan was‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ in many respects from 1870 to 1945, but such factors didn’t negate its ultra-‘atavism’ on racial, spiritual, and national issues. Whatever the favored economic theory or artistic/cultural tastes of the founders of Israel might have been, the core principle of Zionism cannot be understood apart from its ‘atavistic’ roots and passions. If indeed Jews really needed a homeland, why not request a piece of territory in some vast empty part of the world with no people to ethnically cleanse? Jews demanded Palestine because of their ancestral & cultural roots in that land, and if that isn’t ‘atavistic’, I don’t know what is. Suppose the Swedes wage war on Norway and take a chunk of territory on grounds that the land is sacred to Sweden for ancient-historical reasons. Even if Swedes who take the land have universal healthcare and public housing — and other trappings of a ‘progressive’ society — , their action would still have been ‘atavistic’. Indeed, too often, Jews act for ‘atavistic’ reasons and then try to cover it up with the ‘progressive’ rhetoric. So, even though Israel is the product of Jewish ‘atavism’, Jews will justify it on grounds that it’s the ‘only democratic nation in the Middle East’, or ‘the beacon of Western Civilization’. If the existence of Israel is justified on such grounds, then wouldn’t any European nation be justified in conquering any piece of territory in Africa, Asia, or elsewhere as long as they established and practiced democracy there and promoted the ‘values’ of Western Civilization against the ways of savagery or barbarism’?

If Jews claim that their Jewishness got them targeted and victimized by gentiles all through history, why didn’t Jews abandon their Judaism? If wearing a certain hat makes you the target of ridicule and attack by everyone, shouldn’t you just take off the hat and toss it away? Of course, Jews could argue that they had every reason to maintain their Jewish culture and religion since doing so gave them meaning and identity as well as a sense of continuity and unity. If that’s the case, why are Jews so vicious about gentile nations with similar loyalties about their own cultures, traditions, and territories? If Jews had every right to preserve and cling to their Jewishness despite all the vicious and hostile attacks from gentiles, then logically, shouldn’t various gentile groups be preserving and holding onto their own cultures and identities despite all the slings and arrows of vicious Jewish anti-white-ism? It’s remarkable how Jews love to be Jewish and take great pride in being Jewish, but if other peoples(especially white gentiles) act Jew-like in preserving their own cultures and identities, Jews cry foul and call it ‘atavistic’. And if ultra-‘progressive’ white gentiles have decided, on the advice of Jews, to purge and purify themselves of all their ‘atavistic’ tendencies of nationalism, tribalism, territorialism, culturalism, ‘racism’, and whatnot AND if those ‘redeemed’ gentiles expect ‘progressive’ Jews to do the same(especially when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), Jew get all antsy and pissed and call the ‘progressive’ white gentiles a bunch of ‘leftist anti-Semites’. So, there you go. If conservative or right-wing white gentiles act Jew-like and insist on their own right to rule over their own homelands and maintain their own racial-national-cultural characters — by rejecting the Jewish agenda of globalist-universalism — , they are viciously attacked as ‘atavistic anti-Semites’. But then, if ultra-‘progressive’ white gentiles, who’ve decided to purge themselves of ‘atavistic’ tendencies and fully embrace globalist-universalism(promoted by Jews), simply expect Jews to practice what they preach, Jews get all vicious and spew poison about how too many leftist gentiles are ‘Jew-hating anti-Semites’. So, you see, no creature acts with as much bad faith as Jews do. The Jewish mentality, even when secularized, cannot let go of the myth of ‘Chosen-ness’ that entitles Jews — and only Jews — to enjoy special privileges when it comes to tribal identity and power.
Scum Jew Alan Dershowitz of the School of Nationalism for We but Not for Thee. 
Of course, Jewish power over the media, academia, entertainment, and government have altered the rules of the game whereby we must cozy up to Jews even as Jews remain a people apart. Jews insist that we come closer to them for favors but on all fours like cattle. Notice that whenever Jews invite goy politicians to Jewish gatherings and conferences, the goyim must grovel and shower the Jewish community with boundless praise. One thing Jews and white goyim have in common is that when they get together, Jews say, "we are so great, and white goyim should kiss our ass," and white goyim say, "you Jews are so great, an we white goyim should kiss your ass." In the past, when white gentiles ruled their own nations, Jewish separateness made them seem different, alien, and suspect. Indeed, the thinking back then was, if Jews insist on sticking to their own identity and ways instead of joining together with the Christian community via conversion, why trust such a people? And if Jews really didn’t want to join and become one with the Christian community, why didn’t they leave and go back to the Middle East whence they came? Why did Jews hang around and get rich off Christians while refusing to become Christian? Given the haggly-waggly & nasty-pushy nature of Jewish behavior and attitudes, of course, it was natural for white gentile communities to be suspicious of Jews. Jews bitch about how Wasp golf clubs didn’t let them in, but Christianity opened its doors to Jews in the way that Jewish culture/community never did for any other community. Christians — and Muslims — would have been happy to have all Jews convert and become one with the gentile community. Now, I’m not saying that Jews SHOULD have joined with the Christians. If I were Jewish, I too would have done my best to maintain a separateness since it’s only right and responsible for a great people to guard, preserve, and pass down their sacred heritage. But when a people choose to maintain such a strict separateness in a society that is overwhelmingly non-Jewish, there’s naturally going to be some problems, especially if the Jewish community is perceived to be getting richer at the expense of the gentile society.

But that was then, this is now. Today, Jews run white gentile nations, especially the most powerful and rich ones like the US, UK, and France. So, even white gentile nations that aren’t directly ruled by Jews are essentially indirect vassals of Jewish power since smaller/weaker nation are politically and economically dependent on bigger and more powerful nations. It’s like if Jews ride the elephant, all the other animals better step aside even if they aren’t carrying anyone on their own backs. As long as Jews ride the elephants of US, UK, and France, they can pretty push any nation around in the EU. (In the end, it’s more about power than anything else. Consider Germany’s caving to Jew-run US over the crisis in Ukraine. This is rather odd when Germans killed many more Slavs than Jews during World War II. While Jews suffered the Holocaust, the German invasion of the USSR led to deaths of countless people, and some estimates say the Soviet Union lost up to 20 million during the war — though some estimates go as high as 27 million. So, if Germans really want to own up to their past, shouldn’t they be nicer to Russia? Instead, Germany, which has remained silent about Israeli massacre of Palestinians[on the assumption that historically guilt Germans have no right to criticize Jews who suffered so horribly during WWII], is now joining with US and UK against the Russian ‘aggression’ in the Ukraine even though the crisis really began when Jews like Victoria Nuland instigated a coup in Ukraine, indeed one that was many times bloodier and nastier than the US-backed coup that brought down Salvador Allende in Chile. To this day, we keep hearing about the horrors of what Augusto Pinochet did, but nearly the entire ‘progressive’ community has supported the US-instigated coup against a democratically elected government in Ukraine — and the ‘progressive’ community has been mostly silent about the US-backed military coup in Egypt against democratically elected Morsi; as long as coups bring down people disliked by Jewish supremacists, the so-called ‘progressive’ community doesn’t much care. We’ll keep hearing about poor Allende, but never mind the bloody overthrows in Ukraine and Egypt, both of which will be flushed down the memory hole by the US media and academia that are controlled by Jews. Anyway, if German politics today is indeed informed by a sense of ‘German burden of guilt’, there sure isn’t much evidence of it in Germany’s recent sanctions against Russia, the nation that suffered the most during the German invasion in World War II. In the end, Germany must bow down to the Jews because Jews control the US, the most powerful nation in the world with the power to crush the German economy in no time.) And with their immense power over media and academia, Jews have filled countless minds with the fantastic notion of the wonderful & saintly Jew; the propagandizing has replaced Jesus Christ with Jewsus Shrist in gentile hearts. So, if in the past, Jewish uniqueness and separateness were reasons for white gentiles to distrust the Jew, those attributes are now regarded by white gentiles as the very reason why they should revere and worship the Jew. It went from, "We distrust you Jews because you’re different" to "We trust you even more precisely because you’re different." Jews being different used to mean Jews being alien and hostile, but since WWII, Jews being different has meant they’re superior, especially morally. (This is emotionally taxing and nerve-racking to Jews in some ways because, deep down inside, they know they’re not good people. Jews know that much of their tribal consciousness is about looking down on goyim, mocking goyim, hoodwinking goyim, ridiculing goyim, cheating goyim, and etc. A lot of Jews know themselves to be of low moral character as many Jews happen to be like Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, Ron Jeremy, Russ Meyer, Bernie Madoff, David Mamet, David Geffen, and etc. Also, a lot of Jews know that, on a purely physical level, they are not exactly likable; indeed, many of them are repulsive and hardly the stuff of iconography. Maybe part of the reason for Jewish war on idolatry was because too many Jews were too unattractive to represent idealized beauty in stone or painting. Of course, there are plenty of attractive, gorgeous, and sexy Jews, but there are also a good number who look like Anthony Wiener or Victoria Nuland. If most Jews were indeed attractive and kindly in temperament, they wouldn’t be so nervous about being outed as the Nasty and Disgusting Jew. But then, if indeed most Jews were kindly and decent, they wouldn’t be vainly and megalomaniacally putting themselves forth as the bestest and most wonderful people that ever lived. In the film EUROPA EUROPA, a Jew kid pretends to be ‘Aryan’ and is anxious about being found out. Today, Jews are proud to be Jews, but they are hiding the Real Jew behind the image of the Ideal Jew. They want us goyim to see Jews as a perfect, wonderful, funny, charming, conscientious, and noble people. We are told that Jews are SO conscientious that, even when they bomb the hell out of Palestinians, they take great care not to kill civilians — and if Palestinian children get killed, it’s because Hamas is using them as ‘human shields’. We are told that Jews are such a tragic & noble people that even when an ‘odd bad apple’ like Bernie Madoff steals gazillions, his primary victims are fellow Jews — never mind that Madoff, prior to being exposed, had been stealing from goyim to fatten his fellow Jews, and never mind that Madoff had been able to get away with so much fraud precisely because he’d enabled and protected by other rich & powerful Jews in US government and Wall Street who used him as a golden goose. Jews know that the Ideal Jew image they put forth in the media hardly resembles the Real Jew fact that is pretty vile. In that respect, Jews are still afraid of being ‘found out’. Jews are still hiding. This is why there’s a double-meaning to Franz Kafka’s THE TRIAL. On the surface, it’s about an innocent man accused by the system. But could Joseph K be hiding something? From the system? From us? From himself? Indeed, some Jews have so deeply internalized their self-image of the wonderful Jew that they get angry when not everyone around the world agrees with their highfalutin self-assessment. If a Greek or Turk discovers that the entire world doesn’t care for his people, he doesn’t care and gets on with life. But if a Jew realizes that the entire world isn’t crazy about Jews, he starts to throw a fit and hisses that there’s still so much ‘antisemitism’ around the world. The Jew fumes, "Doesn’t the world know how wonderful and noble we Jews are?" The entire world has yet to be converted to Jew-Worship. Jews don’t convert gentiles into Jews but into Jew-worshipers. But then, there’s another [somewhat honest]side of the Jew that notices that Jews have accumulated so much wealth and influence through fraud, trickery, tribal networking[something Jews denounce among white gentiles], bloody warfare[Zionism], blacklisting & intimidation[Jews routinely do to their enemies and rivals what Jews accuse Joseph McCarthy and HUAC of having done in the late 40s and early 50s], and etc. The honest part of the Jew[and everyone has some degree of honesty in him or her]cannot help realizing that many Jews are indeed dirty, hideous, and weasely. The Jew can’t help feeling that a lot of Jews are indeed a bunch of tricksters, con-men, bullies, and hypocrites. And this fills the Jew with some measure of self-loathing and doubt. But then, there’s another side of the Jew that relishes the fact that Jews are so smarter than dumb goyim, and it figures, why shouldn’t Jews hoodwink others when goyim are so stupid? Shouldn’t the stupid be treated like animals and dumb children? Don’t smarter Jews have the right to rule the world? Also, the Holocaust consciousness or ‘Holoconsciousness’ of the Jew feels him with righteousness and thirst for righteous vengeance and so, paradoxically, the most moralistic aspect of Jewish historical consciousness serves as the basis for the worst Jewish behavior. The Holocaust justifies Roman Polanski’s rape of a young girl, the mass expulsion/destruction of Palestinians, the Jewish war of democide against the white race, Jewish robbery on Wall Street, and etc. In the past, it used to be that some Jews ‘converted’ to goy society and tried to pass themselves off as bona fide Anglos or ‘Aryans’. Some of them were even offended when someone mentioned and ‘outed’ their Jewish origins; they hid their Jewishness like homos used to keep their ‘sexual orientation’ in the closet. Consider how the Anglo-American-ized Eastman family, representing Paul McCartney, was offended when Allen Klein, representing the other three Beatles, kept on bringing up the family’s Jewish roots. Today, Jews are fully out of the closet as it’s very advantageous to be a Jew in American politics, life, culture, and industry. But the Real Jew is still in the closet as we’re only allowed to believe and ‘see’ the Ideal Jew. But as Jews grow ever more powerful, they become pushier, more arrogant, more corrupt, and more supremacist. More people are beginning to notice the Real Jew, especially as some Jews, like Glenn Greenwald, Philip Weiss, Max Blumenthal, Norman Finkelstein, and Brother Nathanael Kapner[one of the finest Jews of the 21st century]are beginning to spill the beans on the nature of Jewish power. Also, the Ideal Jew glows with holy victim-hood, whereas Real Jews like Sheldon Adelson boil over with as*holiness of excess wealth and power. And some Jews act like Anthony Wiener or Donald Sterling, whom the New York Times tried to pass off as a Southern Plantation Owner. For many yrs, Sterling played the Jewish game and was awarded numerous times by the NAACP — an organization he bribed with generous sums so that his ‘racist’ real estate deals would be overlooked by black activists. Sterling made himself out to be an Ideal Jew[a member of the ‘victim’ race who helps out other ‘victim’ peoples], but when his mistress spilled the beans on his Real Jewish thoughts and feelings, Sterling the Real Jew turned out to be nothing like a ‘holy victim’ type. It’s even truer of Abe Foxman who never tires of telling the world that he is a Holocaust Survivor. He may well be, but his moral character is about on the level of that of Newman on SEINFELD. Of course, we are only supposed to see him as an Ideal Jew, a holy tragic Jew, but we can’t help noticing his Real Jew self that is so utterly hideous, vile, nasty, hypocritical, opportunistic, and dirty. Jews are facing the paradox of power. On the one hand, as they grow richer and more powerful, they are able to use even more media muscle to hoodwink us into embracing the image of the Ideal Jew. If masses of American fools can be led to believe in some mountain-sized Negro who wuvs a wittle white mouse, surely they can be led to believe in the Ideal Jew. And yet, more wealth and power also means more temptations and opportunities on the part of Jews to abuse power, to grow corrupt, to act nasty, to lie and cheat, to use all sorts of dirty means to destroy not only their enemies but anyone they don’t like. And then, more people will notice the nature of Jewish power. If Stalin used Stalinism to glorify himself and if Mao used Maoism to glorify himself, Jews used Jewism to glorify not a single Jew but ALL Jews. So, every Jew struts around like he’s Stalin or Mao with the divine right to lie, cheat, steal, rob, and kill. In this, Jewism is actually more like Nazism as Nazism didn’t only glorify Adolf Hitler but every member of the ‘Aryan’ race. How ironic that Jews, the main victims of the Nazi-instigated Holocaust, have used the Holocaust to make themselves out to be superior race on Earth, a special people whom all other peoples should bow down to, worship, and serve. A people whose wickedness as Real Jews should be overlooked and swept under the carpet as we stupid gentiles should always remind ourselves to see and believe in the Ideal Jew. But how long can this charade go on? As Jews gain greater wealth and power, the more they have the power to hoodwink us, and yet, their outrageous abuses of power are forcing even philo-Semites to have second thoughts about Jews. Indeed, consider the younger generation’s much diminished admiration for Israel, which may or may not reflect other negative feelings about Jews in. Of course, Jews never cease to push and promote the image of the Ideal Jew as holy victims. Consider the narrative on Jewish history in America. We never hear of how, when Jews rose up the socio-economic ladder, they might have exploited, cheated, and defrauded poorer gentiles, especially the blacks. Whether Wasps were rich, middle class, or poor, Jews have associated all Wasps with privilege and prejudice. But even Jewish leftists overlook the ‘exploitation’ carried out by rich Jews. If a gentile leftist pointed out examples of rich Jews exploiting goyim, even leftist Jews will side with rich Jews against ‘leftist anti-semites’. Notice how the leftist film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum never badmouthed his capitalist grandfather who owned movie theaters in the south and grew richer while the ‘poor gentiles got poorer’. In the Jewish mind, even poor Wasps are associated with Wasp country club privilege, BUT even rich Jews are associated with the ‘victims’ of the world. So, never mind that a rich Jew might have ‘exploited’ non-Jewish workers and consumers. Just remember that he suffered the ‘golfocaust’ of being denied membership in an exclusive Wasp country club. And never mind that Jewish clubs excluded blacks, Asians, Mexicans, Muslims, and etc. And never mind asking why Jews, if they’re so into equality and inclusion, wanted to belong to an exclusive country club in the first place. Jews are so full of shit that even a leftist film-maker like Jean-Luc Godard once called a Jew a ‘dirty Jew’.) Now, which attitude sounds saner and more sensible? For your people to be mindfully suspicious of a rich & powerful people who hold themselves separate from your kind OR for your people to be mindlessly trusting of and supplicating toward them? Would you trust strangers more than your family members? If there’s one club in which you’re a member and another club that excludes you and your kind, would it make more sense to trust the other club as much as your own — or even more than your own club? In a way, Jews pulled off a masterstroke. They convinced white gentiles that it’s normal, natural, healthy, and sensible for gentiles to love, revere, trust, and worship Jews all the more BECAUSE Jew are a separate people. Usually when we think of the Other or the Different people, we naturally feel competitive, fearful, anxious, and suspicious because we are ‘us’ and they are ‘them’. We feel this way about Russians, Iranians, Mexicans, Chinese, Turks, Indians, and etc. We are ‘Americans’, and they are ‘others’. But when it comes to Jews, oddly enough, we love and trust them EVEN MORE than our own kind precisely because Jews are ‘especially other’. Indeed, we’ve been conditioned to feel ‘sick’, ‘demented’, ‘irrational’, and ‘phobic’ if we were to harbor any suspicions or hostilities about Jews — even though Jews feel no qualms about bleating endlessly about how rotten, nasty, untrustworthy, and demented the various groups of gentiles are. Jews constantly badmouth Russians, Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Iranians, Chinese, Germans, French, Poles, Japanese, and etc. And American Jews constantly badmouth white gentile Americans — and all other kinds of non-Jewish Americans behind their backs. Part of the reason for our ecstatically positive view of Jews is due to Jewish-controlled popular culture that overflows with wonderful, wise, tragic, funny, endearing, and cuddly Jewish types whereas white gentiles are often presented as the faces of evil, cravenness, wickedness, greed, betrayal, hatred, intolerance, and etc. Even when Jews act foul — like Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, Joan Rivers, and etc. — it’s packaged and presented as just so-much-fun, something for us to laugh at. So, Howard Stern can badmouth Filipinos in PRIVATE PARTS, and our reaction is supposed to be mere laughter since Jews are, haha, so funny and riotous. Indeed, it’s interesting how Jews have done most to promote Political Correctness, but then, would have us rely on Jews like Howard Stern and Jerry Springer to feel daringly politically incorrect. So, we have to obey Jewish-enforced Political Correctness, but we also have to rely on Jews like Stern, Springer, Bill Maher, and Silverman[who become fabulously rich off us] to get some partial relief from Political Correctness. [Of course, their brand of political incorrectness usually serves Jewish interests. Both Stern and Maher are huge supporters of Israel in its mass killings in Gaza. So, even their so-called political incorrectness aids and abets in Jewish Supremacism.] Jews push us this way but then squeeze us that way. It’s like, when Political Correctness[pushed by Jews] becomes a bit too much, we must rely on Jews for momentary respite from it. Either way, Jews win all, we win nothing. Jews define the terms of both Political Correctness and Political Incorrectness, just like Jews get to define both American Liberalism and American Conservatism[that is dominated by Neocons who’d rather have the GOP lose elections as a ‘war party’ than win as a ‘peace party’.] It’s like if a Jew insults you and takes away your freedom, you have to rely on another Jew to ridicule the insult and the loss of your freedom. Laughing with the politically incorrect Jew[who pretends to be on your side] may make you feel better, but he hasn’t really done anything to restore your dignity and freedom. So, even as Jewish Political Correctness keeps chipping away at your freedom and power, you keep relying on some ‘maverick’ Jews to make you feel better by cracking some jokes, as if dumb laughter is going to fix the problem. But Jewish-enforced Political Correctness is no laughing matter since it can take away your job, your status, and your freedom. You should really get together with other freedom-loving people and fight the Jew. But instead, because we’ve all been made to worship the Jew, we find it difficult to face and state the fact that Jews are the ones who are taking away our freedom, our rights, and our power. We’ve been brainwashed to feel that WE MUST LOVE THE JEW! We must seek out Jews who seem to be ‘on our side’. (It’s like how gangsters used to operate. One bunch of gangsters would push you with muscle, so you had to go another bunch of gangsters who’d offer protection... for a price, of course. Gangsters love to play ‘bad cop, good cop’. It’s like what the gangsters did with the restaurant owner in GOODFELLAS. One bunch of hoodlums scare him half to death, and so, he pleads for protection from Paulie the gangster, but then Paulie does to his restaurant what the Neocons did to the GOP: Squeeze it for all its worth and then burn it down for insurance. Why didn’t the restaurant owner go to the cops? Because in the Italian-American community, the cops, the judges, and hoodlums were all in it together. Similarly, there is no Rule of Law and justice in America apart from Jewish power since Jews control the government, the courts, the media, and academia. We are living in Jewish Gangsta Paradise. Politicians must grovel before the likes of Sheldon Adelson. Even so-called ‘leftist’ Elizabeth Warren sounds like Netanhayu’s bitch on the subject of Israel’s massacre of Palestinians in Gaza. Today, the US government that is controlled by Jewish mobsters use the force of corrupted laws to destroy Christian bakers who won’t make cakes in honor of something as foul, filthy, and decadent as ‘gay marriage’. When Rule of Law has been thus corrupted, how can you rely on the Law when powerful Jews come after you? What could Chick-Fil-A do when it was banned from doing business in Chicago because... its owners believe in true marriage? That was its great crime according to the Jewish-controlled ethnoconomic order. What about the media, the so-called ‘fourth estate’ as the last resort? Forget it. The media today are totally Jewish-controlled, and besides, most reporters are brainwashed college-indoctrinated clones of Political Correctness who think journalism is more about pushing the Narrative than exposing the truth and fighting for the little guy. After the media’s bogus coverages of WMD in Iraq, the crisis in Ukraine, and the Ferguson riots, can anyone really trust in the media? The media are little more than a propaganda machine for Jews and their mini-me homos. So, if you’re a little guy who owns a bakery, don’t expect the Law or Media to come to your aid when the federal government controlled by Jewish gangsters come to destroy you for your refusal to bake cakes for ‘gay weddings’. And even the ACLU will not come to your aid since it is nothing but a vehicle for Jewish and homo agendas. According to Jews and homos, you can’t force a Jewish publisher to publish certain books or force a Jewish newspapers to advertise certain products — even if perfectly legal — , but Christian bakers must be forced to bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes. US is a nation run by Jewish gangsters, pure and simple. Jewish-controlled Political Correctness pretends to be about morality, but gangster morality isn’t real morality. It’s only about cowards ‘evolving’ and ‘adapting’ themselves to finding their niche in an environment where Jewish sharks rule the waters.) This is when the likes of Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, and Jerry Springer pretend to serve as our spokesman as the ‘courageous rebels against Political Correctness’ when, in truth, they merely serve as release valves for our frustrations, all the while raking in millions of dollars of our money. It’s as if we can’t — or aren’t allowed — to do anything for ourselves if it smacks of controversy, and so, if powerful Jews press us too hard, we must rely on our ‘Jewish allies’ to help us out, but more often than not, it’s just another bunch of Jews playing us for all its worth and getting rich while, in the end, we end up no better than before.
Of course, Jews know how the game is played. Back in 2008, most Jews were on the side of Obama, and therefore, Jews got worried that white conservative America would finally wake up and see Jews for what they really are. So, naturally, some Jews pretended to be outraged by what Obama stood for and to stand with the Conservatives and libertarians of the Tea Party. So, once again, American Conservatives were so very grateful that a bunch of great and wonderful Jews deigned to come over to their side. But these Jews didn’t do anything for American Conservatives — and even if they’d really wanted to, they couldn’t have done much since the Jewish establishment is overwhelmingly pro-Democratic — , and the only consequence of Jewish anti-Obama-ism was to fool white Conservatives into keeping the faith that Jews shall eventually see the light and come over to the GOP. This is why the Neocon-GOP partnership is a fatal alliance. Jews don’t really do anything for the GOP(except using Republicans as the War Party and shills for Wall Street & Las Vegas), but because American Conservatives are so flattered to have some Jews on their side, they overlook and suppress the fact that most American Jews are anti-white and anti-conservative. Considering that Liberal Jews are the most powerful enemies of white conservatives, one would think that Jewish ‘conservatives’ would be most angry with Jewish Liberals. After all, if Jewish ‘conservatives’ are indeed conservatives first, they should hate most the force/power that is #1 threat to conservatism, and of course, that honor goes to Liberal Jews. But Jewish ‘conservatives’ are not only mum about Liberal Jewish influence(and instead reserve their ire on some abstract enemy called ‘the left’, as if Eskimo & Hawaiian Democrats and Palestinian-Americans are just as powerful on the so-called ‘left’ as Jewish Democrats are), but they seethe with venom at any white Conservative who spots and calls out on the prominent Jewish presence in the American ‘left’. So, having Jewish ‘conservatives’ on our side means that we cannot call out on and challenge our most powerful enemies, the Liberal Jews, lest we offend our wonderful Jewish ‘friends’ in the American ‘right’ such as William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Anne Applebaum, Jonah Goldberg, and others who either support ‘gay marriage’ and amnesty for illegal aliens OR steer American Conservatism into obsessing about Iran, Russia, Palestinians, and other nations/peoples Jews hate. We have to be careful not to offend our wonderful and noble allies, the Jewish ‘conservatives’... like Sheldon Adelson who made his billions through the vice industry of gambling, supports ‘gay marriage’, calls for amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens, and advises that US should drop a nuke on Iran.
Jewish ‘conservatives’ vent their spleen against this vague thing called ‘statism’, ‘leftism’, ‘progressivism’, and etc. but the fact is ideologies don’t have a life of their own. They are funded, shaped, activated, and guided by certain groups. Surely, Jewish ‘leftism’ has priorities and passions different from Palestinian-American ‘leftism’, Irish-American ‘leftism’, Big Labor ‘leftism’, Negro ‘leftism’, and etc. The reason why the homo agenda received such a huge favoritism in the past 30 years owes by and large to Jewish power; it was the favorite of Jewish ‘leftism’. Just like Russian communism and Chinese communism were shaped by their nationalist differences and objectives, there are many different ‘leftisms’ in America, and each has its own tribal shading. Notice how even a lot of Asian ‘liberals’ in California are against ‘affirmative action’ whereas Hispanic and black ‘leftists’ are for its re-institution. And even most Jewish ‘leftists’ are pro-Israel and would never want to discuss the problems of Jewish class privilege. (Similarly, the Cold War was, in the end, less about capitalism & free world versus communism & totalitarianism than about the US vs the USSR. If indeed, it was all about ideology, why did US side with Red China against the Russian Bear following Nixon’s visit, especially considering that Mao’s China was far more communist and totalitarian than Russia was in the 1970s?) So, the main enemy of white conservatives isn’t some vague bogeyman called ‘leftism’ or ‘statism’ but the specific power of Jewish Liberalism that essentially uses Liberalism to serve Jewish supremacist interests. Since Jewish ‘conservatives’ will not call out on this great power(the Jewish character of American Liberalism), they do us no great service. (If anything, Jewish Liberals are more likely to call out on the Jewish nature of Neo-conservatism than Jewish Conservatives are likely to call out on the Jewish nature of Democratic Neo-Liberalism and Homo-ism. To be sure, Jewish Liberals would rather pretend that the most powerful Neocons have been the likes of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney. In fact, all such fellas were rendered passe and irrelevant with the end of the Bush presidency, whereas big shot Neocons like Sheldon Adelson and the Kagans of the world still pull on the strings in the GOP.) Worse, as Jewish Conservatives forbid the rest of us from calling out as to the Jewish nature of Liberal power in America(with the threat that they will bolt from our side if we spill the beans, and then, we won’t have wonderful Jews on our sides anymore, oh boo hoo hoo), they do us great harm. Suppose there’s a vicious dog that barks and bites at us, and we need to beat it away with a stick. But another dog comes to our side, and we hope that it will bark and bite at the other dog to protect us. But suppose this dog barks and ‘attacks’ the vague area around the vicious dog without ever barking or attacking directly at it. Furthermore, this dog, that is supposed to be on our side, bites and barks at us IF we hit the vicious dog with a stick because it keeps biting and barking at us. This is the kind of arrangement white conservatism finds itself in because of its fatal alliance with the Jews. American Conservatism thought Neocon dogs came to their side to help in the fight against Liberal Jewish dogs, but in fact, Neocon dogs and Jewish Liberal dogs have only been pretending to be enemies(barking vaguely at one another but never really attacking one another) while secretly working together to bite and bark at the white conservatism.
But many Conservatives are so unaware of what is happening because they’re human like everyone else and fear the truth that may pull the comfy rug(the delusion of a beautiful friendship between themselves and Jews, the holy Holocaust people)from beneath their feet. (Some white conservatives know this but lack the courage to spell it out since the Jew Taboo is just so powerful. As Jews have been put upon the pedestal for so long as the holy Holocaust people[and control the means by which to destroy entire reputations, careers, and lives with a flick of the finger], it’s emotionally, morally, and politically taxing for a lot of people to speak the inconvenient truth, namely that a lot of Jews are dirty weasels.) Most people dread honest thinking since it opens the door to complexities, ambiguities, and contradictions that upset their convenient and self-justifying world-view. This could be one reason why many intellectuals on both the left and the right have hated the concept of ‘fascism’. Of course, the main reason is because ‘fascism’ has become synonymous — due to Jewish and Liberal domination of media and academia — with mindless ‘hatred’, brutality, and use of coercion(as if pre-fascist regimes, communist systems, and even democracies hadn’t resorted to demagoguery and use of force; indeed, in some ways, a democracy can be even more blind to its own ‘evils’ because its conceit of ‘free elections’ creates the impression that its actions are the result of the the ‘will of the people’ and in the service of ‘principles of liberty’ & Rule of Law; after all, it is because US is a democracy that Americans and even the world have so often overlooked the fact that it has carried out internationally illegal acts like the Iraq War and the dissolution of Ukraine; but as long as we can tell ourselves that whatever is done by the US is the ‘will of the people’ and not of some dictator and as long as we keep changing leaders every 4 or 8 yrs[though they all serve the same oligarchs], we can assure ourselves that we are not living under a tyranny; never mind that the real force behind the US is a form of ethno-tyranny and that every president is only a running dog of this ethnogarchy of Jewish supremacism; Jews are clever because they know that the best way to serve Jewish dictatorship is to hide behind goy figures and the cult of ‘freedom’). But how free are we when anyone who seeks power must bow down to Jewish power and interests, or else. Sure, it’s often been said that in America, even an ordinary man in the street can criticize the President, but that’s just a trick of the mind. An ordinary man in the street has no power, and his voice will not be heard by anyone but himself and a few of his peers. That’s not power. Power is the ability to sway millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and billions of people, and the only way to do that is to have control of the media, government, academia, entertainment, and etc. (There’s the internet, but the swarm effect has a way of making dissident voices drown out other dissident voices. It’s like you can’t make out any individual fish in a vast swam of many fishes. Also, the internet tends to atomize dissident voices into countless niches than bringing them together to focus on the real enemy and the real power. Prior to the internet, the problem was there wasn’t enough dissident voices with access to the public. The problem today is there are too many dissident voices with access to the public. The public is swarmed by so much internet buzz and traffic that it doesn’t know where to begin, and so, most people still stick to mainstream sources backed by Big Money for news and views. Also, as will always be the case, most people don’t like politics and prefer stuff like celebrity news and popular culture, and so, the most effective way to change political attitudes is through the indirect means of pop trends and fashions, i.e. people will tend to absorb political attitude and ‘values’ that are most associated with the Culture of Cool. Given that Jews control most of the media and entertainment complex, they are the arbiters of what is Cool, Cute, Happy, and Hip.) Also, as most ordinary men and women in the streets get their information from mass media controlled by the Jewish elites, what most ordinary men and women think and feel are not really their own thoughts and feelings but ideas, images, words, and sounds shoved and planted into their minds by the elites that happen to be Jewish and supremacist in the US. (As Jews see us as stupid children and dumb animals, they feel justified in manipulating us this way, just as an adult finds nothing wrong in lying about Santa Claus to his/her children.)
And even prominent social critics and commentators who do criticize the President do so in a way that never threatens the real power behind the presidency. Indeed, Jews use goy presidents as scapegoats for many of the problems caused by Jews. So, if Bush administration failed in Iraq, blame Bush and Cheney than the Jews who really hatched the plan. If Obama is taking away our freedoms and rights, blame the mulatto monkey than the Liberal Jews who put him in power and gave him the orders. So, ordinary men and women in the streets in the US may have the freedom to criticize the President, but not only is their freedom disconnected from real power but the perimeters of their criticism generally conforms to the bounds of debate as permitted by Jews who control the media and decide what kinds of voices are ‘acceptable’, i.e. the people can say ‘Bush is bad’ and ‘Obama is bad’, but they better not say ‘the Jews with the real power behind Bush and Obama are bad’.
Anyway, the freedom of ordinary people doesn’t amount to much since ordinary people are divided and have no power. Power really rests with the elites, or rather the elites with control over the institutions and industries that shape and control our emotions and thoughts. (True, non-elites can rise to elite status, as was the case with Jews who arrived as poor immigrants and became the rulers of the nation, but the fact is some groups are far more intelligent and talented than others in rising to the top. So, it’s a myth that just about any racial or ethnic group could, through the dint of hard work and dedication, amass the kind of power, wealth, and privilege that Jews have gained for themselves — just like it’s a fool’s dream to believe any group can become prominent in the NBA and NFL. There are two ways a people can gain power: quantity or quality. In the case of India and Algeria, the masses of non-whites simply outnumbered and overwhelmed the white elites. It was quantity power, though to be sure, the dumb masses were led by men of some intelligence and talent, or quality. And the masses of ‘darkies’ felt morally justified since white elites were associated with imperialism and ‘racism’. The other way a people can gain elite power is through quality. White elites gained minority domination over many non-white lands because they had superior organization, technology, knowledge, systems of law, and etc. And in Europe and America, Jews had a decisive advantage in rising to elite power due to higher IQ, wily personality, pushy temperament, and cunning for tribal networking. In the US, Jews used quality to gain elite status. In terms of quality, they know they can beat all. But Jews are weak in quantity as only 2% of US is Jewish. So, Jews fear the quantity power of gentiles, and it happened to be the case that the only group that stood a chance of using quantity power to challenge Jewish quality power was white gentiles, especially as most ethnic whites had, more or less, been Anglo-Americanized[with the desire to munch on corn on the 4th of July and bake turkey on Thanksgiving]. Though blacks can burn down cities, there isn’t enough of them to take power, as they did in Zimbabwe and South Africa where they outnumbered whites by a huge margin. As for Hispanics, they too don’t have enough in numbers to challenge Jewish power, and besides, most of them tend to be dispassionate about power and politics; they just want some fiesta and siesta after mucho trabajo. But whites historically did have enough in numbers to take on Jewish elite quality power, and so, it was in the interest of Jews to increase the number of non-whites in order to undermine white quantity power, and indeed, this strategy has essentially worked to destroy the GOP, which might have won the 2012 presidency — even by a landslide — if not for the non-white votes that went overwhelmingly for the mulatto monkey of the Jews and homos. Indeed, notice how the Newsweek or Jewsweek cover gloated and taunted the GOP as the party of defeated old white folks. You’d think the editor of Newsweek or Jewsweek is Tim Wise. This is how Jews really feel. They are a vile bunch. No people created a social order that was as welcoming to and supportive of Jews as Anglo-Americans did, but Jews are filled with ugly and demented hatred for white Americans, the kind of hatred that even goes beyond even Hitler’s hatred for Jews. At least Hitler hated Jews because many Jews messed up European nations. In contrast, if Jews should feel gratitude to any people, it’s Anglo/Americans, but look at the level of hatred and animosity. These Jews are truly a rotten bunch. A vile and hideous bunch of weasels. And as if destroying White America wasn’t enough, Jews now ram ‘gay marriage’ up America’s ass and even set off a dangerous conflict with Russia because Jews wanna gain control of Slavic nations as well. Jews are disgusting. And yet, priority #1 for the GOP is appeasing Jewish supremacist power.)
Newsweek or Jewsweek 2012 Election Cover - Tim Wise the Editor of Newsweek? Jews shit on white gentiles, but GOP still only sucks up to Jews. White Race, a Total Disgrace. 
This was why the traditional aristocratic elites didn’t have much of a chance in holding onto power in the modern world. Though they held immense power at one time, they lived in a world of their own and mostly ignored the masses. They controlled elite institutions that were mostly concerned with perpetuating the privileges of the aristocrats than shaping and controlling the minds of the masses. In contrast, the new modern elites began to expand their reach and gain control over the institutions and industries that dominated mass education, mass information, mass entertainment, and mass mobilization. Thus, ‘empowering’ the masses was really a way of gaining power over the masses and using them as a brute force for the New Power. So, in this sense, it’s true enough that the people are immensely powerful in a democracy BUT only as a force controlled, shaped, steered, and directed by the elites. It’s like a herd of cattle is a massive brute force, but it goes where it is directed by the cattlemen. Modernity made the masses powerful but in a way that their power would be controlled and directed by the new elites who held the power over the institutions and industries of education, law, government, information, and entertainment that shape and determine the hearts and minds of most people, and indeed, the proof of this can be seen in the dramatic success of the radical homo agenda. We’ve been told so many times by the Jewish-controlled media that ‘gay marriage’ is ‘fait accompli’ because the overwhelming majority of young people are for it, but did all those young people arrive at the rightness of ‘gay marriage’ on their own, or were they swayed, molded, and guided to support it because they came under the barrage of pro-homo propaganda since childhood through schools, government propaganda, laws, and entertainment? Indeed, even most so-called ‘radicals’ are nothing but elite-controlled dupes and tards. Most ‘radicals’ will automatically and knee-jerkedly support anything that smacks of being ‘subversive’, ‘anti-reactionary’, and ‘alternative’. Since homosexuality has all the cachet of being ‘dangerous’, most ‘radicals’ feel obliged to support the homo agenda, despite the fact that the main forces behind the new homo agenda are the most powerful and richest elites in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Washington D.C., Chicago, and etc. Dumb ‘radicals’ think they are protecting a poor minority when, in fact, they are only serving the agenda of neo-aristocratic elite minority privilege dominated by Jews and homos. (Incidentally, both rightism and leftism can be dangerous to minorities. Some forms of majority rightism try to suppress minorities for being different, and of course, one of the worst cases was Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews. Also, even when majority rightism tends to be rather tolerant of minorities, the minorities are not allowed the same rights and freedoms as the majority, as is the case of treatment of the Arab minority in Jewish-majority Israel and as was the case in the treatment of the Greek minority in Turkish lands in the Ottoman Empire. In contrast, leftism is about the equality of the majority and the minority, but this comes at a price. For there to be equality, the majority must abandon their ‘atavistic’ majority cultural prejudices, but the minority must also surrender its own ‘atavistic’ minority cultural prejudices. So, if a right-wing order might suppress minorities by saying "we are like ‘this’ and you are like ‘that’, so you can never be like us", a left-wing order may suppress minorities by saying, "we surrendered our identity, so you surrender yours too." The leftist order may be embracing of minorities as equal human beings but has a problem accepting them as separate cultural identities. A right-wing order suppresses minorities by spitting them out, and a left-wing order suppresses minorities by swallowing them whole. Iran is a form of right-wing order, and many minorities don’t have the kind of power that the Persian ‘majority’ has, but they are allowed to maintain their minority identities and practice their own unique cultures. It’s like Jews in Iran may be a separate people with less privilege than Muslims, but they are nevertheless left alone to be Jewish and are even protected by the government in that regard. In contrast, the Chinese Communists tried to force Tibetans give up their identity and become fellow communists equal with everyone else in China, but Tibetans regarded such ‘egalitarian’ and ‘universalist’ agenda as an oppression of Tibetan identity and culture by the Han Chinese. Though Chinese communists condemned Tibetans as being ‘atavistic’, the Dalai Lama, as the face of Tibetan resistance, has won much praise from the West — which goes to show you that ‘atavism’ is perfectly fine in the West if it’s useful to Western interests, such as humiliating China for its human rights record in dealing with minorities. But then, leftism has its problems even when it is most sincere since mankind cannot tear itself entirely from culture and history. Even if communist Chinese had been totally sincere in wanting to be equal and one-and-the-same as brotherly comrades with Tibetans, Tibetan communists would have to learn the Chinese language and learn about the history of communism that, in China, was inseparable from particularly Chinese concerns, sets of circumstances, narratives, and heroes. After all, most Chinese communists turned to Marxism mainly to save and strengthen China than to create a one-world-paradise-for-all-workers-of-the-world. And as the Soviets discovered, even a radical communist system simply cannot wipe out the past because the past, even though un-communist, is a cultural treasure trove of all the things that give meaning to a people and nation. It’s like Christians in Southern Europe discovered that it made no sense to wipe out all the past glories of the pagan world. Indeed, the history of a people is their collective biography, and biography gains meaning from being unique and different. If all people should have the same ideas and feelings, then biographies would be pointless since everyone would have lived pretty much the same kind of life, done the same kind of things, had the same kind of thoughts, felt the same kind of feelings, shared the same kinds of values, and drawn the same kind of conclusions. Under an extreme-leftist system that seeks to wipe out differences and particularities in favor the correct standard, everything and everyone become generic and of no special interest. (Though breaking out of one’s own cultural identity, background, and heritage may initially be liberating — like a fish leaping out of water or a plant uprooted from the soil — it is ultimately a dead-end because the sensation of liberation tends to be fleeting and momentary and because life is too short. It may feel great to be young and ‘liberated’, but as one grows older and faces the prospect of mortality, one has to ask the bigger question of, "In relation to which past and which future does one’s life has the greatest meaning?" So, one comes to appreciate family and the culture in which one’s family inherited its identity, roots, and meaning. Of course, one can forgo cultural identity and pretend that one is a ‘citizen of the world’ and a ‘brother to all mankind’. Though there is surely some degree of moral meaning to such an outlook, it’s too bland and generic to satisfy one’s need for identity, place, and direction. Also, via concentricism, one can have core identity and wider identities. For example, a Frenchman can be French but also a European. But how impoverished he would be if he totally dispensed with his Frenchness and only identified as a generic European; and how even more dull and flavorless he would be if he rejected his European-ness and just called himself a ‘member of the human race’. While it would be stupid for a Frenchman to insist only on his Frenchness and deny his European-ness and humanness, it would equally be stupid for him to insist only on the most generic categories of identity while rejecting his core national identity ; he might as well eschew the identity of ‘member of the human race’ as well and identify as ‘living organism’. In a way, the power of PC is driven by tribalism even if it’s the repressed energies of tribalism. It’s like the power of puritanism is driven by sexualism even if it’s repressed energies of sexualism. It’s the repressed-reaction-syndrome. Sexual drives are powerful, so if a social system needs to repress those energies, it must resort to powerful anti-sexual energies — as in many Islamic societies — , and yet, sexual energies cannot be expunged from the body/soul, so even the very character of anti-sexual energies are really sexual energies repressed and redirected to serves as their opposite. Same goes with tribalism and territorialism. They are natural passions that exist in all peoples. But PC represses those feelings, especially among white folks. And yet, those feelings still remain in the hearts of whites who long for some kind of tribal identity and territorial integrity. Since whites are morally and ideologically not allowed to settle for white tribal identity and white sense of territoriality, their natural passions become repressed and redirected into seeking a new identity as ultra-‘progressives’ and a new warlike territoriality in the dream of planting the Jewish-Homo or Jomo supremacist flag in all parts of the world. Animals act according to what they feel. They have no moral sense. But humans have a moral sense that can reject or repress their natural feelings. Morality can make humans act against nature, and in a way, this is the blessing of morality because if humans always acted on their natural feelings, they would act like chimpanzees, baboons, aardvarks, or Negroes. There would be no civilization. People would be like monkeys in the jungle or Negroes in Detroit, Michigan or Ferugson, Missouri. Morality serves as a brake on our natural drives and passions. But there’s a difference between using morality as a brake on our natural drives/passions AND using it as ‘reverse’ gear on our human nature. It’s one thing to recognize the naturalness of sexual feelings and find moral/civilized ways to restrain and control such urges but quite another thing to be making people feel so sinful about sexual feelings, throwing veils over women’s heads, telling kids they’ll go blind if they touch their wee-wee, and cutting clitorises off women. Likewise, it’s one thing to warn against the kind of crazy ultra-tribalism that gripped the Germans during the Nazi era but quite another to harangue against and denounce any sign of tribal, nationalist, or identitarian sentiment as evil, wicked, sinful, and degenerate — especially among white gentiles. Since sexual feelings cannot be purged from body and soul, ultra-sexual-repression-and-denial will only lead to ultra-puritanism that, though committed to waging war on sexualism, is driven by repressed sexual energies. Similarly, white Liberals cannot expunge their natural tribal, nationalist, and identitarian instincts. It’s like Newsweek or Jewsweek said something like "Your baby[especially if white] was BORN ‘racist’." But because PC morality tells Liberals it is so very wicked and evil for white folks to feel or seek any kind of identity, territoriality, and common cause, ‘progressive’ white folks try so desperately to create a new kind of multi-culti tribe of ‘diversity’ whose ‘rainbow’ identity and world-wide global territoriality shall turn the entire world into a much happier, more intelligent, and more beautiful place. Wouldn’t it be more sensible for white folks to acknowledge their natural feelings of identity, tribalism, & territoriality, and then find a means to co-exist with other races, cultures, and nations through mutual respect? [If anything, it’s the Jews & Muslims in Europe and the Jews, Negroes, and homos in the US who are utterly lacking in mutual respect and keep demanding of white gentiles that which they themselves are unwilling agree to. Instead of trying to meet whites halfway, whites are pressured to go all the way while Jews, Muslims, and blacks don’t have to play by the same rules of mutuality.] Does it hurt Japan to be Japan, Germany to be Germany, Poland to be Poland, China to be China, Iran to be Iran, Greece to be Greece, and etc? It seems each nation can maintain its own territorial integrity & identity and get along just fine with other nations in trade, travel, cultural exchange, and etc. Why would any nation have to wage war on its own racial/cultural identity or undermine its territoriality in order to live in peace with the rest of the world[especially considering that some of the most aggressive wars that destroyed countless lives in the past 20 yrs were led by the ‘progressive’ West dominated by Jewish supremacists]? Does it help Germans for Germany to embrace multi-culti ‘diversity’ism over rational-nationalism? Would it help Japan if it flung its borders to limitless Chinese or Hindu immigration? Would it be a great asset for Japan to teach its kindergarteners to hate their own race/nation/culture/history like German kindergarteners have been taught to do so in relation to their own nation/race/culture/history? In Germany, even before little children develop any understanding of history, they are made to feel the burden of collective guilt and sin over the Holocaust; they are driven to hysteria and made to bawl in shame. It’s a form of irrational craziness; it’s really a form of child abuse, but two-faced Jews like Ian Buruma seem to think it’s wonderful for Germans and that Japan should follow suit. It’s one thing to pressure Japan to remember and teach its own history more accurately but quite another to instill national self-hatred and self-loathing in future generations of Japanese. By the way, why don’t the likes of Ian Buruma urge the Jewish community to do this with Jewish kids since Jewish history has been rife with financial robbery and fraud, communist mass-killing of Slavic Christians, Nakba against Palestinians, and white democide? Jews certainly have a lot of things to be ashamed of. Anyway, the problem of emotions-vs-morality will always remain with us because we are animals by nature and ‘humans’ by ideal. And of course, some animals are intelligent and complex enough to be instilled with some degree of proto-moral feelings. It’s like dogs can be made to feel that they did something ‘wrong’. Because the animal nature and human morality can never be fully resolved, we all ‘suffer’ from some degree of complexes. Since we cannot act out whatever we wish[as vile and ghastly Negroes are prone to do], we learn to control and restrain our emotions, true thoughts, and natural feelings most of the time. If guys acted on the basis of their reptilian brains, they would be talking like Beavis most of the time, though it’s harmless enough with Beavis because he’s so dumb and weak. But the truly problematic complexes develop when there’s a such huge discrepancy between what one really wants and what one isn’t allowed. Consider homos in the past. There was a time when homosexuality wasn’t only illegal but was considered a form of mental illness by the medical community and a form of spiritual sickness in the religious community — and of course, many religious communities still hold to that view. [A sane and rational view would be acknowledge that most homos were naturally born to be tutti-fruity — abnormalities do exist in nature, such as midgets and people born deaf or blind — , and let them do their tutti-fruity thing in their own time and place. Give unto fruiter what is fruitish. In other words, instead of making homos totally repress and deny their homo nature, make them accept it as a naturally occurring abnormality that they may enjoy in their own time & place but is also something that is anathema to straight people who are naturally turned off by the physiology of homosexuality. The problem today is the Jew-run West has gone way past allowing homos to be homo and is now committed to forcing straight people to repress their own natural feelings about homosexuality and, furthermore, ‘celebrate’ & ‘praise’ homosexuality as the greatest thing since sliced bread OR ELSE face demotion, firing, shunning, condemnation, or blacklisting. It’s like how early Christians initially said they only wanted the freedom to worship their own religion but, once they got the power, went around banning pagan cults and demolishing pagan temples. But at least Christians had some genuine morality on its side. In contrast, the homo agenda is puritanism or poo-ritanism in the service of immorality. In a way, the homo agenda is a strange brew of Christianist moralism and paganist amoralism. Pagan cultists didn’t always think morally; certain deities were worshiped or celebrated because they were fun, wild, and fantastic. Morality wasn’t a high priority when Greeks were drinking wine in the name of Bacchus. In contrast, Christianity was all about morality and more morality. Today’s homo cultists are neo-paganists in some ways, but they’ve also moralized their homo agenda into a ‘moral crusade’, or the ‘new civil rights’ movement. So, the image of a black guy pretending to be blonde woman isn’t just a celebration of pagan delights but a sermon steeped in moralistic sanctimony. It’s like even trannies are not allowed to use ‘tranny’ anymore because it would be oh-so-immoral.] So, if one were a homo fruiter and wanted to ram some guy in the ass, it wasn’t just a no-no but a shameful crime and sinful abomination. As all people were raised to see homosexuality this way, even homos grew up with twisted feelings about their own sexuality. They wanted to suck dicks and indulge in fecal penetration, but they were taught to believe that such feelings were shameful and sinful. So, they came to loathe themselves for feeling the way they did. Some might say such feelings were a form of ‘homophobia’ because sexually repressed homos feared and loathed their own ‘sexual’ desires. But actually, such emotions/responses were not phobias but complexes. For something to be a real phobia, [1]it has to involve something that is truly feared/dreaded/hated by someone, [2]it has to produced a panicked response, and [3]it has to be virtually harmless. If something is disliked but produces no panicked response, it’s not a phobia. So, if someone dislikes spinach but doesn’t mind looking at a bowl of spinach on a table, it’s not phobia. A spinach-phobe would freak out at the mere sight of spinach. Also, if the thing that triggers extreme distress, fear, or panic poses a genuine danger, it can’t be said to be an object of a phobia. For example, if someone freaks out when a tiger leaps out of the forest, that’s not a phobia since it makes all the sense in the world to shit one’s pants when ambushed by a tiger. But if someone freaks out over a little mouse or tiny spider that can’t do any harm, that is a phobia. Also, the object of phobia must be something one truly dislikes. For example, an arachnophobe really and truly fears spiders. It’s like Winston Smith in George Orwell’s 1984 really feared rats, even the very thought of them. But when it comes to homos in the past or in ultra-conservative societies who’d been raised to feel contempt toward homosexuality, their fear-and-loathing isn’t genuinely phobic since they really and naturally love the ‘gay’ stuff. It’s like the traveling businessman in MIDNIGHT COWBOY. Raised as a Catholic and married with children, the man was obviously brought up to loathe his homosexual desires. He feels ashamed of them and hates himself for having them. However, deep down inside, he really loves the ‘gay’ fantasy of sucking someone’s dick, having some guy ram him in the poop-shoot, and acting all tutti-fruity-like. Unlike an arachnophobe who truly and really fears spiders, the repressed homo fears homosexuality because, deep down inside, he knows he really loves and wants it too much. Thus, it’s not a phobia but a complex, or homo-complex. A phobia doesn’t involve repression or denial, though one may try to repress one’s phobia, which is next-to-impossible as a phobia is a powerful panicked response that is nearly uncontrollable. It’s like people who are claustrophobic began to freak out in closed quarters. An arachnophobe isn’t repressing his true love for spiders. He really and genuinely has a panicked dread of spiders. In contrast, a self-loathing homosexual is trying to repress and/or deny his genuine desire for homo things; his innermost wish is to suck penis and have his ass be pummeled by some guy’s penis — like Andrew Sullivan the British fruitkin whose big happiness in life is being rammed in the ass by big Negroes. Of course, in our current socio-political order, normal people are under legal-social-ideological-’moral’ pressures to repress and/or deny their natural distaste for homosexuality. This has been achieved partly by focusing the bulk of our attention/admiration on the social, economic, and cultural attributes of the homo community. Indeed, the very term ‘homosexual’ and ‘homo’ are disapproved in polite/respectable society as it focuses our attention on its physiological nature that is clearly putrid; after all, even pro-homo straights would flinch at the notion of some guy sticking a dick up his arse or shit-stained bunghole; the preferred term for homos is ‘gay’ or ‘pride’ — thighs pride/pried open. On the one hand, the homo community says homosexuality is genetic, innate, inborn, and/or biological, and NOTHING can be done about it. But on the other hand, the homo community want us to disregard the physiological features of homosexuality that are putrid & gross among homo men and ridiculous among homo women or lesbians who try to screw a hole with another hole. So, the homo community has associated itself with ‘rainbow’ colors and pop cultural images that present homos as so cleancut, so ‘new normal’, so middle-class respectable, so ‘new straight’, so affluent, so well-connected with the rich-and-famous, so celebrity-centric, and so delightfully vain in our narcissistic ‘selfie’-ish culture. For all the talk of ‘equality’ and ‘individuality’, most Americans are crass status-hogs, and this is as true of Liberals as of Conservatives. Indeed, it’s even truer of Liberals judging by the degree of conformism to prevailing fashions in affluent ‘blue cities’ that set standards on what is ‘hip’, ‘cool’, ‘sophisticated’, ‘progressive’, ‘affluent’, ‘creative’, and etc. Despite all the ‘radical’ and ‘subversive’ posturing, most Liberals wanna be part of that community and want all the approval in the world by the ‘riche’ and fashionable people. This is why most Liberals cannot stand real dissent or real difference. They may whine about some of the trimmings of Political Correctness, but they are totally with the Core Truisms of PC since it’s their meal ticket to the world of acceptance and privilege.)What were some of the most interesting films produced in the Soviet Union? They were works like ANDREI RUBLEV by Andrei Tarkovsky and COLOR OF POMEGRANATES by Sergei Parajanov, both fascinating and unique because of their reverence for the particularities of culture, history, and biography. What makes Russian land, culture, and spirituality different from those of other peoples? And what may have happened in Rublev’s life and what kinds of innate gifts did he possess that set him apart from other Russian painters? In individuals and communities, we seek the things that set them apart from others; we take for granted the commonness of humanity and want to know what makes other individuals and peoples special and unique. (In this sense, every person is, at least, an individualist-conservative for it’s up to each man or woman to conserve the memories and dreams that make him or her what he or she is and not just as an interchangeable member of the community. Paradoxically, those who choose self-exile from arch-conservative communities often do so because of a powerful sense of individual conservatism, i.e. they seek to guard their sense of self at odds with communal pressures. So, individuals from Turkey, Greece, Japan, Russia, or some small town in America might go to a more liberal place like New York because they can disappear as individuals and live & think as they wish; they can conserve what they think themselves to be. He or she is able to conserve and develop his or her own sense of personal identity[possibly of eccentric nature] that may be disapproved in his or her community of origin. Libertarianism is essentially a form of individual-conservatism, i.e. the right of the individual to defend/conserve his or her identity, goals, and dreams against community pressure, be it ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’. With the rise of PC, some individual-conservatives are finding Liberal urban communities, once their haven, to be as big a pain in the ass as Conservative ones used to be. In some ways, Liberal ones are worse because they are now so aggressive in their agenda and self-righteousness, whereas Conservatives, with their bunker mentality, tend to be defensive with their values, principles, and prejudices. Conservatives say, "Leave us alone to do our own thing", whereas Liberals say, "All 50 states have to enforce what we believe." Conservatives have given up trying to ensure the rule of True Marriage all across America. They are now hoping that their own communities won’t be forced to accept such a thing. In contrast, Liberalism, especially as it’s controlled by pushy Jews and hissy homos, are trying to force all 50 states to sign onto ‘gay marriage’, or else. So, some libertarian arty types now prefer to settle in some ‘red state’ town where locals may not like them but nevertheless mind their own business and leave the eccentrics alone. In contrast, PC agents will come after you in places like NY and SF; they even go after trannies who use the word ‘tranny’. There used to be a time when many people moved to cities to find greater freedom and liberty. Today, as cities have been taken over by PC social engineers who even go after restaurants for Big Gulp drinks, some libertarian types have opted for cheaper ‘Red State’ communities that, though culturally more conservative, isn’t so activist in pushing its agenda down everyone’s throat. Even Christian Right folks mostly try to convert, whereas PC people try to coerce. Many so-called Liberals and ‘progressives’ are really ‘trendists’ who conform to whatever new fashion that happens to be promulgated by the elites of the media, academia, and government. They have no real sense of values or rule of law; it’s really about the Rule of Fashion. Consider how the homo stuff used to be a matter of fashion, but today, homo fashion has become the basis of our values and laws. So, the image of a black guy pretending to be a blond woman is promoted as the new idol of ‘civil rights’ and national morality. Decadence has become the New Decency, or ‘decadecency’. Given all these crazy pressure, it’s understandable why some conservatives look to libertarianism. As conservative communities have lost their will to stand up for their rights and values, some conservatives hope to at least defend their sense of truth as individual libertarians. But, joining the ‘libertarian community’ is a deadend because most libertarians are shallow decadent clods whose main goal in life is hedonism and vanity. Some do call for personal responsibility, but they, like John Stossel, are under the delusion that most people can be responsible as rational free-thinking individuals when, in fact, most people are only capable of moral responsibility under cultural, social, communal, or spiritual guidance and pressure. Besides, there is no absolute individual self since even the biggest individualist was given his or her name, identity, history, culture, language, narrative, and territory by the larger community and deeper history.) Even when people embrace the same creeds or ideologies, what becomes interesting are the different manifestations of those values and ideas, which is why Russian Christianity was different from Armenian Christianity was different from Polish Christianity was different from Irish Christianity. (It’s like various painters can paint the same man/woman or same sunset yet produce very different results.) Why does the story of Scotty(Jimmy Stewart) become so interesting in VERTIGO? It is because he is afflicted with a special problem and develops a special private obsession. Before that, he could have been interchangeable with just about any other detective in the San Francisco police department. Oddly enough, Jews and homos, who take so much pride in being so special and different, want the rest of us to abandon that which makes us special and different(especially from them) and submit ourselves to their demands as ‘universal truths’. They’re pushing a debased form of ‘universalism’ to make us worship something very particular and peculiar — Jewishness and homoness. It’s a total contradiction of how universalism is supposed to work. Imagine that there are 100 people; imagine that 1 guy is like ‘this’ and 99 guys are like ‘that’, but the 1 guy imposes a vision of universalism where, instead of him becoming like the 99 other guys, the 99 other guys must ‘universally’ bow down and sing praises to the uniqueness of the 1 guy. It’s universalism chained to a uniquely perverse form of particularism — ‘uniqversualism’.

Anyway, the masses are a power, but they are not a power unto themselves since most people are incapable of independent thought. And those who are tend to be isolated from one another and too powerless as individuals to make any real difference; indeed, consider the fate of all Third parties in US elections. (Also, the only thing that independent thinkers may have in common is their resentment of the system because, after all, every independent thinker arrives at different conclusions based on availed evidence, availed discourse, personal environment, personal temperament & bias, ‘innate political personality’, and other factors. So, suppose there’s an independent-minded thinker in Maine who lives in a mostly white community who has little firsthand knowledge of real blacks and only gets his information about racial matters from the Jew-run media. Can we blame him for thinking in terms of ‘racist southern whites oppressing poor helpless noble blacks’? No matter how independently minded a thinker may be, his thinking can operate only within the perimeters of the facts, data, information, and nature of discourse availed to him or her.) The masses are a power that makes a difference only when the elites sway and move them this way and that way. So, there’s both truth and trickery when elites say ‘gay marriage’ is inevitable because the masses of young people want it. It may be statistically true, but it doesn’t address the issue of why young people became so pro-homo in the first place. Wasn’t there a massive ‘proHOMOtion’ by the elite-controlled institutions and industries? Even though the elites only control the top chain of the education-government-media-law-entertainment complex, ideas and values work according to the trickle-down method. While the masses of government bureaucrats are not part of the elite, they work to fulfill the policies handed to them from the top. And even though most colleges and most teachers — collegiate, high school, grammar school, etc — are not part of the academic elite, their ideas and thoughts are mostly regurgitations of ideas, thoughts, and values fed to them by places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, and a handful of others. Besides, most professors and teachers — indeed even many at elite institutions — aren’t capable of independent thoughts and prefer to fed on leftover dogma cooked up by more prestigious colleagues. Furthermore, even those professors and teachers at the lower levels with dissenting views tend to be afraid of going against the official dogma out of fear of being ostracized, shunned, fired, and blacklisted.
OLEANNA - stupid dimwit bitch drives naive Liberal professor nuts
To be sure, elite-pressured dogma can sometimes backfire on the elites. If a dogma becomes too powerfully embraced by the vast apparatus of middle academics, a kind of Oleanna-like cultural Stalinism might come into play, and that’s just what happened to Lawrence Summers, an elite academic, when he ventured to speculate that maybe the difference in male and female achievement in math and science had something to do with genetic factors. In this case, there was a cultural-Stalinst rebellion against him by the entire academic apparatus extending from Harvard to community colleges across the nation. Summers got it as bad as Leon Trotsky.
It was precisely that sort of thing that really pissed David Mamet off when he wrote OLEANNA. Though ostensibly about a man being badgered by a nitwit feminist, it’s really about Mamet’s anger about dimwit ‘gentile Stalinism’ rebelling against ‘Jewish Trotskyism’. Mamet makes himself out to be an enemy of Political Correctness, but he’s been totally Politically Correct in pushing Zionist supremacism and the shtick about universal-eternal Jewish victim-hood and holiness. He cannot tolerate nor abide anyone who’s critical of Jews or Israel. Mamet’s problem with PC isn’t so much that it’s anti-freedom but that dimwit gentile idiots, who are supposed to be controlled by PC, may swallow its dogma whole hog and hold their Jewish masters to the same standard. Jews formulated and employed PC to undermine and weaken gentile race-ism, nationalism, and tribalism in order to protect and promote Jewish race-ism, nationalism, tribalism, and supremacism, but some overly zealous ideological gentile dimwits — more on the Left than on the Right, especially as academia is packed with idiot gentile Leftists but few rightists of any kind — have come to believe that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Since Jews pushed anti-nationalism, anti-race-ism, and egalitarianism on the white goyim, some Leftist goyim believe the same must apply to the Jews/Zionists who are so rich & powerful and crushing the life out of Palestinians. Of course, such ‘dimwit gentiles’ on the Left are actually being ideologically consistent, but Jews feel that what is good for the gander is not good for the goose or the Joose. Though Mamet’s play is about a crazy feminist, it also has allegorical meaning in relation to Jewish power and Israel. Mamet is not for academic freedom, as he & his ilk were only too happy to see universities ‘disinvite’ people who might offend Jews or Israel and as they tirelessly continue to pressure universities to fire or not hire people like Norman Finkelstein who’ve been very critical of Israel and Jewish exploitation of the Holocaust to morally blackmail white gentiles into submitting to just about every Jewish demand. From the 1960s, Jewish academics and intellectuals began to take over the universities. Many of them were male, and they were bedding a lot of ‘shikse’ females. They were setting forth the new PC agenda that would be empowering for Jews but ‘disempowering’ for white gentiles. Jews like Mamet and Philip Roth loved that part of the cultural sea-change, but then, there was a kind of ‘middle-bureaucratic’ challenge to elite Jewish power in the academia. Though Jews dominate at the very top and though most middle-level gentile academics go along with the elite Jewish agenda, a growing number of gentile Leftist academics have begun to question why all the PC that applies to whites and European nations don’t apply to Jews and Israel. From the Jewish view, PC was supposed to be a con-game pulled by Jews to hoodwink the goyim, but some Leftist goyim have come to embrace the con to such an extent — indeed even to the point of worship — that some of them want Jews to submit to their own con. It’s like adults pushing Santa Claus onto the kids, and the kids demanding that adults believe in Santa too.(Jews are bound to be paranoid because so much of what they do is dirty and dishonest. If Jews did things fairly and honestly, they wouldn’t have much to worry about. But as a great deal of Jewish success has been founded on dirty deeds, many Jews are afraid of being found out. A con-artist lives in perpetual paranoia of being exposed because once he’s outed, the victim is filled with desperation, anger, and even murderous rage, like when Joe Buck wants to kill Ratso in MIDNIGHT COWBOY. The woman in HOUSE OF GAMES killed the con-artist in the end. Of course, we shouldn’t generalize about ALL Jews since that would be antisemitic, and who wants to be that? We must always be mindful to respect and honor the good & decent Jews. However, we also need to recognize that there are three kinds of Jews. First kind of Jews succeed in life because they’re diligent, honest, smart, and good people. We’ve all known such kinds of Jews in every walk of life. But there’s the other kind of Jew who combines real talent & hard work with dirty tricks and nastiness. Mark Zuckerberg for instance. Jews at Goldman Sachs are another. I have no doubt that most Jews working at Goldman are highly intelligent and dedicated to what they’re doing, but they still use a lot of insider knowledge and trickery to amass huge fortunes at the expense of the rest of us. And then, there are the gangster-like Jews who will do just about anything to make a buck. By ‘gangster Jews’, I don’t necessarily mean those involved organized crime. I mean sleazy ones like Howard Stern and those who run the porn/casino industries. Anyway, because so many Jews are so successful and because Jewishness has long been synonymous with lotsa money, most Jews are more ambitious than non-Jews. If a ‘dumb Polack’ is poor or just ordinary, it’s no problem since most Poles are ‘dumb Polacks’. But being a poor Jew is shameful since so many Jews are successful. It’s like a black guy who can’t dunk a basketball or gets whupped by a ‘white boy’. So, if Jews cannot succeed by legitimate means, they are more likely to do something lowdown and dirty to ‘get theirs’. Also, historically speaking, because Jews had to live under discriminatory laws in Europe and Muslim Middle East, Jews always needed more money than gentiles in order to enjoy the same advantages. So, if goy could have certain privileges with a $1000, a Jew needed $10,000 for the same privileges. So, every Jew has been conditioned to want a lot of money. [Chinese minorities feel much the same way in Southeast Asia.] If Jews can get it the legit way, fine, but if they can’t, they’ll use any trick in the book and then some. Of course, the good decent Jews want to call foul on the nasty ones, but they generally don’t due to two reasons: Jews have been conditioned to stick together AND good Jews fear that the truth about bad Jews will come to reflect on all Jews. So, paranoia is at the heart of Jewish consciousness. We can see some of it in the films of Stanley Kubrick. Notice how The System often breaks down in the Kubrickian universe because of seemingly trivial factor. In THE KILLING, the heist fails because of a tiny dog. In contrast, the job succeeds for the Gene Hackman character in David Mamet’s THE HEIST because he’s totally paranoid and cynical about everything and everyone, something the Sterling Hayden character wasn’t in THE KILLING. Consider how HAL’s perfect purge is foiled in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY because Bowman happened to luck out in re-entering the ship, something HAL considered virtually impossible. Consider how ambitious rogue’s plan failed in BARRY LYNDON because of the unforseen antics of the retardo stepson. Consider how a single Viet Cong girl terrorized an entire American platoon in FULL METAL JACKET. So, there’s a kind of totalitarian paranoia in the vision of Kubrick. Some ‘odd factor’ can endanger the entire System. On the one hand, Kubrick feared the power of totalitarian systems, but on the other hand, he identified with them and wondered what could be done to stamp out all the bugs so that the system will run perfectly. As a director, he could be ‘totalist’ with his collaborators, especially the actors who became like his slaves and were made to do the scene over and over and over until they became like Kubrick’s automatons, his personal A.I.s; instead of making robots manlike, Kubrick made humans robotlike. Both Trotsky and Stalin were totalitarians, and each tried to purge the party of all potential enemies. Though Stalin has been called paranoid, he gained the power and kept the power because of his paranoia. Stalin understood as did Kubrick that the fatal flaw can be any of the seemingly ‘trivial’ things, so it was better to stamp out not only the obvious threats but even the most trivial things that might morph into potential threats, however unlikely such may have been. It’s like Herod had all the babies killed in order to prevent the coming of the new king who might dethrone him. Herod failed not because he killed too many babies but because he didn’t kill enough; he missed one. Trotsky had the same idea, but he failed and was exiled. Though lionized by his supporters — mostly Jewish intellectuals — as the humane socialist alternative to Stalin, he was a ruthless operator in his own right, and the Trotskyite method has bared its fangs in the Neocon purge of mainstream American Conservatism of things-and-people-Zionists-don’t-like. Neocons are, of course, a cabal of ex-Trotskyites and their children and grandchildren who’ve lost the ideology but not the methodology and mentality.) Anyway, thinking about stuff is problematic because it often leads to confusion, inner-conflict, doubt, anxiety, and ever more difficult questions that follow the answers. So, most people prefer group-think which isn’t real thinking. Group-think is a kind of intellectual or mental tribalism where one ‘mindfully’ agrees with the prevailing truisms of a group, movement, or community. (It feels like real thinking because its manner is ‘mindful’ than ‘mindless’. For example, a Liberal might attend one of those conferences of think tanks where people with elevated credentials pontificate about stuff in an academic, witty, and/or sophisticated manner. Since the style and demeanor of the speakers are so ‘thoughtful’, the listeners may feel that they too are mindfully engaging in the intellectual process when, in fact, they are falling under its sway because of its conceit of being ‘enlightened’, ‘intellectual’, ‘progressive’, or ‘balanced’. This is the shtick of NPR, which is like elevator music of intellectualism. The ‘intelligent’ style of NPR lulls and disarms listeners into just inhaling the opiate of ‘intelligent-ness’. [Such ‘think tank’ style is also why so much of crazy Jewish supremacist agendas sound so ‘rational’ and ‘sensible’. Though fueled by Jewish passions, it’s presented as sound intellectual-seeming discourse.] It’s like MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD for adults. So, most listeners of NPR hardly disagree, just nod along, and feel flattered for being made to feel as a part of this ‘intelligent’ and ‘cultured’ community; they are thus turned onto mental conformism. NPR listeners feel that they belong to an oasis "where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average." This is the difference between NPR and Conservative Talk Radio. The latter wears its emotions on its sleeve and is brazenly about what feels right than sounds ‘intelligent’ and ‘rational’, whereas the former is maintaining the aura of sounding ‘rational’, ‘balanced’, and ‘judicious’, even when it’s not. But because people often judge things by style than substance, even shrill PC agendas are made to sound ‘rational’ and ‘balanced’ on NPR. When some soft-spoken NPR host uses bogus loaded terms like ‘homophobia’, it just sounds so ‘enlightened’ and ‘thoughtful’. Style matters in affecting how we see the world. It’s like Akira Kurosawa’s SANJURO where the idealistic young samurai keep making mistakes because they’re apt to judge things by appearances than by the truth behind them. Though the NPR style was effective in winning over the intellectual class and the pseudo-intellectual class that wants to ‘belong’, it struck many ordinary people as ‘elitist’, ‘bloodless’, and ‘bland’; therefore, many Liberals feared the rise of Talk Radio populism that spoke directly to the hearts of people. Such worries have dissipated with the rise of Talk TV dominated by Liberals like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert who’ve popularized and emotional-ized Liberal issues. And of course, there was Michael Moore and his demagogic documentaries.) Such ‘thinking’ prefers slogans to arguments, headlines to discursion; they’re all about "are you with us or against us" or "I’m with you guys, so gimme a hug or a pat on the head." It’s the equivalent of pressing the ‘like’ button on Facebook or Twitter. It’s much easier to assent to a dominant intellectual/ideological position than to think on your own. It’s like it’s much easier to join together with others and listen to the same popular song at a Rock concert than to try to master an instrument, compose your own song, and express your own creativity. If some guy loves a girl, it’d be difficult to write a song to express his own feelings; so, he will turn on an Elton John song and use it to convey how he feels about her. Certain songs and ideas, good or bad, have a way of hooking minds because there’s something so powerfully easy, appealing, and quasi-inspiring about them. It’s like some of those phony-baloney Journey and Styx songs that had thousands of concert-goers holding up their lighters in the air in the spirit of a spiritual gathering. As music is about emotions, such behavior is more understandable and forgivable, but when this happens with ideas and thoughts, it is more problematic since the whole point of thinking is to process and digest information through a set of values and logic. (Also, while creativity is a rare and mysterious quality possessed by only a few, factual data and logic are of a more universal import. Even most highly intelligent person are hopeless in the field of artistic creativity, but even not-too-intelligent people can learn to use facts and logic properly. Whatever rules may exist in the field of creativity, its source is the murky subconscious, whereas facts are about assessing data in the real world and logic is about a systematic use of the conscious. Smart or dumb, anyone, with a degree of effort, can learn to arrive at the same/correct solutions to logical problems. In contrast, no amount of creative effort will ensure that a man lacking in natural musical ability will compose something like the great works of Beethoven. Ironically, however, even though truth through logic and factuality is open to all, it appeals only to those with higher IQ, whereas the product of creativity, a quality availed to only a handful of talented artists and entertainers, has universal appeal to both smart and dumb folks.) You are not supposed to let ideas wash over you like music or movies do. But with all these infectious pseudo-intellectual or hipster-intellectual ‘memes’ capturing the hearts and minds of mindless dumb smartasses all over the world, there’s no denying that what passes for ‘thinking’ often works like advertising or a pop concert. It’s all about "are you with us, cuz if you’re not, get lost." (People naturally want to be liked and fear being shunned and disproved. It’s like kids want to be invited to parties & dances and would feel so very sad if they were left out. It takes a special kind of will and gutsiness to weather not being liked, shunned, and even hated. And this is true regardless of the prevailing social order. Most Germans went along with the Nazi order, most Chinese went along with the Maoist order, and most Americans go along with the Jew-Homo or Jomo order. A man like Joachim Fest’s father of NOT I, who refused to go along with the Nazi order even when he lost his job and was shunned by his former neighbors and friends, is relatively rare.) Also, even in the world of thought, all forms of thinking are bound within permissible perimeters shaped by taboos and ‘sacred truths’ that are emotional or ‘spiritualist’ in nature. So, even a high-IQ person who enjoys asking a whole bunch of questions and inquiring into all sorts of questions will bump against mental barriers when his curiosity comes near the forbidden zone. (Also, the very nature of thinking has a way of erecting fences as well as opening new doors. After all, thinking requires a great deal of mental discipline, and its methodology is as much about what to reject and prohibit as about what to introduce and allow. Science wouldn’t work if scientists had to juggle every data and theory at all times; scientists have to reject and discard what is deemed to be wrong and focus on what is considered to be correct or possibly correct with more data. So, open-mindedness isn’t the same thing as open-endedness, and thinking is as much about border patrol as about border entry. Given this mental habit that is so crucial to thinking, it’s not very difficult to persuade even intelligent people that certain ideas should to be rejected and prohibited because they are ‘wrong’. In hard science, it’s much simpler to ascertain what is correct and what is wrong, but in the realm of social thought, as the sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is so dependent on the prevailing values of society as enforced by the power elites, what may be deemed as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ may be more a reflection of the social agenda of the elites than anything else. But as thinkers are so attuned to using mental discipline to discriminate against what is deemed to be false or wrong, they can be persuaded to reject certain ideas as being ‘beyond the pale of respectable or acceptable discourse’ by the powers-that-be, especially since even real scientists must rely on financial and political support of people who run the government, academia, and business.) As most kids have been raised under PC, anything that might suggest ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘sexism’, ‘xenophobia’, and especially ‘antisemitism’ will stop them dead in their tracks and have them scrambling back to the comfort zone for safer thoughts. Therefore, their thoughts may range freely on many topics, but when they approach the electric fence of forbidden ideas, they start getting nervous, begin to retreat, and fall back to talking like the Frank Sinatra character in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE about the Laurence Harvey character. Even most of the freest thinkers in elite colleges will start to sweat, palpitate, panic, and pee in their pants if they were to venture into zones of thought about Jews explored by men like Kevin MacDonald. Indeed, when intellectuals and academics begin to broach certain topics and say things that may not be too kosher, you can sense their unease as they stammer and breathe unevenly. It’s all the more comical since they try their best to maintain their composure and cool, but you know they are shitting bricks out of fear of offending Jews and the PC police.
Another problem with thinking is it can be arduous and confusing, seemingly pointless as the answer seems forever beyond one’s grasp. Because thinking can be so dull and dreary, some people prefer electric shocks to thinking, at least according to a social-scientific experiment. To be sure, the study isn’t really fair since one could argue that people were jolting themselves with electricity to have something to think about. After all, it’s not like people in the experiment were provided with a book, pencil and paper, or something to occupy their minds with. So, it could have been that they preferred electric shocks than to being bored. Thinking isn’t just some isolated activity inside a bubble but about dealing with specific matters, concerns, and issues. In a classroom, the teacher directs the attentions of students to a certain problem or subject; he or she doesn’t merely instruct students to sit and think. ‘Thinking alone about nothing’ is more like meditation, which is difficult as the mind is filled with distractions all the time. Anyway, if people are allowed to administer electric shocks to themselves, they will have something to ‘think’ about. Besides, many human discoveries and achievements were about people willing to accept pain and agony to take it to the next step. It’s like when Benjamin Franklin flied a kite in a thunder storm or when chemists tried certain concoctions on themselves to test the effects. On the other hand, some individuals in the above-mentioned experiment probably jolted themselves to take their minds off issues, concerns, and doubts clouding their minds. In a way, such is the appeal of horror movies, which are certainly more popular than many ‘art films’ from Europe where nothing seems to be happening. Personally, I’d rather sit on an electric chair and fry myself to death than watch Chantal Akerman’s JEANNE DIELMAN again. It’s not so much that horror movies offer nothing to think about(though what they offer may not be worth thinking about) as that they focus one’s mind on WHAT to think about. Your mind is more apt to obsess over and think about that which elicits a strong emotion. And even if you’re too jolted or scared out of your wits to really THINK about it, at least it has your mind by its balls or ass. In this sense, much of what we ‘think’ or obsess about has a way of making us NOT think about lots of other things(which may actually be more worthy of our attention). Even though we’d like to believe that the more we think, the more we’ll know about the real world, it may well be the case that we tend to think most about the few things that have obsessive value as objects of comfort/hope or metaphysical fear — the object of metaphysical fear may actually be a form of a comfort as well as it imbues humanity with the hope that real evils in the world could be vanquished when we find the magic formula that will finally defeat the Great Evil; it’s like people found comfort in the notion of the Devil as the source of all diseases(which mankind couldn’t cure for most of history) since they could cling to the hope that all diseases would eventually be cleansed from the world when the Devil is finally defeated; Political Correctness works the same way with its quasi-metaphysical evil of ‘white racism’ and ‘white privilege’; as many do-good white ‘progressives’ don’t know what to do about the real problems of race involving blacks, they prefer to believe in the Great Evil of ‘white racism’, the final expungement of which will finally end all the actual social evils in the black community and maybe the entire world. (Incidentally, the horror genre is rife with contradictions for both focusing and snuffing the power of thought. When something gives us fright, we are apt to focus all our attention at it. Our anxiety, curiosity, and problem-solving skills — especially involving a life-or-death matter — stimulate and invigorate our mental energies. And yet, we also tend to shirk away from something horrible and dreadful. Not only do we want to physically remove ourselves from the threat but our minds want to shut down from the mere ghastly thought of it. Suppose we suspect that someone we love had been captured by the bogeyman and buried alive beneath the basement floor. A part of us wants to know the truth and use our all mental energies to solve the mystery, but another part of us don’t wanna deal with it because the truth may be too horrible. And this is the tricky appeal of horror movies, never my favorite genre. They have to maintain the horribleness and yet make it sufficiently palatable because horror-only-as-horror is simply too appalling. Though the Dutch film THE VANISHING isn’t technically horror since it doesn’t involve the supernatural, it can be said to be a work of ‘psychological horror’ because it takes us to a place within the human soul that seems to defy any rational explanation; and this goes for not only the psychotic killer but the lover who seeks the woman and the truth even unto his own demise. Throughout the movie, the lover and we want to know but don’t want to know. We want to know because we’ve come to care about the woman and want to solve the mystery. But we don’t want to know because what we suspect is too horrible. So, we are pushed into a kind of mental and emotional limbo that is 50/50 revelation and repulsion. It’s like when we were kids watching horror movies late-nite on TV, hiding behind but also peeking through the blanket. We wanted to see but didn’t want to see. The audience’s relation to horror is like a mouse’s to a mousetrap. The mouse is curious but also feels the dread. Why is a piece of cheese on that strange-looking contraption? Fear has a way of both fueling and immolating thought. Though Hitchcock worked more in suspense than in horror mode — perhaps only PSYCHO and THE BIRDS could be considered true horror among his works[PSYCHO would be psychological than supernatural horror] — , his visual ideas about spatial relationships had a huge impact on future horror directors. Consider the motif of the hidden space or subspace, which is spatially analogous to the subconscious. It’s a very common motif in many genres, but few directors came up with as many memorable ones as Hitchcock did. As we fear a certain evil or darkness lurking in some corner of our soul or subconscious, we are apt to conceive of its literal counterparts in the material world: some hidden corner of the globe housing some great secret or where a sinister plot is being hatched by shadowy characters: a secret so potent and frightful that we want to know but also don’t want to know, especially as someone you respect, trust, or dearly love could be part of the darkness; the darker implication is that if seemingly good people can turn out to be evil, how can you trust any good at all? What if it too is an agent of evil, even unbeknownst to itself? And if evil is everywhere, maybe it isn’t so evil after all but rather banal. [Not surprisingly, many of early Hitchcock films were spy movies, and during World War II, some of his movies were about spy vs spy, where it wasn’t always easy to tell who was the good spy and who was the bad spy.] Possibly the most famous subspace in film history is the fruit cellar in PSYCHO when we finally come fact to face with Mrs. Bates. There’s also the swamp. So much of life is about what is hidden as what is shown. But there’s also the windmill in FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT. The top of the bell tower in VERTIGO. The box with the body in THE ROPE, visible and invisible to everyone. In the case of REAR WINDOW, even a nondescript apartment across the courtyard can become the hidden space, the place of unspeakable and yet understandable evil as it was hardly a happy marriage and the henpecking wife was surely no saint. Sergio Leone also came up with some of the most memorable hidden spaces or subspaces, especially in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, his most Hitchcockian movie. Consider the Debra’s private space where she practices her dance routine, Noodles’ hidden space in the washroom to spy on Debra, the upper room at Fat Moe’s where the fellas hang out, the place where they kept the money, the opium den, the mausoleum at the cemetery, Bailey’s backdoor escape route, etc. It’s as though we’re seeing the American myth through the alleyways, the hidden corridors, through peepholes, from hidden places. We are seeing hidden places through hidden places, especially as Noodles has a penchant for opiate-or-nostalgia induced dreaminess. It’s like reality peeped from dreamspace, dreamspace peeped from real space. Christopher Nolan is certainly a student of Hitchcock, and INCEPTION has some of the most memorable hidden spaces or subspaces in recent cinema. Consider the safe where the Leonardo DiCaprio character found the Mal’s secret totem or token or whatever. THE BIRDS also has a powerful hidden space when the Tippi Hedren character walks upstairs and enters the room packed with ambushing birds that try to get past her to attack people below. It’s as if she’s finally found that secret space, both literal and psychological, that is the source of violent psychic-sexual urges. She’s finally opened the Pandora’s Box and she desperately tries to hold back the forces. When we consider the two tamed love birds inside the cage as a counter-motif to the birds in the ‘hidden space’ of the Room, there’s the implication of an animal instinct within each of us that, if let loose from the cage of social control, may go crazy like the lunatics at Altamont Rock festival or, worse, like Negroes in general. Hitchcock often related the story of how, as a little boy, he was sent to the local police and placed inside a cell for a few minutes. It was like a private hell where the moment seemed momentous, an instant like infinity. It was like ultimate hidden space, the dark evil place where bad boys were sent to. It could be Hitchcock never forgot the horror and fascination of being put in a place where one should not be... unless one deserved to be. Thus, a fear of and fascination with imprisonment is the key to many stories that sufficiently captured Hitchcock’s fascination for him to adapt them into movies. The imprisonment can be legal, moral, physical, personal, or psychological in nature. Ideally, no one belongs in prison as all people should ideally good and decent. But in the real world, some people break the law or commit perverted acts and are thus deemed unfit to live in the world of law and decency, and so, prisons exist as a counter-ideal, i.e. it’s an ideal place for un-ideal people. So, a law-abiding man should ideally not be in prison, and an outlaw should ideally be in prison. But, even truth, justice, and decency in the world don’t exist according to ideals, partly because we are not always agreed on what is just and/or true but also because the outlaws are adept at getting away with their high crimes and misdemeanors whereas the innocent may sometimes be abducted or wrongfully imprisoned. It’s also true that decency can be faked by the indecent; it’s also true that a man can be both decent and indecent; a man can be honorable even in ignoble deeds; a man may also be forced to do ignoble things for a noble cause. In THE WRONG MAN, an innocent man is accused of a crime he didn’t commit and placed in prison; the true horror is that decent law-abiding people mistakenly identify him as the suspect. One might say they made an innocent mistake in identifying the wrong man, but their testimonies seem partly the result of not-so-virtuous characteristics or even minor evil: their meekness before authority, egotism, self-righteousness, and vengefulness, i.e. having been scared out of their wits by the crime, they desperately want someone to pin it on because they’d sleep better if they believed that the criminal has been taken off the street. So, it’s not just a case of decent folks making an honest mistake but of drawing subconsciously dishonest conclusions due to emotions unrelated to actual right-and-wrong. The character of THE STRANGERS ON A TRAIN is also afraid of being locked away for a crime he didn’t commit. The evil husband in VERTIGO is villain who plays the role of victim and gets away with the crime, whereas Scotty becomes imprisoned in his psycho-emotional prison; but then, he also finds a kind of freedom, however tragic, inside that prison, a world of emotions he didn’t know could exist within the human heart. In THE ROPE, an innocent man is murdered and ‘imprisoned’ in a box while his killers entertain guests as decent young men of respectable society. The recent film THE PRISONERS is very much in the Hitchcockian tradition, and it draws on Hitchcockian motifs of spatial and psychological imprisonment. Though a sleazy work of sensationalism than a true work of art like David Fincher’s ZODIAC, it was superbly made. Norman Bates is a prisoner of sorts. He feels imprisoned by having to live for his mother; he wants to break free, be his own person, fall in love with a woman. But he’s loathe to send his mother away to some looney-bin. He feels both righteous and wronged in his imprisonment. It’s not fair that a young man like him should be stuck in some place in the middle of nowhere to look after his ailing mother. But it’s only right that a young man should be full of love and devotion to his mother. So, when the woman guest appears, he feels as both the righteous son and the wronged man. He feels both great desire for the woman and the great devotion to his mother. But he also feels hatred for both because the woman stands in the way between him and his mother and because the mother stands in between him and the woman. Of course, we later learn his mother has been dead many years, and if anything, he’s imprisoned her inside of him by having ‘swallowed’ her soul and making it his. And yet, he is also her psychological prisoner since he was raised as a mama’s boy or was born with mama’s boy genes. In THE BIRDS too, there’s a sense of wrongful imprisonment and justified imprisonment. The mores, rules, and customs about love, courtship, and marriage have been regarded as stuffy, stifling, repressive, and even unjust as long as they’ve existed. Many artists and philosophers through the ages complained of how such institutions have stood in the way of true freedom in love and happiness, especially as most marriages through the ages have been arranged one way or another. Many lovers felt their true love had been wrongfully and unjustly imprisoned by social rules and regulations, and yet, sexuality is a dangerous, ‘transgressive’, animallike, and ‘criminal’ emotion that can easily go out of control and run wild, as we’ve so often seem among the Negroes whose ‘national culture’ today is ‘twerking’. And look how Japanese soldiers acted in Nanking. Or how Soviet troops acted in Germany, raping millions of women in horrible ways. Consider how so many soldiers have raped and plundered in wars throughout the ages. But it’s not just the men. Some women just love to play the temptress and instigate men to fight for the right to her pooter. It’s like all those cheerleaders shaking their tits and asses and encouraging men into warrior mode. And the most famous conflict in history, the Trojan War, got started because of some tart. And in a way, so was the Civil War, as what white southern men feared most about the end of slavery was that stronger and muscled black guys would go around whupping white guys and raping white women; worse, in time, white women would come to despise white guys as a bunch of limpdicks who routinely got whupped & humiliated by black men and would voluntarily go off with black men as racially-physically-sexually superior studs. THE ILIAD, ROMEO AND JULIET, THE BIRTH OF A NATION, THE SEARCHERS, and THE BIRDS. They are all about sexuality because all forms of complex life perpetuate themselves and maintain their domination through the game of ‘who, whom’ when it comes to sex. So, THE BIRDS suggests that, on the one hand, we are all innocent people wrongfully accused and locked inside the cage of conservative morality, but, on the other hand, we — or our sexual natures — need to be locked up because we are ‘animal-predator-criminals’ at heart. In the earlier films, Hitchcock’s use of hidden spaces was essentially physical or plot-oriented, like in LADY VANISHES. But in the later films, the metaphorical/psychological significance of hidden spaces became more pronounced. So, when Scotty and Judy finally confess their truths in the dark space at the top of the bell tower in the final scene of VERTIGO, it’s feels as if we’ve slipped into some dark corner of their souls; it feels BEING JOHN MALKOVICH-like, or BEING SCOTTY-AND-JUDY-like. The relation of the physical and the psychological should have come naturally to Hitchcock since he felt imprisoned in his fatness and ‘ugliness’. He was a romantic at heart, but his fatass hippo-ness turned off women, who only wanted to work with him professionally but didn’t want anything more to do with him. So, there was no way to separate his physical features from his psychological angst. And even though Hitchcock’s films often featured homo-ish characters in a dark light[as soulless psychopaths] — especially in THE ROPE — , Hitchcock may have identified with fruiters at least in this regard: he was reduced the role of making women look good without having any chance of having them. Of course, with homos this isn’t a problem since they wanna make pretty dresses and hair styles for women but have no sexual interest in women. Hitchcock did have powerful sexual interest in women, but he had no chance of having them, so he was reduced to the ‘gay’-ish role of making them look so glamorous and starlike. In a way, his public persona made it both easier and worse for him. As he looked a harmless and funny fat man — like the hamburger guy in POPEYE who keeps saying he’ll pay up on Tuesday — , many people assumed that Hitchcock was just a good-natured entertainer who didn’t take anything too seriously. And yet, his persona was only a comical front because Hitchcock really did have romantic feelings and dark desires for his leading ladies. His complaint was rather like Portnoy’s. In a way, Hitchcock’s main obsession wasn’t even with his leading ladies but what he made of them. Just like Portnoy the Jew kid with a massive throbbing schlong had an ideal image of the blonde ‘shikse’, Hitchcock had this ideal image of the cool, beautiful, sophisticated, classy, and intelligent blonde woman. But the fact was almost all Hollywood actresses came from less-than-sterling backgrounds and a good many of them climbed the Hollywood ladder by sucking a lot of Jewish cocks. So, he had to transform hussies and tramps into queens and princesses, but then, his ultimate desire was to tear off their ‘class’ and have at their ass. It’s like a chef spends a lot of time preparing gorgeous looking food to ultimately have people pig out and stuff their mouths. It’s impossible to have the cake and eat it too. The same kind of paradox existed at the core of sex-and-civilization. Unlike animals that just like to hump one another, civilized humans came to appreciate beauty. There’s are the elements of elegance, delicateness, fineness, cleanliness, neatness, and good-smelling-ness in beauty that separate beauty from mere lustful animality. And these qualities of beauty allured the hearts of civilized men, and yet, the ultimate consummation of romance was about the man tearing off the facade of neatness, elegance, and fineness of beauty and humping the woman as a hussy-ho. It’s like the scene in RAN where Lady Kaede enters the room acting all graceful & elegant and stuff but then turns animallike in sex with Jiro the second son. Anyway, unlike most film directors who remained behind-the-scenes, Hitchcock made himself into something of a celebrity, not least because of his trademark cameo appearances in nearly all of his movies, a ritual that became sort of masturbatory. So, everyone thought he or she knew the real Hitchcock — the rotund man who made these clever suspense movies. Because of the way he looked and sounded, no could possibly believe that he had a genuinely romantic/tragic/agonized soul, and this public impression was both a source of therapy and neurosis for Hitchcock. It was a way of masking his dark obsessions, and yet, he also resented playing the role of fool. [It’s like big, strong, angry, and enraged Negroes in the past — and even today — felt a need to hide behind the ‘gentle giant’ image because of its disarming appeal on white folks — as it would have been too disturbing for white folks to discover that what was really on minds of such big Negroes was whupping white boys and humping white girls — , but they also resented the Uncle-Tom-ish aspect of playing such roles or maintaining such a public image, such as that of a mountain-sized Negro who wuvs a wittle white mouse... when in fact, they’d rather push around some Arab store owner and grab a bunch of free blunts as Michael Brown done.] The audience saw Hitchcock as a master puppeteer and manipulator; they overlooked the possibility that his movies could be as much dark confessions as dry concoctions. In this sense, Hitchcock may have identified with the fat German in LIFEBOAT. Its setup couldn’t be more anti-Hitchcock-like. As most of the movie takes place on a single boat with a bunch of people, there are no places to hide, hardly any area that could be used as hidden space or subspace. Also, it’s purely a horizontal movie — boat drifting on the flat surface of the ocean — whereas so many Hitchcock’s movies derive their power from verticality — the bell tower in VERTIGO, the stairs in PSYCHO, the balcony in 38 STEPS, etc. And yet, the ocean, with its unfathomable depths, suggests at the psychological verticality of the darkness of the human soul, and of course, we’re often not sure who is thinking what on the boat and which way the boat is headed. And it’s not always sure who’s the villain, who’s the victim; in the end, the good guys collaborate in murdering the bad guy German. The film also presents a moral challenge for goodness. If bad Germans wage war on entire peoples, whereas good Allies reject such group prejudices, what are the good characters to do with another German survivor from a shipwreck in the movie’s final scene? Should they bring him onboard or should they let him die because "All Germans are alike"? If they go with the latter, how are they better than bad guy Germans? Anyway, as the survivors are short on water and food, pounded by the sun during daytime, and made seasick by the motions of waves, they drift in and out of dream-states and sometimes can’t tell when if what they see is real or a hallucination. So, psychological hidden spaces develop even on that little boat. Furthermore, the German is able to use his body size as a form of ‘camouflage’; he hides a bottle of water on his body without being detected because whatever bulges from him just looks a part of his general fattiness.) So, even though Jews think more than any other people, their obsessive focus on their own power, righteousness, greatness, profundity, tremendousness, tragic-ness, and etc. closes their minds to all sorts of considerations. Indeed, even when Jews think about non-Jewish matters, they tend to process and judge them on the basis of ‘how it is good for Jews.’ So, in some ways, the more people think, the less they think in certain respects. This is common enough knowledge when it comes to the disciplines such as math, science, economics, literature, and etc. After all, if one concentrates on mastering medicine, one will have less time to study other branches of knowledge. But when it comes to general thinking about the ‘world’, we aren’t so much thinking about more things in a fairminded/broad-based way as seeing more things through a narrowly personal or official way. So, if Jews study Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Turks, Mexicans, Anglos, Germans, and etc. they aren’t so much objectively thinking about and assessing those peoples as thinking about how such peoples relate to Jewish advantages in power, interests, and agendas. Karl Marx sure thought about lots of things, but everything had to be funneled through his obsession with class conflict, and Freud thought about lots of things, but they were filtered through his sexually-and-Jewishly-tinted lenses. Similarly, a horror movie may have lots of characters, various locations, and shifting situations, but our focus fixes on the thread of evil that lurks in the world. THE EXORCIST begins in Iraq and then moves to Georgetown — and we meet various characters with different roles in society — , but we are increasingly filled with trepidation that Evil has been unearthed & loosened on the world and one of its victims will be a young girl in the capital of America.
Indeed, much of the stuff about ‘antisemitism’ is kind of like a Jewish horror tale. Jews constantly jolt us with shocks that there are Nazis, KKK’s, Islamo-fascist terrorist, ‘anti-Semites’, and other subhuman cretins out there who are trying to get the Jews, and therefore, how we, if we are good decent Jew-loving Americans, must do everything in our power to ‘save’ the Jews(by slavishly serving them — and homos to boot), and in doing so, we are also saving ourselves since our lives would be meaningless without Jews, especially happy, rich, and powerful Jews. Just like Christianity makes Christians feel that their lives would be meaningless without the Savior, the cult of Holocaustianity makes us feel that our lives are meaningless unless we are always fearing the Jews, praising the Jews, loving the Jews, protecting the Jews, worshiping the Jews. It’s as if without Jews, there can be no real truth, glory, meaning, goodness, and holiness in the world. So, anything or anyone that upsets, offends, or pisses off the Jews must be regarded as a great force of evil that must be stamped out. (The main reason why shabbos goyim like John McCain, John Bolton the dolton, Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, and others growl at Russia, Iran, and Palestinians is because Jews hate Russia, Iran, and Palestinians. If the Jewish line were to change, the shabbos goyim will stop foaming at the mouth. Shabbos goyim are like dogs. A dog will bark like mad at someone if the master wants it too, but if the master orders it to shut up and treat that someone nicely, the dog will whimper and immediately turn nice. If Jewish supremacists were to decide that Russia and Iran aren’t so bad, the shabbo goyim running dogs will stop barking overnight. All this shabbos goyim rage is really to please their Jewish masters and earn pats on the head and some doggy biscuits in the form of positive coverage in the media and campaign donations.) And this blind worship of Jews is to be expected from the heart of every gentile whether he or she be white, black, yellow, brown, rightist, leftist, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, or whatever. Indeed, the Jew Worship Cult been so drummed into us that
Time magazine says Americans have the most positive view of the Jewish religion.
"While the poll revealed that prejudice toward Muslims is widespread, respect for other religious traditions remains sturdy. Respondents held the Jewish faith in the highest regard, with 75% professing to hold a favorable impression." This just goes to show how stupid and ignorant most Americans are. Jewish religion may be great, but Jews revere not only the Torah but the Talmud which is filled with all sorts of hateful things about gentiles. And it’s especially funny since Jews are by far the least religious people in America. And the most religious Jews, such as the Hasidim, are among the most repellent, hateful, and nasty sons of bitches on the planet.
The way most Americans have been trained and conditioned to ‘think’ can be gleaned from Hollywood movies where most of what passes for thought are almost indistinguishable from sensations and emotions, generally of a shallow, crass, insipid, infantile, inflated, and/or mushy-gushy kind. Of course, art or entertainment doesn’t have to be very thoughtful, let alone intellectual, to have value. Much in the world have value for emotional or sensual value alone: think of music, food, beauty of nature, love, and etc. But not all emotions and sensualities are of the same quality. Hollywood standard generally takes something infantile and inflates it to gigantic proportions. It’s like turning babies into giants while dispensing with maturation and adulthood in the middle. It’s emotional kitsch, taking something so simpleminded and turning it into Goodyear blimp. Because it seems so big and expansive, it seems to be big-hearted, big-minded, universal, and about all of us, but it’s really about turning all of us into the kind of morons who get all weepy and pants-wetty on Oprah.
In some ways, the main difference between Hollywood ‘thinking’ and European art cinema ‘thinking’ is that Hollywood movies have been made to direct our emotions and thoughts to very few specific/simple things, whereas the European ‘art film’ tends to present an unsure vision of life, with which we have to vigorously engage with — ‘do the homework’ ourselves — in order to arrive at some kind of truth. This can make European films more challenging and intriguing — like MURIEL or INVESTIGATION OF CITIZEN UNDER SUSPICION — , but it can also make them boring and excruciating as hell — like JEANNE DIELMAN, LE HUMANITE(Bruno Dumont), and TRAVELING PLAYERS(Theo Angelopoulos) — when the so-called ‘artists’ have nothing or little to say but try to mask their zero talent with ‘difficult’ boredom that always fools enough people who are suckers for anything branded as ‘radical’, ‘profound’, and/or ‘intellectual’. In a way, the cult of horror — long before the arrival of horror stories and horror movies as a well-defined genre — always had an entertainment value as life was so dull and dreary for most of human existence. If you were a European peasant living in the Middle Ages, most of your life consisted of working on the fields from sunrise to sunset. And in the evening and night, there was coldness and darkness in winter and heat and mosquitos in the summer. It was a dreary life, and most communities were small and isolated from others. So, people back then were, to an extent, ‘entertained by fear’. While there were surely wonders back in those days too — even without books, TV, movies, and stereos, they had stars in the sky and dances at festivities — , life was pretty grim and routine; and surprises could be far worse as they usually materialized in the form of bandits or marauders who sacked and looted; still, most of these surprises were also ‘boring’ in a way since they so routinely recurred; it’s like the peasants in SEVEN SAMURAI could always expect a bunch of thugs to come along and take stuff during the warring era. They were the mundane acts of man.

Though feelings of horror were/are surely unpleasant, they do break people out of the doldrums and make life sort of interesting. Indeed, consider the success of the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies. I only saw the first installment, which, though pretty stupid, did make me hit the ceiling at the very end; it got me real good. The story is about a normal couple leading a boring life — like most Americans — , and boringness, while safe and safe, is so humdrum. But the story becomes absorbing because weird things keep multiplying and intensifying. (The tricky thing about horror is it creates the impression of the entire fabric of reality unraveling into randomness and chaos but then holds forth the possibility — a hopeful kind of dread — that there is a single evil source behind the madness; thus, our fear becomes contradictory: the entire world seems to be going mad and yet there may be a single source for all the madness.) Suddenly, the horror element makes the lives of the couple in PARANORMAL ACTIVITIES somewhat interesting. And even though none of us would want to be possessed by an evil spirit in the real world, there is an allure to paranormal stuff. Though I don’t believe in any of it and never did, a part of me that wishes that the world could be haunted by ‘spirits’ since the possibility adds a sense of mystery and fascination to life; it would also empower the ‘faithful’ laymen over the intelligent experts. In factuality, we know spooky things do not and cannot exist, and everything in reality has a material basis, and if you want to know about how reality works, you have to know the sciences. But for most people, it is very difficult, challenging, time-consuming, and ‘boring’ to learn math and the sciences. Even so, most people, with proper education and training, can learn to appreciate how the world really works. Science and math, difficult as they may be, are accessible to all people with sufficient intelligence, and for that reason, should be ‘empowering’ to all. So, why do many more people feel more ‘empowered’ by the supernatural when there’s no way any of it can be verified or proven? Why do people feel more ‘empowered’ by what cannot be known than what can be known albeit with much effort? I guess it’s partly because the unknowable is the great equalizer. With science, the smarties can know more than the dummies and show off(like Richard Dawkins), but with the occult or supernatural, the smarties won’t know any more than the dummies since it’s a matter of faith, fantasy, and fascination. There’s a kind of democratic appeal to stuff like horror, demon-possession, ghosts, astrology, black magic, voodoo, and such stuff. To be sure, nothing is more horrifying than a bunch of ghastly Negroes running amok in the real world — look what they done to Detroit and Zimbabwe — , but Negro horribleness is just ugly and stupid. There’s no mystery and allure to them. (However, because the image of the Noble Negro is a fantasy and a matter of faith, a lot of white Liberals have a difficult time processing the problems of real Negroes. Because of this psychological contradiction at the heart of Liberalism, there is a kind of horror narrative surrounding Negro problem. It goes like this: Negroes are noble, so when Negroes do bad things, they are not Negroes but ‘teens’ or ‘youths’. And since it’s evil to believe in the dangerous ‘burly’ Negro, we must stir up the ghosts of the KKK to fool ourselves that the race problem is really about ‘evil white racist males’ killing innocent angelic black lads ‘armed with only Skittles’ or ‘gentle giants’ who enjoy a good cigar once in awhile. So, even when Negroes act badly and attack whites, we must stir up our imagination and pretend to see KKK bogeymen killing helpless blacks. Ironically, the Liberal use of KKK is very much like the KKK’s mythology of itself. The idea of wearing sheets was to symbolize the ghosts of Confederate soldiers returned from the graves to take revenge. Today, the Liberal Jew-run media keep bringing back the ghosts of the KKK to spook Americans about ‘resurgent white racism’. So, even when it’s blacks who are running riot and beating up whites, many whites have been psychically ‘haunted’ to see the very opposite: KKK-monsters killing gentle innocent blacks. And when the Liberal Narrative fails to suppress all the black horror — now available on youtube and world-star-hiphop videos —, the ghosts of KKK are invoked again to explain black thuggery in terms of righteous black rage driven to do extreme things because of the history of ‘white racism’; this narrative was used for Omar Thorton the murderer of white workers at a beer factory on the assumption that Thorton had been the victim of ‘racism’ because he was caught stealing beer.) The real social truth in America is about society going to pot because too many Negroes be acting like apes. In truth, there is no special solution to the Negro. If Negroes were zombies, we could shoot them in the head and wipe them out. If Negroes were ghosts, we might use some magic to exorcize the world of evil Negro spirits. If Negroes were vampires, maybe we could destroy them with sunlight, like what happened in BLACULA. But Negroes are just wild humans, and so, we are forced to treat them as fellow human beings. As horrifying as the Devil-possessed Regan in THE EXORCIST is, the two good priests prove that good people can rise above evil with sound moral character, inner-strength, and spiritual conviction, but no amount of such demonstrations of virtues will make Negroes go away. Indeed, suppose THE EXORCIST was Blackorcist, and instead of being about the Devil possessing a young girl, it was about Negroes destroying Georgetown. In that scenario, you can pray all you want, say as many ‘Hail Mary’s as you want, splash all the Holy Water where Negroes roam, and holler "The power of Jesus compels you Negroes to go back to Africa and swing from trees with the apes" all you want, but guess what? Negroes are still hanging around the streets and messing everything up as evolution in the Dark Continent made Negroes to be strong, mean, nasty, aggressive, and unfit for any kind of high civilization. (In the horror genre scenario, there may be a horrific breakdown of Rule of Law that is frightening & ‘disempowering’ yet also ‘empowering’ in some ways because we are no longer bound by the law and we are able to do as we please; this is why zombie movies are both oppressive and liberating; they make us scared of zombies all around that might devour us, but we also feel free to pick up any gun and blow all them zombies away; indeed, we can even blow other humans away if they get in our way since there is no more Rule of Law to arrest and convict us. In a way, the war scenario is horror-istically appealing to many people for this very reason. As awful as war is, it gives people the freedom and opportunity to be ‘empowered’ to do things that they otherwise would not be able to do. In Yugoslavia from the end of WWII to the early 1990s, many groups that didn’t like one another were forced to live ‘peacefully’ side by side under the iron rule of communist law. Some of them wanted to break free from other groups, but no one could do anything about it since they were all under the power of Tito and his successors. But once the communist system fell apart and wars began, many Yugoslavians re-identifying themselves as Serbs, Croatians, Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Muslims, and others began to slaughter one another with impunity. Anyone could get killed, but anyone could also feel powerful, badass, and freely act out one’s tribal passions. This is why some Zionists in Israel look forward to a massive war in the Middle East so that Jews could use the cover of war to ethnically cleanse all Arabs-Palestinians from Israel and West Bank — and maybe even from Gaza. Events like the Holocaust, mass killing of Russians, Rape of Nanking, carpet-bombing of Hamburg, mass rapes of German women, and Hiroshima bombing would have been unthinkable in times of peace, but they were all too possible, doable, and excusable — at least to the side doing it — during wartime. Of course, there are different kinds of horror movies, but some create a ‘war zone scenario’ that enables people to finally ‘take law into their own hands’. That’s the appeal of the RESIDENT EVIL series with Milla Jovovich, what with virus-infected zombies taking over the world, thereby lending humans the justification to pick up any gun, knife, machete, or club to beat up zombies or one another if need be. In THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, the people in the isolated house feel both ‘oppressed’ and ‘empowered’ since they can and must do whatever they think is right to fight off the zombies and make it to safety. Indeed, the struggle between the young Negro buck and bald-headed white middle-aged chowderhead — though the chowderhead proved to be right in the long run, i.e. they should have hidden in the cellar — is about who should be the alpha leader of this newfound freedom and power. Under Rule of Law, both would just obey the official authorities of the system, but where Rule of Law is moot, everyone may feel he has the right to establish his own vision of freedom/power over others. And we see this sense of freedom/power among the ‘rednecks’ who, at the end of the movie, shoot and round up the zombies. Given the emergency scenario, they can kill all they want without the National Guard rounding them up for ‘racism’. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD was made few years after the Civil Rights Movement, a time when the mass media went out of their way to vilify the image of southern ‘racist bigots’ who took law into their own hands and were supposedly lynching Negroes all over the place. But what if there were zombies going around munching on people? Wouldn’t such ‘rednecks’ be given the freedom to go around killing all them zombies like the Nazi SS killed the Jews? So, where’s the line between morality and immorality? Are the main characters in the movie better than the vigilante ‘rednecks’ because they do it for survival whereas the ‘rednecks’ seem to be doing it as a sport and even enjoying it? Is it the difference between killing animals because we have to eat and killing animals as a sport? And where does it place the audience morally? Though we might have identified with the main characters with survival as their main priority in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, weren’t we made to feel like the ‘rednecks’ in the later zombie movies — by George Romero and others — that were far splashier with blood and gore and racked up awesomely high body counts? RESIDENT EVIL series presents slaughter almost as a gladiatorial spectacle. Despite the thin conceit of good guys vs bad guys, it’s really ‘hot babes and cool studs mowing down endless numbers of zombies and monsters in all sorts of fun and inventive ways.’ [An interesting independent film that’s like a grubby-realist fusion of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and RESIDENT EVIL is THE DAY, which, though no masterwork, is interesting in its semi-ruminations about morality. In the film, it’s difficult to say who is good and who is bad. Though we root for the members of a small wandering group, it’s primarily because we’ve been introduced to them as the film begins. They appear to be survivors in a post-apocalyptic world. As their main objective is survival, we notice immediately that they can be ruthless in getting what they need. They stick together for reasons that are personal and/or pragmatic but hardly principled. There’s also a feeling that the members of the group could as easily turn on one another as help one another — though there seems to be personal bonds among a few. They cooperate but stick together through a mix of loose tribalism and practicality. It’s about us vs them, and ‘them’ is rest of humanity. Eventually, they are forced to defend themselves in an abandoned house they’d taken refuge in from other ‘tribes’, and initially, we aren’t sure what makes one side better than the other. {And as in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, the meaning of property is also called into question. We are used to thinking in terms of property rights, but when Rule of Law breaks down, there’s only the might-as-right-to-survive, thereby you have a ‘right’ to everything and to nothing. It all depends on which side wins... for the moment. There’s a sense of culture shock when we are thrown into such a scenario as we’ve become so accustomed to Rule of Law, contracts, concept of rights, regulations, and etc. When we say something is ‘mine’ and something is ‘yours’, we feel as though the Rule of Law is almost a form of cosmic justice that ensures that what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. My house is my house, and your house is your house; my car is my car, your car is your car. Of course, ownership can change hands, and my house can become your house, and your can be my car, but things are traded through contracts, agreements, currency, and etc. To be sure, as we live in a mixed-economy, we also have the concept of ‘ours’ that is neither entirely mine nor entirely yours but exist for the good for the general population. Communism was only about ‘we’ and ‘ours’, and it failed, but then, we don’t want to live in an ultra-libertarian society either where just about everything is either ‘mine’ or ‘yours’. We want certain things and certain services to be for the general good. There are rules governing ‘mine’, ‘yours’, and ‘ours’ in modern civilization, and the success of such arrangement can be seen in Northern Europe and Japan. The problem for the West is that it’s filling up with ghastly Negroes who are emotionally and intellectually incapable of understanding such principles. The Negro, being childish, aggressive, uninhibited, and wild, cannot grasp the concept of anything other than ‘mine’. If a Negro sees what you done have, he thinks it be his, like when Omar Thorton stole beer and when Michael Brown stole cigars. If it’s ‘monkey see, monkey do’ for simians, it’s ‘Negro see, Negro take’ for blacks. All this ‘reparation’ BS is really about the true nature of the Negro than about ‘social justice’. Negroes just see that other folks got more and be wanting it. And since they be bigger and stronger, they can push around other races and be taking shit. Negroes feel this way sexually too, which is why they be committing so many rapes. In a way, you can’t blame the Negro since evolution made them that way; it’d be like blaming baboons for acting baboon-like. Negro done act like Negroes cuz they is Negroes, but our cult of ‘anti-racism’ makes us pretend that ‘race is just a social construct’ and that Negroes are just as capable of being civilized like the rest of us. So, if they’re out-of-control, it must be the fault of ‘racism’, ‘poverty’, ‘legacy of slavery’, and etc. Actually, as civilization has been form of slavery/oppression for most people for most of history, it’s closer to the truth to say Negroes act so wild not because they’d been forced into slavery for too long but because they’d been forced into slavery for too short a period. If indeed blacks had been forced to be slaves for 3,000 yrs under whites, they would likely have become gentler as whites would have more time to weed out the crazy Negro genes. It’s like wolves became nicer they evolved into dogs after thousands of yrs of domestication by man whereby the wilder traits were weeded out. To be sure, slavery existed for thousands of yrs among black African savages too, but as it was savages enslaving savages, there were no civilized principles as criteria for favoring more ‘positive’ traits and weeding out the ‘negative’ ones. As civilized folks preferred order and civility, if a crazy slave-serf-or-servant acted wild, he would likely be killed. But among savages, everyone was acting like a savage since savagery was all they knew. Also, slavery was very slippery among savages since tribal power was very unstable. One tribe might be on top one day and then another tribe might be on top the next day. It’s like chimpanzees live in an unstable world of constant warfare. Also, since it was blacks enslaving blacks, after a while, slaves just melted into the master slave population, so everyone just carried on with the savage genes. So, Negroes lack a true understanding of ‘mine’, ‘yours’, and ‘ours’. They think everything should be ‘mine’. Indeed, when Negroes demand ‘reparations’, they fail to take into account that American wealth was created not only by Southern Whites who’d enslaved the ghastly Negroes but by many other people who toiled on the fields and factories. What do all those ethnic whites, Arab-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Mexican-Americans owe to Negroes? Nothing. But such ideas never occur in the apelike minds of Negroes who just look around and see that others got what they be wanting, so the Negroes aks or demand, ‘gimme, gimme, gimme!!’ like the punkass Ta-Nehesi Coates be doing. Too many Negroes don’t have the sense of George Jefferson or Fred G. Sanford to run a business and make some honest dough. They either be robbing or using government for jobs and free stuff. And the Negro concept of ‘ours’ be different from the white concept of ‘ours’. When white folks think ‘ours’, they have something like Northern European social-democracy in mind: people take from the system but also pay into the system; they also have a sense of limits of how much they should ask from the common trough. In contrast, the Negro concept of ‘ours’ means ‘we be taking everything and putting in nothing’ — like all them Negroes in Detroit and New Orleans be acting. Negroes be thinking like Sicilians on steroids and PCP. So, the mentalities of Negroes and whites in the modern world are very different. White folks believe in property rights and trade. If someone has ‘this’ and you have ‘that’ and if you want his and he wants yours, then you make a trade that is legally sanctioned. You don’t just take his, and he doesn’t just take yours. That would be like pillaging and looting as in the old barbarian days. But Negroes still think like baboon-ish savages who feel they should just ‘have me’ something that they see and want. Negro gotta ‘have me’ this and gotta ‘have me’ that. Negroes are naturally like this, but because of the conceit of the ‘legacy of slavery’, they have a ready-made ‘moral’ excuse to act out their savage urges. But then, why don’t Negroes get away with the same excuse in the Arab world that practiced black slavery much longer than white nations did? Because Muslims don’t believe in ‘collective historical guilt’ and would laugh at the very notion of ‘reparations’ or ‘the original sin of Islam’. When Negro hear of ‘property rights’, they be thinking that it be all ‘greedy and shit’ cuz it be about people holding onto stuff than ‘sharing’ it rest of humanity. What such dumb Negroes don’t understand is that ‘property rights’ is actually anti-greed since one has to accumulate property through legal means than just by grabbing or looting stuff. Indeed, even though Southern slavery was justified on notion of ‘property rights’, it could only exist by violating the property rights of Negroes to own their own bodies and labor and fruits of that labor. Of course, property rights can be abused, as when, for example, hideous Jews take over Wall Street, law firms, and the courts and rig the system to funnel much of the national wealth into Jewish pockets, but then, the problem isn’t property rights per se but the abuse of property rights by Jews are totally amoral in their tribal supremacism. Jews, unlike Negroes, do understand the principles of ‘me’, ‘yours’, and ‘ours’, but their sense of Jewish identity and power is so powerful that they disregard the rights of all others and look upon goyim as mere cattle that exists only to serve the Jews. Though Southern whites did enslave the Negroes, they created real wealth with agricultural products, whereas Jews fleece everyone through financial rigging. Too many Jews on Wall Street are parasitic than productive.}In THE DAY, both sides are prone to hair-trigger violence and whatever’s necessary to procure food and ensure its own survival. It is a barbarized world where Rule of Law no longer exists, a world where, with each passing year, the survivors remember less and less of a civilized past when people held moral principles and the Rule of Law, though, to be sure, even in our civilized modern world, there are many areas — especially black areas — where a kind of barbarism and even savagery have already taken over. Anyway, as the story progresses, we learn that one side is into cannibalism whereas the other side is not. The film makes the non-cannibals the main characters, which is morally convenient for us as it would have been discomfiting to be made to identify with people who feed on human flesh. Though food is scarce and moral dignity is lost art in the world of THE DAY, the main characters still refuse to resort to cannibalism, and in that, there is a kind of muted heroism. They’ve been reduced to barbarism, but they continue to cling to a modicum of humanness that prevents them from going all the way and becoming unabashedly beastly, cut off from the last thread of ‘humanity’; it’d be like the extinguishment of the last flame that, however faint, glows with moral sense, the loss of which will sink humanity into the Dark Ages without hope of recovery. After all, if humans feel free to devour other humans, it means they see other humans as mere animals. And if humans hunt other humans like they hunt animals for food, then it suggest even the hunters are like animals. A human eater who cannot distinguish between human and animal as meal could, in turn, be food to other humans; thus, he himself is an animal than human. And yet, because the cannibals within the tribe generally don’t devour one another and love their own children, they are living in a world of moral contradiction. If indeed humans should be hunted & devoured and are no better than animals, why not eat one’s own kids? So, it’s interesting and instructive that one of the main characters is a woman who turns out to be an exile from a cannibal tribe. Though hardly a moral saint or sage — she can kill and maim with the best of them — , at the very least, she craves some measure of dignity by not indulging in cannibalism and by helping non-cannibals against cannibals. Ironically, this good side of her that is capable of compassion for larger humanity was borne of hatred that engulfed her when her cannibal tribe did something terrible to her sibling. The woman is featured sort of like the warrior woman Milla-Jovovich-as-Alice in RESIDENT EVIL, but, tough as she is, she has no special powers and isn’t much of a looker and certainly no babe, which Jovovich is in spades. Though lacking in glamour, her story becomes compelling, especially in a fallen world where genuine compassion is so hard to come by. In some ways, one could argue she’s the most moral character in the movie because she had to discover within herself the will to break free of her own cannibal programming and go over to the other side, even to the point of risking her own life for the sake of strangers. In one way, morality can be measured by one’s general attitudes and values, and the woman in THE DAY isn’t necessarily better than her fellow travelers in this sense. If she’s special from others, it’s because she had a steeper and tougher cliff to climb to get to where she is. If five people are standing atop the same cliff but 4 people had to climb only 20 feet whereas the fifth person had to climb 200 ft from the very bottom, then at least in an existential sense, one could say the fifth person is more moral than the others since it took much greater moral will to ascend to that spot. The other main characters were never part of a cannibal tribe. Though degraded by barbarism, they were born into and were always part of the non-cannibals. From childhood, they knew that certain things were beyond the pale, that no matter how lowly humans may sink, they should not be hunting other people for food. Indeed, the cannibal tribe turns out to be especially perverse since they aren’t hunting humans just for food — which would be understandable because hunger makes people do extreme things — but because killing/devouring people has become like a ritual for them; we get the sense that even if food were plentiful, they would go on killing and eating humans as a part of their ‘sacred’ culture and identity. The woman grew up in such a debased world, but something happened to a sibling that made her question her own world. As she’s crude and unschooled, she hasn’t any moral philosophy, but she’s come to FEEL some basic sense of humanness; and the distance she’s traveled from utter monstrousness to a modicum of decency imbues her with a moral will more powerful than that of others. Indeed, this is why privileged Jewish/white Liberals are so full of BS. It’s always been easy for them to feel ‘good’ and ‘oh-so-moral’ since they were born into privilege, wealth, advantages, given the right kind of education, and doted on & hugged for all their precious PC yammerings. It’s so easy for such people to look down on ‘racist white trash’ who were born in trailers, raised by drunken parents, attended schools filled with ghastly Negroes, and had to struggle all their lives. The privileged white Liberal kids didn’t have to travel much distance — if any — nor pay any price for their vapid sense of moral goodiness, which is really a preening sense of moralistic entitlement.] At any rate, NIGHT OF LIVING DEAD sinks into confusion because Romero’s allegorical meanings for his zombies keep changing, indeed not only from movie to movie but within the same movie. The whole thing about ‘rednecks’ killing zombies for merriment retroactively adds another allegorical layer that simply didn’t exist throughout the film — and if Romero hinting at the relative of ‘victim-hood’, i.e. zombies-as-predators to zombies-as-prey, that’s a rather trite point. As in EASY RIDER with its sinister subhuman ‘rednecks’ — who apparently have nothing better to do than play target practice with hippie bikers — , the ending of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, though effectively grim and chilling in mood, strains at moral significance with some easily recognizable social/historical allusions. Perhaps, Romero’s point was that humans can be worse than zombies because, whereas zombies are soulless flesh-eaters that merely act according to ‘programming’ without malice, humans often do carry out acts of violence with malice, glee, and amusement. It’s like how some Zionist Jews have been watching the destruction of Gaza from hilltops as grand entertainment while Palestinian women and children were getting blown to bits. To be fair to Jews, they could have been driven by what they consider to be justifiable outrage because Hamas that rules Gaza is a ‘terrorist organization’ committed to the destruction of Israel. It’s easy for people, any people, to share in the celebration of the destruction of the enemy that’s come to be regarded as wicked or subhuman, and Jews certainly see Palestinians and white gentiles that way. Because Americans have such a low opinion of Arabs/Muslims, most of them felt no sympathy when US carried out ‘Shock and Awe’ on Iraq and blew up entire parts of the country to kingdom come. Because Palestinians have been frustrated with American Middle East policy for as long as they can remember, some of them cheered when 9/11 happened. And if I were see an asteroid hit Atlanta or Detroit and blow a whole bunch of Negroes into the stratosphere, I might not celebrate but I wouldn’t mourn either. I’m decent enough not to get a bottle of champagne for the occasion, but I might get a bottle of ripple... to drink in honor of the poor departed Negroes of course. There are some on the ‘Alternative Right’-sphere who take an apocalyptic-horror-movie view of the future and wish for a total downfall of the social system so that they will have the opportunity to fight, kill, and destroy the enemy without mercy, grab the power, and build a new system from scratch, one in which their own kind would control power permanently. This wing of the ‘alternative right’ is so convinced that the current socio-political order is so PC-monopolized, Jewish-dominated, corrupt, and venal that good decent patriots cannot win by working through the system, and even if they could, it would take too long, and by then, the demographic damage would have been done. So, the best hope for the Right would be the total collapse of the system brought about by the destructive policies of the globalist elites and PC-lords, whereby the true soldiers of the Right, no longer bound by corrupt PC rule-of-law, would take up arms and win back their homelands block by block — and this struggle entails the mass killing of enemies, so be it. But if recent events in Ukraine tell us anything, while it may be true enough that angry street mobs may bring down a corrupt and inept system, it’s never the mobs who win in the end. After all, the new Ukraine is ruled by globalist Jews. And even though the Provisional Government of Russia was brought down by all sorts of angry mobs, it was the tightly organized, focused, disciplined, and fanatical Bolsheviks who eventually grabbed all the power. Same goes for the Iranian Revolution where the Shah was toppled by a diverse coalition of many anti-government forces, but it was the fundamentalist Muslims who soon grabbed most of the power for themselves. All such examples show that while a series of crises may weaken a social order and while a massive rebellion may even bring down a system, the new order won’t be controlled by everyone who did his share in bringing down the old order but by those who happened to be best organized and prepared to lead, rule, and neutralize all other rivals — with the former ruling elites gone, the new conflict is about former allies of the grand opposition vying with one another for the right to rule, for the right to wield ‘Excalibur’. This is why those who are serious about power should organize NOT when the crisis begins but long before the crisis reaches its boiling point. Also, as ruling a nation isn’t just about power but having the knowledge and expertise to manage entire sectors of government, economy, and various institutions, the would-be revolution must attract not only people of ideas but people of skills. [It’s like the Marxist organization whose conferences I used to attend in the mid 80s asked for volunteers who could actually do stuff — like constructing houses, fixing drainage, improving agriculture, and etc. — in Sandinista-run Nicaragua than just cheer on the Revolution. Anyone can agree with ideas, but one needs real skills to actually do something for the people.] Bolsheviks in Russia had been preparing for the Revolution in the early 1900s when no one even thought such a revolution was possible. Of course, it wouldn’t have been possible if not for World War I, just like the rise of the Nazis wouldn’t have been possible without the Great Depression. But, there are times when crises do appear, often out of the blue, that may shake the existing system to the core, even to the point of toppling it, and if your side wants to grab the power during just such a golden opportunity — revolutions are essentially about ‘not letting a crisis go to waste’ — , it has to be prepared, organized, and disciplined to charge into motion as a united force. It’s like you don’t win a war by getting ready for war just as the war begins. You win it by preparing for a war during peacetime. The war may never come, but if it comes, the well-prepared nation has the advantage over the unprepared one. The great advantage of Germany in 1939 was it was prepared for a major continental war. Similarly, major crises may not come, but if they do come, your side has to be ready to seize the moment. It’s like how the Corleones in THE GODFATHER are always preparing for a possible gang war to let the bad blood out. So, all true revolutionaries don’t get started when the crisis erupts but are trained and prepared to act and do what-you-gotta-do when the moment arrives, and of course, one never knows when such a moment might arrive. Though stability is the order of the day in most nations, things can fall apart and spin out of control almost out-of-the-blue in some cases. Indeed, who foresaw the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union? And who saw the sudden collapse of the Ukrainian government in 2014? The reason why Jews gained so much wealth and power in Russia in the 1990s and why Jews took over Ukraine this year is because Jews had long been prepared to act suddenly and dramatically were such a crisis to appear, though to be sure, plenty of Jews had also been pulling the strings from behind the scenes for such an eventuality. It’s like what Rahm Emanuel said: "never let a crisis go to waste." By all rights, Jews should have lost power and prestige in 2008 since so many Jews were behind the financial meltdown, but Jews remained on top and, if anything, only got richer and more powerful because they’d been prepared — in government, media, academia, courts, Hollywood, etc. — to spin the crisis to their own advantage and fend off any potential criticism and challenge to Jewish power. Because of what Jews had prepared for a long time, no group dared to mention the power of Jews in association to the economic debacle, and, if anything, every side pledged to offer more support to the Jews so that Jews, with even more power and wealth, would be able to ‘fix’ the problems of the economy, much of which had been created by Jewish-run Wall Street in the first place. Jews are not only well-prepared to take advantage of economic crises but international crises. Indeed, why was Bush II led into the Iraq War following 9/11? Because Neocon Jews had been preparing for such a war IF a crisis were to erupt that might make a war in the Middle East feasible with the dumb American public. While all those Maidan right-wing warriors who did the street fighting in Kiev plunged into the melee spontaneously, Jews had long been preparing to take the power if such a crisis were to erupt — and of course, Jews partly engineered it. So, even though Ukraine seemed to be falling into the hands of the ultra-nationalist street warriors when the government fell, those guys were too unprepared, ill-organized, without funds, and without connections with powerful international forces to take real power. They were ultimately only good as attack dogs. They charged and mauled at the target, but the Jewish hunter took the kill to his house for the feast; the Jewish hunter took possession of the trophy. [It must be said the Russia-Ukraine conflict isn’t a simple one in terms of right and wrong as both sides have legitimate grievances, interests, and concerns. The ‘Western’ narrative — favored by Jewish media lords — of Western Ukrainian ‘freedom fighters’ heroically taking on Moscow and its corrupt puppet is cartoon, but so is the notion, put forth by the likes of Paul Craig Roberts, that Russia is simply an innocent victim of Western-NATO aggression. Russia played dirty politics in Ukraine for a long time, and it’s understandable that many Ukrainians want a new direction for their country. And there are indeed many right-wing, nationalist, and anti-Jewish forces among the Ukrainian nationalists. But when we examine any struggle, we have to look at the larger context and the major players, and there’s no denying that the Dark Hand behind recent events have been globalist Jews. Though there are plenty of dirty globalist Jews around Putin, as there are around the new government in Ukraine, the undeniable fact is most globalist Jews are using Ukraine as a major piece on the chessboard against Russia. So, with that context in mind, it only makes sense to favor Russia in the current struggle since it is a more effective bulwark against the World Jewry than Ukraine is. To be sure, Russia is also very shaky as most Russians are too trashy, drunk, dumb, lunkheaded, and stupid to take control of their own country, which like the US and UK, is teeming with filthy Jewish oligarchs whose main loyalty is not to Russia but to their supremacist tribe that has hoisted victory Jewish-Homo or Jomo flags in nearly all the Western capitals of the world.] Though most Jews in Russia and the US didn’t know that USSR would collapse so soon in the early 1990s, they’d long developed a mentality throughout history of preparing for unexpected events. For Jews, it’s not just a matter of the triumph of the will but triumph of the wit. It’s like Henry Kissinger didn’t know what might happen in the future, but he was always working to prepare for something in order to gain the advantage in the ‘event of ______’. It’s the way Jews play chess. Though the world is far messier and more complex than a chess game with set pieces and set rules, there are certain rules of history that generally decide the fates of the various players. It’s the game of power that involves understanding of geography, psychology, economics, culture, history, politics, and technology. In the end, Hitler was brought down by his psychology of pathological vanity and the geography of vast Russia. Jews know that Russians are vulnerable because of their culture of heavy drinking, corruption, cheating, slovenliness, and dependence. Jews know that the main centers of power are in the media, finance, law, government, technology, entertainment, and academia — and Jewish-Russian oligarchs hold great sway over all sectors of the Russian economy, though they don’t have the decisive total control that American Jews have over the US. Jews also know that gentile masses can be neutralized and appropriated by Jewish power if Jewish elites educate, browbeat, and offer special privileges to gentile elites. Jews know that the masses of any group are incapable of thinking, acting, and gaining power on their own. All peoples must rely on their own elites; therefore, if gentile elites were trained and bought off by the Jews, they will serve the Jews than lead and represent their own people. Indeed, Jews did this with blacks by making Obama the top black guy. As Obama prefers to serve Jews and homos than be a leader to blacks, his role vis-a-vis the black community has been to persuade blacks that their main priority should be ‘gay marriage’ and praising some black guy who sees himself as a blonde woman. And as Hillary Clinton has been appropriated by Jews, she seeks the presidency as the Jews’ whore than as a leader of white gentiles. And as the GOP elites have sold their souls to the Jews via the Neocons, they expend most of their energies serving Jewish — and even homo — elites than leading their own people. While there are still many white people, the white masses are spread out all over the place and divided, whereas the power of Jews is concentrated in a few key cities that serve as the brain centers of the nation; and if the brain centers don’t like the feel of certain body parts, they call in the socio-political surgeons to operate on them, rendering them paralytic. Also, most of the masses engage in politics only every 4 yrs when they go to vote , whereas full-time Jewish power-operators work 24/7 all year round to push and promote the Jewish agenda. Of course, there’s a reason why most Republican politicians prefer to whore themselves out to Jews than to serve their own peoples. If GOP politicians were to ignore the Jewish elites and choose to represent their own people, they won’t get much in the way of rewards since the masses don’t control Washington D.C. the media, the think tanks, the lobbying groups, the super Pacs, and etc. But if GOP politicians pander to the Jewish elites, Jews will offer lots of candies and prizes. [Besides, as the GOP, for as long as I can remember, pushed economic policies that made the rich get richer, it played a pivotal role in creating the current reality where the super oligarchs are richer and more powerful than ever, whereas the middle class and working class are weaker than ever. As the super-rich are more powerful than ever, whore politicians of both parties pander to the 0.01%. And since there are many more Liberal Democratic super-rich than Republican ones and since so many of the super-rich are Jewish, it’s only natural that white gentile politicians would essentially be whores of super-rich Jews, scum like Sheldon Adelson.] Indeed, the whole point of being a modern politician is to get nearer to the powerful, not nearer to the powerless. Concentrated power of the super-rich has infinitely more gravitational pull than diffuse power of the middle class and working class — the kind of schmoes you see in the subway near the end of THE WOLF OF WALL STREET. It’s like kids in school wanna be close with the ‘popular kids’, not with the ‘loser’ kids. Anyway, all would-be revolutionaries must work and prepare during times of peace and relative stability because they simply won’t have the time and means when the crisis suddenly presents itself out of the blue. It’s like athletes don’t train right before the Olympics but during all four years leading up to it. A crisis is an opportunity but also an emergency situation in history, and there is no time to prepare what to do in an emergency as it happens. You have to train and ready yourself before it happens. This is true of artists too. Akira Kurosawa wasn’t sure he’d get to direct another film in the 1970s, but he didn’t idle away doing nothing. Instead, he continued to work on his projects — KAGEMUSHA and RAN — just the same in the hope that an opportunity, however unlikely, might present itself, which is why, when the winds of fortune finally blew his way, he was ready to start work immediately. Your moment may never come, but if it comes, you better be ready because if not, you’ve lost it for good. It’s like Richard Nixon was carefully preparing for the election of 1968, and Ronald Reagan had ideally prepared himself to take the presidency by storm in 1980. Just because you’re out of the game doesn’t mean you shouldn’t train for the game. This is something the Bolsheviks and the Nazis understood. It’s something the Zionists have always understood, which is why they were ready to take Palestine when the opportunity came their way. It is why Jews keep winning. They keep thinking about, fretting about, finding things out about, strategizing about, and figuring things about things long before unforseen events happen. Jews have umbrellas ready when the storm hits. It’s like how Harpo Marx has all kinds of gadgets that prepares him for all kinds of situations that come out of the blue. Jews are pretty good at reading the minds of goyim and figuring out what to expect next, whereas so many gentiles are so clueless as to what the Jews are up to. This is why Jews win. Jews are proactive and reactive; they are like firemen who start fires — and blame it on others — and then put them out and make themselves out to be the saviors; because one bunch of Jews are always working to start fires in some part of the world, another bunch of Jews are always ready to call out the fire engine. That exactly what they’ve done in Ukraine and in the Middle East. Kissinger, whether one likes him or not, is surely the most skillfully thoughtful Secretary of State in American history. He not only thinks about what happened but thinks about them as a way of discovering better ways to play the game of power all over the world. One gets the sense that he wasn’t only looking for solutions to particular problems but for the big lessons as a game-theorist.)
Horror scenario both ‘disempowers’ and ‘empowers’ the audience. Because the audience senses this great demonic force in the world, they wanna pee their pants and crawl into a hole. However, because there’s a sense of a dark magic that governs the world, there’s also the suggestion that you can discover and master the ‘spiritual’ secret to triumph over evil. Such mind-set was one reason why the Japanese risked taking on the US in the Pacific War. They had a mystical view of their nation as sacred islands of the gods, therefore, though Americans had more in material power, Japanese had something like the ‘Force’. In reality, the only way you can win is by having material advantage. A Christian Rightist can pray all he wants, but he’s gonna have a lot less power than the Jew who had material control over the banks, media, government, courts, and academia. (Of course, the mind matters but not in a mind-over-matter way but rather in a mind-for-matter way. If you control the minds, you control what the minds will be used for. For example, Jews control the media and academia, so they control our minds that come to use matter in our possession in ways that Jews desire.) STAR WARS has great universal appeal because Jedi Knights have this mystical power called the Force. The Force can be good or evil. It can be angelic or devilish depending on how it’s used. But it’s so powerful that even a powerful Jedi knight with a weaker army can triumph over a great empire because his Force is stronger; for one thing, the Jedi knight can use his light saber like a baseball bat and hit the laser volleys at the enemies. So, even though the Bad Guys were prevailing at the end of RETURN OF THE JEDI, Luke’s good Force was so powerful that it finally inspired his pa Darth to turn on his evil master, the Emperor, and finally win one for the Skywalker. (Real history sort of came to resemble STAR WARS as Gorbachev of the ‘Evil Empire’ decided to come over to the Good Guy side and end the Cold War.) When power is supernatural-ized or ‘spiritualized’, all the problems of the world can be conceptually manifested into a great Evil Force, and it may seem more frightening and powerful than any evil known in the world; and yet, because it’s confronted in a concentrated form, it can be challenged and destroyed head-on(and its destruction shall fill us with hope that Good has triumphed not only over the bad but over Evil itself). Also, as the evil supernatural can only be defeated by the good supernatural/spiritual, we hold out for the hope that the power can be found within us through ‘faith’. We cannot defeat a real army with faith, but faith gives us hope that higher powers shall marshal the forces of good to defeat the forces of wickedness and save us from Evil. So, a movie like THE EXORCIST III is terrifying, but it also assures us because it shows how a good man who regains his faith is able to overcome the power of the Devil. We can fear the Devil as the most powerful form of evil in the universe, but if the concentrated form of evil exists, so must the concentrated form of goodness which is God; and it is comforting to believe God has the power to prevail over the Devil, and we can be a party to this if we have faith.
But the little evils in the real world are another matter. In contrast to the Devil, the many social evils all around us cannot be defeated or rid from the world no matter how much we pray, keep the faith, or beseech the forces of good. We can pray forever, but Negroes will keep on being Negroes and turn more cities into Detroits. Real problems have to be dealt with real solutions, but real solutions are tough and difficult; it’s like real wars have to be won the real way, but the real way is ugly and bloody. So, in a way, demons and evil spirits are less depressing to humanity that all the real problems around the world that exist all around and are impervious to any abstract notions of good vs evil.
To be sure, certain person or persons could be suspected of embodying a concentrated form of evil in a superstitious community, thereby leading the members of the community to believe Evil itself might be defeated or at least seriously debilitated if the scapegoat(s) was punished and sacrifice to the forces of ‘good’ . Christians in the Middle Ages felt this way thought much of wickedness in their world could be expunged by rounding up and killing witches. Pagan folks were also on the lookout for possible scapegoats as carriers of some special evil. Such a mind-set can operate on the political level as well. Zimbabweans under Mugabe came to see white folks as the concentrated form of evil and hoped that all the social or economic ills afflicting the nation could be eradicated by getting rid of whites — despite the obvious evidence to the contrary that ethnically cleansing Zimbabwe of whites was like bleeding a sick patient to death. But mankind has special penchant for confusing the disease as the cure and vice versa. And Jews also came to be seen as special carriers of evil, especially by some Christians and, of course, the Nazis. (The odd and even funny thing about Jews is that they sometimes presented and even prided themselves as scapegoats in their cultural/historical narrative. For example, the story of Moses-returned-to-Egypt is a story that sort of scapegoats the Jews for all the ills that befall Egypt. The Bible says it is BECAUSE OF THE JEWS that the first borns among the Egyptians die, the rivers turn to blood, swarms of locusts rain down, and etc. So, Jews are indeed to be blamed for all the disasters, but the funny thing is Jew take pride in their being the cause of all the horrors that descend upon the Egyptians. The Biblical narrative says God is on the side of Jews and routinely brings forth horrific disasters on people who oppress Jews — or whom Jews don’t like — , so you gentiles better watch out. If indeed Jews believe that God acts this way on their behalf, is it wrong for goyim to see Jews as the cause of so many miseries? So, Egyptians come to believe that they better kick the Jews out because the presence of Jews in Egypt is like a cancer. But just when the Pharaoh wants to kick the Jews out and put an end to the miseries caused the presence of Jews, the Jewish God messes with his mind and makes him reverse his decision, and so, even more tragedies befall the Egyptians because Jews still remain in Egypt. So, even though Jews have bitched and whined about how gentiles have too often scapegoated Jews for all the problems, the Jewish narrative often made the same argument but with a twist: because God favors Jews, He shall bring forth all sorts of horrors on people who mistreat Jews or whom Jews don’t like. Jewish attitude went something like, "Yes, our presence among you goyim will lead to your miserable downfall, so we are indeed to ‘blame’, but God favors us and it’s His will, so eff you.")
Even though Nazis offered a ‘scientistic’ argument for biological antisemitism, much of their world-view and agenda had more to do with aesthetic cultism and prejudices. But then, Karl Marx also viewed Jews as a special evil who were especially adept at capitalism — and therefore were master-exploiters of mankind — , but he found greater evil in Money, for it was Money that provided Jews with the golden opportunity to exercise their greed and venality; so, get rid of money, and you’ll get rid of Jewish wickedness since Jews would no longer have the means with which to exploit mankind. Because Marx focused on Money as the main evil, one could argue he wasn’t a biological anti-Semite, but it still doesn’t answer why Jews, more than any other people, were so given to abusing the power of Money to exploit mankind. Indeed, if we consider the logical premise of Marx’s argument, we would have to assume Jews are genetically predisposed toward exploiting mankind; after all, if the problem is the Jewish CULTURE of money and profiteering, that part of the Jew could be gotten rid of by eradicating Jewish culture and forcing all Jews to become gentile in every way possible, i.e. if Jewish culture makes Jews more greedy, then get rid of Jewish culture/identity. But since Marx implies that isn’t enough, one is left to assume that the real culprit is Jewish genetics. Marx’s argument is like saying alcohol should be eradicated from this earth as the only means to stop the Irish from becoming drunken Irish; but, if Irishness is the problem behind drunkenness, why not just get rid of Irishness and Irish culture? The argument that alcohol itself must be eradicated from the world to sober up the Irish means that even when the Irish are erased of their Irish culture, they’re still afflicted with Irish genes that will go for the. (Marx, as a power-hungry thinker who wanted to change the world, was obsessed with the materiality of power since he was painfully aware of the truth that it was impossible to get one’s ideas across without control of materiality. After all, no matter how true or right one’s ideas might be, one cannot write without pen and paper. And even if one had the pen and paper, one’s writings would not be known unless they were published as articles, pamphlets, and books. So, those who controlled the industries of printing, media, transportation, and retail controlled the availability and accessibility of ideas. It didn’t matter if thinker A was full of truth and thinker B was full of shit. If those who controlled the materiality refused to print the books of thinker A while printing tons of books of thinker B, then thinker B will win out — consider the spectacular success of Stephen J. Gould as America’s favorite scribe on genetics and evolution for several decades all because Liberals and Jews controlled the media, academia, and publishing. Marx considered himself the A-est thinker of all time but felt ignored and suppressed by the materiality of ideas controlled by anti-communist bourgeois capitalists. Marx understood that the materiality of power had always been in the hands of a few, but he especially hated capitalists because of their brazenness of power. Kings were oppressive, but they believed in the Divine Right of Kings. Noblemen could be a bunch of pompous parasites, but their concept of power was associated with bloodlines and legacy. In contrasts, power in capitalism was all about cutthroat competition for money as the main means of raw power; the brazen materiality of capitalism had stripped bare the true nature of power, and in some ways, capitalism was to be lauded for this stark exposé of how history really worked, but it was also to be hated most among all systems because it was so naked in its greed and aggression; capitalism destroyed the essentialist ‘innocence’ of power for it competed for power without appeals to God, kings, honor, chivalry, glory, and higher principles; it lost the specious ‘innocence’ but in its place was the ‘greed’ for profits — this is why a lot of people are turned off by libertarianism, which, despite or precisely because of its honesty, comes across like capitalism-as-shameless-pornography. Of course, capitalism during Marx’s era wasn’t libertarian in the way we mean it today; it was true enough that while the traditional capitalist bourgeoisie had little use for the traditional ‘innocence’ of power wrapped in ‘higher principles’, they were not without class pretensions[such as putting on aristocratic airs and even buying aristocratic titles] while others adopted intellectual rationales — such as the idea of Social Darwinism or utilitarianism — to justify the new economic order that they found so advantageous. Of course, capitalists could justify their wealth on the basis of hard work and meritocracy, but it was still about businessmen vying for more opportunities to make more money. And unlike kings and noblemen who could be satisfied with their apportioned share of power and privilege, capitalists sought more profits, more wealth, more control, more markets, more everything; capitalism could never be satiated with the concept of ‘enough’. And yet, Marx’s revulsion was mixed with admiration for, wittingly or unwittingly, capitalists had finally bared naked the true nature of power. Prior to capitalism, as power had been draped in religions, bloodlines, heritage, and etc., power had been ‘sacralized’. Kings were thought to be regal, wars were thought to be for the glory of God, and noblemen were thought to belong to a higher breed devoted to arts, culture, and beauty. But capitalism was far more brazen and forthright in its objectives, which were more profits, more wealth, more markets, more control, more raw naked power. [And yet, capitalists of the 19th century and early 20th century could also be many times more pretentious than the aristocrats due to their cultural insecurity. Whereas even an aristocrat down on his luck could invoke the line of his illustrious forebears, even the richest capitalists often had ‘humble’ ancestors who were cobblers, millers, or peddlers; and therefore, to prove their worth, the newly rich bourgeois would go out of their way to show how ‘cultured’ they were.] Of course, capitalism associated itself with liberty and freedom, but as Marx saw it, what was called ‘democracy’ really amounted to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie since they owned and controlled the real/practical material levers of power. Liberty and freedom were abstractions unless one had the material power to put them to use. Since those who owned more could use their freedom and liberty more forcefully, the freedom-and-liberty of the rich effectively oppressed the freedom-and-liberty of the masses who had little or nothing. It’s like we have rights and the likes of George Soros have rights, but their rights with the backing of billion of dollars crush our rights. We have freedom to speak but don’t have the means to be heard ,whereas the likes of Soros not only have the freedom to speak but to buy up other speakers and to control the means through which ideas are heard. So, the official truth was less about the power of every individual to think-and-see the truth than about the power of materiality[owned by a few] to promote certain ideas, images, and idols[such as Stephen J. Gould] over others. As a major owner of the newspapers, Charles Foster Kane blurts out that people will think "what I tell them to think!" in Orson Welles’ film. [Needless to say, Marx wasn’t so much interested in freedom and liberty as in what was correct and true, according to his irrefutable wisdom, of course. In some ways, he might have been a happier man if he’d lived under a totally oppressive order than under a capitalist order that offered much liberty and freedom but insufficient instant power for the likes of him to change the world. If he’d lived under a truly tyrannical order, he would have at least appreciated the consistency in the power and the principle for tyranny is about might-is-right. An oppressive order oppresses and that’s that, and there’s nothing more to be said or done about it. In contrast, the capitalist West offered enough freedom and liberty for people like Marx to read and write books, move around, organize dissent, and etc. Marx lived in a society that was freer than any that had ever existed, and this owed to capitalism. And yet, to have all that freedom but not to be denied the power to change the world made Marx a very bitter man. It was like giving a dog a taste of meat without letting it eat the whole thing; the dog would be better off without any knowledge of the steak or with the full serving of the steak, but it’d be frustrated if it was given the taste of the steak without the full serving of the steak. The world of Marx said, ‘you got the freedom but not the power’. To have the power, one had to succeed in business, but Marx was the prophetic/intellectual type and didn’t want to work at business that was deemed beneath his dignity. And yet, he didn’t want to appear solipsist and self-centered either, so his ideas were about the world and humanity. This way, he could have the cake and eat it too. He could be a man of purity of mind who refused to engage practically with the corrupting world that befouled everyone who came in economic contact with it. So, instead of changing himself for the world, the world had to be changed to be worthy of his exalted self to take part in on the practical level. As long as the world didn’t conform to his ideals, he had to remain impractical to maintain his purity of mind. He didn’t want to engage in business because it was ‘exploitative’, and he didn’t want to be a worker because he would be exploited by the business class. He was too good for the world, so the world had to be changed for him to find a meaningful place in it. It’s like in Christianity where Jesus would return only when the world was finally ripened and ready for His return but not before that. Like St. Paul’s place in the Roman Empire, Karl Marx’s place in the British Empire — where he sought refuge in the final stage of his life — was an ambiguous one. The capitalist empire of the Anglos provided the legal protections, myriad freedoms, wide access to knowledge, and other amenities that made it possible for Marx to work on his research and theories, but Marx’s ultimate goal was to destroy the Anglo-capitalist system, just like St. Paul’s ultimate goal was to wage war on the pagan cultures of the Roman Empire that provided him with the citizenship that afforded him many advantages, rights, and freedoms to travel around, proselytize, and escape punishment of locals, Jews and pagans alike. Both St. Paul and Marx, even as beneficiaries of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the great world empires, ultimately preferred moral-spiritual rightness over legal rights. They were like Jewish-American radicals who invoked Constitutional rights, freedom, liberty, and due process but only insofar as such legalities provided them with necessary protections that would allow them to spread their ideas and agendas that would ultimately and effectively vanquish the rights and freedoms of everyone else but themselves and their subservient allies. This the true meaning of an idea like ‘hate speech is not free speech’, which really means ‘only speech that aids and abets Jewish supremacism is free speech.’ As homos are the main allies of Jews, Jews have changed laws all over the country to destroy anyone who dares to say anything critical about homosexuality or the homo agenda. When Roman pagans ruled the Empire, they ensured the right of each community to worship its own gods and maintain its own culture. And such guarantee allowed Christians to worship their own Faith. But unlike other cultures, Christians were into spreading their faith and ultimately making their faith the only faith and destroying/suppressing all other religions and faiths. This powerful and intolerant aspect of Christianity was reflected among the Jews themselves who, unlike most pagan subjects under the Romans, sought to repel the Romans entirely and led a massive rebellion that forced Romans’ hand to sack all of Jerusalem. It wasn’t enough for Jews of Jerusalem to be allowed to worship their own God in their own way. As long as Romans ruled over Palestine/Israel, even devout Jews had to respect the rights of Roman citizens and Roman laws. So, if Jews insisted that someone should be killed under Mosaic Law, the Jewish demand could be thwarted by the power of Roman law, which is why Jews had to plead with Roman authorities to have Jesus killed. Jewish rebellion against the Romans was like fanatical Muslim rebellion against secular rule — domestic or foreign — that protected people from Sharia Law. For Jews, everything had to be Jewish in Jerusalem, and for Christians, everything had to be Christian in all of the Roman Empire. Radicals will use Rule of Law as protection for their necessary freedoms on their road to power, but once they have the power, they will distort the meaning of law and freedom so that only their agenda will be associated with ‘truth’ and ‘freedom’ whereas all other ideas are to be fumigated as mental germs. Radicalism is essentially an exterminator of all ideas except its own. In current Europe, Jews have perverted freedom of speech so that anyone who dares to speak truth to Jewish power will be destroyed through fines, imprisonment, demotion, firing, and blacklisting. The recent Rotherham Rape Scandal was made possible by Jewish-enforced PC that reduced British officials into cowards so afraid of harboring ideas and noticing things that went against the Official Truth. Ironically enough, the British elites succeeded in restoring their own class privilege by invoking ‘diversity’ and ‘anti-racism’. Prior to a racially diverse Britain, the upper classes had been pushed against the ropes by the rage of the working classes that had the moral upper-hand in the new social order. According to ‘progressive’ rules of class warfare, it was about time for the British working classes to rise up and strike out at the snobby and snooty upper-classes that had enjoyed privilege for too long at the expense of the People. When it was a matter of rich whites and poor whites, the former was at a moral disadvantage. But as UK began to fill up with the ‘darkies’, the upper classes began to shame the white working classes with accusations of ‘racism’, and such sneeringly fashionable moralistic attitude among the upper classes — who themselves need not worry about dealing with the worst elements of the immigrant communities since they themselves lived in posh neighborhoods and sent their own kids to good schools — handed them the Ace card in the morality poker game, and so, as things stand today, it’s the white working classes who cower in shame whenever some upper class British types turn up their noses at them and sneer of ‘racism’. ] And yet, Marx and even to a greater extent, Lenin and Trotsky, understood the vulnerability of the bourgeoisie. As the bourgeoisie were ‘crassly’ involved with profits, they sought respectability through association with the arts, culture, and knowledge. Thus, they were prone to patronize even subversive and dangerous figures as long as such figures were thought to exhibit genius, vision, originality, intellectualism, and etc. Also, capitalism is about capitalists competing with other capitalists, and each side seeks to attract and win the best talents to its side. And this cult of the ‘best’/‘most innovative’ can favor even the ‘best’ who might be subversive and anti-capitalist. [Besides, there’s a revolutionary and subversive element to capitalism itself that constantly seeks to remake the world with new products, new machines, new tastes, new fashions, etc.] And this aspect of capitalism gave an opening to the Mind to take on the sheer power of Materiality. Indeed, the spread of Marxism in the West had something to do with the very nature of capitalism. Though Marx was clearly anti-capitalist, many intelligent bourgeois folks found his ideas to be original, brilliant, and genius. Even against their own class interests, they felt compelled to consider and even spread his ideas out of their cultish devotion to the ‘best’. It’s like how white Americans came around to supporting black athletes — even though doing so would undermine white power and interests — out of their meritocratic commitment to ‘may the Best Man win’. In a communist society, the main cult is not about the ‘best’ but about the ‘just’. So, if an idea, no matter how brilliant or original, is deemed to be ‘unjust’, communists will repress it. But in a competitive capitalist nation, there is a cultish worship of whatever is considered to be the ‘best’. It can be in sports, science, arts, music, pop culture, and etc. And this is why so many brilliant & original Jews rapidly rose in the capitalist order. Even gentiles who didn’t particularly like Jews and their ideas dazzled and impressed by Jewish intelligence, brilliance, wit, and depth that seemed to be the ‘best’. And so, gentile elites felt compelled, in the spirit of capitalist competition, to promote certain Jews despite their personal loathing or apprehensions about Jews in general. It was the very spirt of capitalism that made rooting-for-the-best a fetish, not least because capitalism ruthlessly and quickly decided the winners based on which side had more of the ‘best’. In pre-capitalist times, even a civilization without the best could continue with its domination for many centuries, but capitalism knocked down all barriers around the world, and winners were decided by which nation could innovate most, produce the most, and build the biggest/best guns. Jews know this is how they gained the power, so they’re very nervous about how the ‘best’ in the future might turn out to be anti-Jewish. Supposing everything was promoted and prized on the value of its best-ness, what if a whole bunch of ‘best’ stuff in the future turns out to be anti-Jewish? Won’t Jews fall in the future like the Anglo elites fell before the better-ness of the Jews? [Some Wasps saw the dangers, but even they were too enthralled with Jewish best-ness to do much about it; and especially their children fell under the sway of Jews who were deemed to be best at everything in the New World Order. So, both on the Liberal and Conservative side, most of American intellectual life is about gentiles dutifully taking notes as they listen to the ‘best’ ideas of the Jews. Whatever the subject — US, Russia, race problems, Iran, China, Israel, homosexuality, and etc. — most people just shut up and listen to Jewish experts for the answers and advice.] And yet, in order for Jews to keep the power, they must hire and recruit the ‘best’ to their side. In science, arts, culture, music, and etc., capitalists compete to hire the ‘best’: most original, more intelligent, most popular, strongest & fastest, sexiest, and etc. Jews want to hire the best, but they also want to ensure that the ‘best’ will never be ‘antisemitic’. And so, Jews use powerful taboos that punish anyone who dares to deviate from Jewish-controlled PC. Jews say, "we welcome your ‘best’ talent, but there’s no place for antisemitism because it’s the greatest of sins." In contrast, Wasps never said the ‘best’ had to be pro-Waspic, and that proved to be an Achilles Heel that provided an opening for hostile Jews with ‘best’ talent aiming to bring down Wasp power.) Of course, one could make a cultural argument for Jewish success in business/capitalism — that Jews have had a long history as merchants — , but then, one could also argue that Jewish savvy for business is rooted in their higher IQ and pushy-haggly personalities. In our world, Jews have made ‘white people’, especially white conservatives, the most demonic force in the world — indeed, so evil, foul, odious, noxious, rabid, virulent, ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, and ‘xenophobic’ that all Jews, homos, non-whites, and ‘good progressive Liberal whites’(who’ve been castrated by PC), should join together in the great war. For Jews, the War against Whites is no less a racial war than the Zionist War against Palestinians. Jews see no room for compromise; they must win totally. Jewish attitude today is very much like that of Bolshevik Jews who regarded the Russian Revolution in absolutist terms, i.e. they had to win totally and there was no other option. Under the Czars, Russia was repressive, but the ruling class had been willing to allow some measure of dissent, and even exiled/imprisoned subversives were afforded certain rights and freedoms — and their sentences were often lenient. In contrast, the Bolshevik Jews sought to stamp out every vestige of the old system in order to grab all the power for themselves; even today, Jews supremacists feel much the same in both Russia and the US. Though Jews have done fabulously well under Putin, who admires Stolypin who’d sought to balance the forces before he was assassinated, Jews see Putin as standing in their total takeover of Russia, and that is simply unacceptable to Jews. Similarly, it doesn’t matter that most white Americans are worthless running dogs of Jews. Jews must change everything about America so that whites are totally defeated forever physically, sexually, culturally, morally, and demographically. It is a Jewish War on the White Race, but most white people are too dumb and/or brainwashed to see it. It doesn’t matter that white American conservatives are, like Vladimir Putin, very supportive of Israel and the Jews. Jews will continue to steer the media and academia toward making non-whites hate whites and making whites hate themselves — though Jews do encourage whites to hate Muslims once in awhile since it’s in Jewish-Zionist interest for white Americans to have negative feelings toward all those ‘Muzzies’ who are seen as enemies by Zionist Israelis.
Jews are undoubtedly very powerful, but the problems of power go deeper than the evils of the elites. Angry mobs prefer to believe that the great evil is concentrated in the hands of the corrupt or oppressive leadership, as if society can be cleansed of evil by ridding itself of the tyrant and his cronies. But how many peoples have discovered upon getting rid of the ‘old boss’ that many of the same problems still remain with the ‘new boss’? And of course, people soon realize that ‘no boss’ isn’t an option since anarchy simply doesn’t work. The fall of Ceausescu in Romania and the fall of Gaddafi in Libya sure didn’t rid those nations of problems and evils; if anything, some things got considerably worse. Similarly, even though we need to confront Jewish power, we should never think the end of Jewish power is the magic pill for all our woes.

Anyway, there is the appeal to the idea of spiritually-concentrated evil because its corollary is the spiritually-concentrated goodness(attained through faith, which is universally available to every man, and unlike talent, which rare possession of geniuses)that may see us through against evil. It’s like Perceval finally completes the Quest and finds the Holy Grail through his power of faith and the sacred knowledge that the King and the Land are One. And at the end of EXCALIBUR, even though Mordred has more men, Arthur and his men win the battle because Merlin returned in the world of dreams and used magic to help them. In this way, even though superstitions seem awful stupid to modern people(and were often debilitating by filling people’s hearts and minds with fears, phobias, and anxieties during, say, the Middle Ages), they also had a kind of empowering element for they imbued even the most ignorant fool with the sense that he could call on some spirit or magic to fend off the horrors of the world. And of course, such fears and anxieties also had entertainment value since they took one’s mind off the dreariness of the world. Indeed, extreme isolation and boredom(along with starvation and other deprivations) often made people hallucinate, and even though hallucinations might be rife with terrifying visions of demons, ghouls, and witches, they could also be ‘entertaining’ because a horror-movie-life was more compelling than a static-art-film-life.

In sense way, even medicine — though the great nemesis of superstitions — had a kind of horror element. The idealistic side of medicine has the men of medicine finding cures to heal people. But the ‘entertainment’ or ‘horroristic’ side of medicine derives from the fact that medicine men seek out all sorts of hideous, gross, ghastly, and monstrous diseases to heal. Such fascination with the horrors of life motivates doctors to put on the masks and gloves and go to work to cure the world of monstrousness, and some doctors seem to get a kick out of it. This is especially true of medical examiners(if they can be considered as doctors); consider the oddball autopsy-guy in GRIZZLY MAN by Werner Herzog. So, the resort to electric shocks/jolts in the previously-mentioned experiment(that purportedly ‘proved’ that people prefer to shock themselves than think) wasn’t necessarily anti-thought on the part of the participants but a conduit for focusing their minds on some stimuli, as the human mind wants to be occupied with specific things, such as the main theme, the main character, the main cause, the main passion, the main agenda, the main objective, the main fear, the main love, etc. After all, when we watch a movie, we focus our attention to that which provokes or overwhelms our senses. In any given scene in TWILIGHT, we are not looking at all the details in every corner of the frame but focusing on the main characters and what they’re saying/doing. And editing in movies often works like jolts to our perception that the focus of attention has made a shift to another character, time, place, or situation. It’s impossible for us to think openly about everything. Some people who are into meditation might claim to be able to do such, but then, meditation is more about emptying the mind than filling the mind(or, it’s about emptying the mind of mundane reality & egotistical fantasies/emotions and filling it with cosmic truth). And the way we consume world news via TV or the internet — clicks of the mouse serve a function not unlike jolts of electricity — is as much about taking our minds off the world as about paying attention to and thinking about the big wide world. There are so many media outlets that claim to give us the ‘news from the world’ or ‘world news’ or ‘world report’, and etc. but what they’re really doing is prodding us with choice jolts of world events to keep our attention. So, BBC New will have categories such as ‘Europe’, ‘Asia’, ‘Africa’, ‘Middle East’, ‘Latin America’, and etc, but of course, it’s impossible to report all the countless things that are happening in those places. So, the news outlets pick and choose what they deem to be most jolt-worthy among all the events and incidents around world, but unless it’s something like 9/11, how could we be sure that a particular story is really more newsworthy than other things happening in the same region? (Consider the Western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis. While exaggerated claims have been made about Russian ‘invasion’ of Ukraine, the horrific burning-alive of Ukrainian separatists in a building was hardly covered in the totally Jewish-controlled Western media — despite the fact that the horror was reminiscent of what Nazis did to partisans during World War II. So, the news we get about Ukraine consists of jolts chosen by the Jewish elites that are meant to prod us into thinking very narrowly about the crisis.) Even 9/11, horrific as it was, was far less destructive than many other bloodbaths happening all over the world around that period. So, the notion of ‘world news’ and the conceit of ‘thinking about the world’ are misconceptions. Much of what is called World New is less about making us really think about the world as about Jews administering electronic-jolts on us to ‘think’ only about certain things that will favor the Jewish Narrative of history and the world. It is then no wonder that even most Americans who do pay attention to world affairs have really only been jolted and prodded in ways that render them increasingly more slavish to the Jews. Indeed, most of American World News is little more than "We like such-and-such nation because it’s good to Jews" and "We hate such-and-such nation because homos are pissed with it."
MIST by Stephen King & Frank Darabont
(THE MIST directed by Frank Darabont from Stephen King’s novella is an interesting take on the appall-appeal of horror. Personally, horror has never been one of my favorite genres though admittedly a handful of horror films have fascinated me for a long time. Most horror movies are pretty bad, and when horror fails, it fails miserably since it is by nature strong stuff; if a drama or western is stale and ordinary, you can still watch it for the story and, at the very least, not be offended, but when horror fails, it rots, reeks, and stinks to low hell. Same goes for comedy because it is also designed to elicit intense responses from the audience; failed joke is like flat champagne. Bad drama or western is like manure; it smells but is tolerable; but a bad work of horror is a like a pile of cat shit that’ll drive you crazy. Anyway, THE MIST provides useful lessons as to the essence of horror and why some horror stories work while others don’t. It’s all the more interesting because much of the action and violence in THE MIST is on the stupid side if we were to remove the context. It’s mostly about giant squids, insects, crabs, insane-looking prehistoric birds, and other such creatures attacking a bunch of humans holding out in a food mart in some small town community. Though the action and violence are pretty well done, the audience is likely to feel they’ve seen such ludicrous stuff before — in so many dumb monster movies. Indeed, when I saw the first monster, my eyes were rolling. In some movies, the craziness of phenomenon is original and inventive enough to work on its own terms — like the morphing creature from outer-space in THE THING by John Carpenter, though to be sure, Carpenter brilliantly loaded it with psychological dimensions that made it all the more interesting, suspenseful, and horrifying; it was like DAWN OF THE DEAD meets INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. And yet, instead of wallowing in the cliches of ‘crazy phenomenon’, THE MIST mainly dwells on the characters — their individual psyches, philosophical rationalizations, coping strategies, and group dynamics — and uses their contrasting responses to accentuate the colorful but troublesome[and even disturbing] range of personalities, psychologies, and sociologies of man. Granted, this TWILIGHT-ZONE-ish concept isn’t anything new — Alfred Hitchcock managed it especially brilliantly in THE BIRDS, which otherwise would have been a ridiculous story about birds attacking people for no reason[yet, if the birds in Hitchcock’s film have metaphorical meaning, the same cannot be said for the creatures in THE MIST even though the mist itself does gain such significance] — , but THE MIST does it with more conviction and inspiration than is usually found in such movies. A common feature of horror movies has a select number of individuals being privy to some disturbing phenomenon and earnestly trying to relay the incredible truth to other people, but, as is the usually the case, the other people refuse to believe[until it’s ‘too late’] and are thus made to look foolish in our eyes for their lack of faith in the startling narrative in favor of their adamant rooted-ness in rational reality. This is one of interesting psychological tricks of how horror works. [As the saying goes, ‘seeing is believing’. The power of sight is such that even though our brains know perfectly well that everything we see in the movies is fake, it seems all-too-believable within the context of the narrative because our eyes have seen it. Absurd made visible renders the rational risible. We may simply dismiss our psycho-emotional responses to movies as ‘suspension of disbelief’, i.e. we’re just playing along and having some fun, and yet, our responses are sometimes so powerful that, on some level, we’ve been made to root for faith in the ‘new real’; play becomes pray. We feel the same kind of powerfully righteous emotion in defense of the ‘new real’ — in the movie — as we do in reality in defense of the real-real. If someone told crazy tales in real-reality, we would think him mad and feel hostility toward him in our commitment to what we know to be reality. Yet, in the realm of movies, we feel the same kind of emotion except inside-out, siding with the apparently crazy characters who are privy to the ‘new real’ while feeling impatience and even contempt for other characters who remain so grounded in the real-real that they either refuse to accept what is happening or become utterly paralyzed by their inability to process what is happening. The truly disturbing thing is that such a psychological reversal — where the irrational becomes the ‘new rational’ — isn’t limited to movies or fiction; we see it all around in religions, cults like Scientology, ideologies, and celebrity culture. Through various means of manipulation — often of sensory nature — , a lot of people can be made to believe in the ‘new real’.] If in real life, some people said they saw alien creatures or vampires, there’s nothing in the world that would convince most of us, and we would be right of course; the people sounding the alarm would either be pranksters, lunatics, or idiots. But in the horror world, we come to believe and come to disdain the rational non-believers as dumb idiots who simply refuse to open their eyes. THE MIST bypasses this emotional cliche of horror and gives credence to the non-believers who insist on remaining true to their sense of normality. A black guy is especially adamant about not falling for what he considers to be ‘horseshit’. There’s a racial dimension to be sure. Because of his ‘victim consciousness’ as a black man, he’s less likely to believe a white person, especially a group of white people whom he considers to be ganging up on him like a clan, if not the Klan. The Negro is neither hero nor villain but an interesting character and a refreshing change from the mountain-sized Negro who wuvs a wittle white mouse in Darabont’s other King adaptation, THE GREEN MILE — as well as from the Magic Negro played by Morgan Freeman in THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. The black guy in THE MIST is something of a prick, but he’s a man of pride, and he won’t let a bunch of white folks fool him with some ‘hick’ story about ‘tentacles’. He won’t believe anything unless he sees it with his own eyes. In a way, one could argue that his mind has been clouded and misted by a sense of historical racial victim-hood, Negro male pride, and self-righteousness. It’s not just a matter of rationality and skepticism when he refuses to take the white witnesses seriously. He thinks he’s only being sane and sensible, but he’s also motivated by racial touchiness, paranoia, and pride. His conceit of rationality is clouded by his own personal and social issues — and so, he walks out into the mist to almost certain death, though we are not shown what really happens to him and those who accompany him. Even so, he isn’t featured as a fool for not believing. Even though we know better — because our own very eyes have been made privy to what the white characters saw — , if we’d been told of an attack by giant ‘tentacles’ in the real world, we would never believe it and would react much like the black guy. [THE MIST forgoes the easy route of showing the black guy to be an unbelieving fool. Because of his powerful sense of individuality and self-dignity — flawed as it is — , he retains legitimacy as a thinking character.] So, even though THE MIST is a genre horror movie set in its own fictional universe, a sense of reality and realism pervades the story more than in most movies of its kind. Though eventually everyone is made to believe in the veracity of the horror, a sense of psychological reality[that rejects the ‘new real’ in favor of the real-real] is allowed its stubborn legitimacy as long as it can hold out. Ironically, even though the crazy Christian woman comes closest to being the villain, what the movie does to us isn’t all that different from what the woman does to the people in the food mart. She makes a whole bunch of them believe in the presence of a violent, vengeful, and judgmental ‘God of the Israelites’ even though there’s no actual evidence of such a being. But then, there are no giant alien creatures from parallel universes either, but THE MIST and countless other horror movies make us suspend our disbelief and visually/emotionally respond to them as if they’re real. In a way, every horror writer and director does what the crazy Christian woman does in THE MIST. They scare us into believing. And one suspects that as much as Stephen King and Frank Darabont despise such loony religious people, in some grudging way they are aware that they too play the same kind of mind-trick on their audience. They use fright, intimidation, and moral blackmail to manipulate us into submitting to their views of mankind and morality. Even though we don’t literally believe in the things that happen in a King novel or movie, we allow ourselves to suspend our sense of rationality & reality and submit to the masterful machinations of the ‘master of horror’ — personally, I never read a King novel, and the only King adaptations I like are THE SHINING, CARRIE, and THE MIST[and maybe THE DEAD ZONE]. On some level, it could be King dislikes crazy Christian people not only because they’re so irrational but because they compete with him as purveyors of irrational fears to grab the audience, scare them out of their wits, manipulate them when they’re most vulnerable, and rake in lots of money. Indeed, at one point in the movie, one of the men becomes so scared out of his wits that he too begins to believe in the crazy Christian woman. He feels so disoriented and helpless that he wants someone/something ‘strong’ to cling to, and it just so happens that the crazy Christian woman possesses the most powerful conviction as to why what is happening is happening. [In some odd way, we can also understand the appeal of the religiously fanatical mother in CARRIE. Though bat-shit crazy, she has unwavering conviction in her blend of sin-hating Christianity and man-hating feminism, and her view of mankind is validated when the secular-material girls at school do something terrible to Carrie, who, having learned her lesson, returns to her mother’s home that, miserable as it is, serves as a safe haven from the nastiness of the world. Carrie is caught between material craziness and spiritual craziness, opposites but alike in their vanities, one obsessed with looking right and the other obsessed with feeling right.] To be sure, what balances out a Stephen King work — based on the little I know — is his attempt to balance the rational and the irrational, the human and the monstrous, the individual and the social. Everything has pitfalls but also advantages. The irrational can drive people insane and make them believe crazy stuff, but it can also make people humble and thoughtful before the great unknown. Rationalism is indispensable but can lead to hubris of knowing everything and excessively trusting our power of senses, reason, memory, and erudition. After all, a pure rationalist living in the 19th century could only have been ‘sure’ about reality with knowledge available only heretofore; he would have known nothing of all the truths in so many fields that came to light in the 20th century. In consideration of all the profound discoveries that emerged in the 20th century, it would have been foolish for a 19th century rationalist to entertain the conceit of being a know-it-all. For a long time, we were told that eggs and butter are killers according to ‘nutritional science’, but new studies are showing that may not be the case. And what do we really know about the dangers of global warming based on very limited data gathered from computers? Besides, computers can only predict the future based on input of known and available data, but there’s still so much about the climate and related factors that we don’t know and therefore haven’t fed into the computers. On the subject of beauty and truth, we are partial to the notion of ‘man as the measure of all things’. We like to believe that we are wondrous whereas the non-human tends toward the monstrous. So, what is threatening to us is regarded as monstrous, and what is good for us is considered to be good. Using this logic, much of nature should be monstrous and wicked. And some of the most popular movies have been about monstrous nature attacking humans: JAWS for example. However, even though the creatures that attack humans in THE MIST seem ghastly, aren’t they merely strange wild creatures doing what all life-forms do? Devour and eat? In order to feed ourselves and our dogs/cats, we also rely on mass-killing of ‘innocent’ animals — such as cows, pigs, chickens, lambs, etc. — so that we can live and enjoy ourselves. So, aren’t humans also monstrous? THE MIST takes place in a food store, and all food-stuff was made by killing other life-forms. To cows-pigs-ducks, we probably look like a bunch of evil Nazi-Khmer-Rouge-Idi-Amin-alien-killers. So, what is really monstrous and what is really human? And what is the difference between beauty and monstrousness in nature — in our dimension and in other dimensions? From afar, a mountain range might seem beautiful to our eyes, but what is happening inside the forests? It’s about millions of creatures monstrously attacking and devouring one another. And yet, we ignore all that since it doesn’t affect us. We find nature monstrous only when dangerous creature roaming the woods pounce on us. But minus such creatures — tigers, wolves, bears, cougars, jaguars, leopards, etc. — we stroll through the woods as if it’s paradise when it’s a still a world of horrors where all sorts of animals are devouring one another. So, beauty and monstrousness are not necessarily opposites, an intimation suggested near the end of THE MIST when we see a giant monster lumber past a car; the mega-monster looks horrifying but also awesome and magnificent. And indeed, even though the military that finally arrives to reclaim the world from monsters seem like saviors/good guys, to the creatures of the mist the human forces are the invasive monsters, the ruthless destroyers of life; indeed, one could say humans are worse because whereas forces of nature live in some kind of ecological balance where every creature is, one way or another, devoured in turn by other creatures, humans have created a world where they live off nature but nature isn’t allowed to live off them; such mastery over nature has required the total destruction of all ‘dangerous’ creatures in the proximity of human habitation; in a way, one could say modern man has a need for monster/horror stories because he has vanquished so much natural ‘horror’ from the world; primitive folks don’t need horror stories[at least those that exist apart from reality] since they are surrounded by natural horrors all around and lack a clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural; indeed, as Colonel Kurtz says in APOCALYPSE NOW, primitive folks live in a world where they’ve made a ‘friend of horror’, and indeed to them, it’s not so much ‘horrible’ as just ‘natural’. But modern man has formulated what is ‘human’ and what is ‘natural’, and in doing so, has designated all that is dangerous to humans as ‘horrible’, and in doing so, much of nature that is natural has been rendered into something ‘horrible’ or horror-like’. Anyway, in THE MIST, there’s also the issue of individuality and sociality. We like to believe in the power of the individual to guard his personal identity/pride and think on his own terms. In contrast, the people who are flocking around the crazy Christian woman seems to have surrendered/lost their sense of individuality and intellectual autonomy. But then, in THE SHINING, it is a character’s intense power of individuality that drives him to madness via parasitism by darker spirits that work on his subconscious. Paradoxically, a man’s attempt to be totally independent may make him a prisoner of the ‘spirits’. Man is, by nature, a social creature and was meant to live and work in cooperation and compromise with other people. Every person needs to safeguard his individuality, but individuality left to grow of its own accord can become delusional and cancerous. As social nature remains even in isolated individuals, they too develop a need for company; but since, he’d removed himself from community, he begins to hallucinate imaginary figures, ‘spirits’, and mega-visions that take hold of him, as happens to Jack Torrance in THE SHINING. Though such imaginary ‘spirits’ emanate from within him, they are not really him for they undermine the equilibrium of identity; without equilibrium, identity can feel utterly insignificant like an ant or totally significant like a god. You can see this in isolated crazy people who talk to themselves — like the nutty old lady character in a restaurant in MIDNIGHT COWBOY. Instead of their sense of individuality remaining intact, it breaks down since their need of ‘company’ craves for someone ‘to relate to’. So, in a way, most of what happens in THE SHINING could be said to happen inside Jack Torrance’s head, but as his self is splitting into selves — somewhat like what happens to Norman Bates in PSYCHO — , he is losing control of himself even though he believes his isolation is finally allowing him to discover his true self and nothing but. [Identity is like a billiard ball. It exists in relation to other billiard balls. Other billiard balls lend it meaning through play; they also serve as reminders, as reality checks, that a billiard ball must find its meaning in relation to other balls. So, even as other balls obstruct its path, they also lend significance to its movement as cooperative advantages or competitive disadvantages in the game. If the pool table is too small or if it’s too crowded with an excess of balls, individuality of the ball suffers. Jack Torrance in THE SHINING feels like a billiard ball with no freedom movement. He finally feels free when he’s driving up to the Overlook Hotel. It’s like he’s entering the realm of the gods with grand vistas and wide open spaces. He wants to roll freely, bounce around happily, like the tennis ball he tosses against the wall of the hotel. He’s finally alone to do as he pleases. He has the hotel all to himself. But the hotel, of course, doesn’t belong to him. His individuality and freedom are illusions. The hotel serves as a metaphor for the falsehood of freedom that we think we possess when removed from the pressures of society, the bumps of other billiard balls. By ourselves in our own world, we feel we can move freely — physically and/or psychologically — in any direction, but human movement, be it intellectual/spiritual or spatial/exploratory, is meaningless unless it bumps with and interacts with other humans and their endeavors. Also, even if we were overcome our intellectual/emotional dependence on others, our mental and ‘spiritual’ freedom eventually bump against the limits of our capacity to discover, know, and understand. It’s like the tennis ball flies around freely through wide spaces but always hits the wall and bounces back to Torrance again and again. No mind is infinite. And yet, because the sobering reality checks of other balls are gone, a lone ball may fall under the delusion that it is not only the only ball in a particular place but the only ball in the whole universe — or is itself the universe. It is no wonder that some of the most megalomaniacal ideas arose when individuals went off on their own to ponder the meaning of themselves and the cosmos. Not infrequently, they — Siddhartha, Jesus, and Muhammad — came to conflate their own minds/souls as the very essence of truth of being, the cosmos, or God. And there is some of that happening with Torrance. Consider the scene where he gazes down on the model of the garden maze. A person would be lost in the maze, but Torrance, as if with the eyes of god, looks down on the model that morphs into the maze itself; Torrance is losing the distinction between the model of reality and reality itself; the idea/representation itself is becoming the reality and vice versa. He is still man but feels as a god. Of course, at the end, he dies as a man lost in the maze, learning that hard way that man, despite all his delusions, can never be god.] Of course, there’s also the danger of extreme sociality, of which there are two kinds: the ultra-rigid and ultra-malleable. The ultra-rigid sociability is the kind where a person joins one kind of community — ideological, religious, social, cultural — and totally gives his or her entire being to its values and dogmas. The members of the Heaven’s Gate cult were like this. To a lesser degree — but also troubling — are the sort of people who surrender their individualities to the ‘church’ of Scientology. Scientology cleverly ‘steals’ a person’s individuality by stoking the vanity of the individual ego, i.e. by joining the ‘church’ and submitting to the process of ‘auditing’, the individual will gain his true identity as a kind of sci-fi Nietzschean god-man. Paradoxically, one of the most effective way to turn someone into a slave is to make him believe he is a god. Indeed, this is the appeal of so many superhero movies: all those silly young boys wasting time and money fantasizing that they are cool and badass like Superman, Batman, Spiderman, or whatever; they’ve been turned into slaves of fantasy. [But then, the slavery of fantasy can be empowering too as proven by the resilience of so many religions throughout the ages. The Jewish Covenant with God is a kind of liberation and enslavement. As servants of God with snipped-off puds, they also feel as the favored of God imbued with great hope and confidence. In the case of Jews, it was a case of finding power through servitude to God — power through slavery — , but there’s also the case of slavery through power or the illusion of power. This is certainly the case of Tom Cruise and Scientology. Cruise is clearly a bitch of the cunning bastards that run Scientology, but he’s been made to feel so masterful and magnificent by his adherence to its teachings that he is blind to what the ‘church’ has really done to him. And the same sort of trickery is the key to the AIPAC universe. AIPAC works much like Scientology. It picks and grooms certain key gentiles to feel The Power as masterful warrior-defenders of the helpless and kindly Jews who are said to be hated still by ‘anti-Semites’ all over the world. Though the likes of John McCain are nothing but slaves of Jewish supremacists, they’ve been Tom-Cruised by AIPAC, i.e. made to feel that the world will go to pot and Jews everywhere will suffer horribly UNLESS they step forth to set things right. Of course, setting-things-right amounts to little more than pushing whatever agenda favored by Jews. Nevertheless, because the likes of John McCain are so shmoozed by AIPAC operatives, they see themselves as the indispensable gentile master-warriors who employ their masterfulness to save the world from evildoers such as Russians, Iranians, & Palestinians and prevent another Holocaust, not just against Jews but against homos too.] Anyway, extreme sociability need not be rigid: it can also be malleable, as with the character in Woody Allen’s ZELIG who feels this natural urge to blend into whatever community he finds himself in. If some people believe they must totally belong to a single group and none other, others feel a constant need to belong to whatever group he happens to himself in. Jews have long felt both sets of extremes: for thousand of years, they were obsessed with maintaining their unique identity and sticking with the Jewish tribe. But, as they were a nomadic people who came in contact with all sorts of peoples and specialized in business that required them to intermingle and negotiate with non-Jews, another side of Jewishness wanted to blend in with the goyim, indeed even to the point of becoming ‘more goy than goyim’, at least on the conceptual level. If Jews had only come in contact with one bunch of goyim, things might have been simpler, but in fact, over the many centuries, Jews found themselves among Italians, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Russians Muslims, Turks, Greeks, and etc. and so, Jewish identity was tempted into melding with so many Zelig-ish possibilities. In this sense, it’s not surprising that Jews, more than the Anglos, were more suited to rise to the top in America, especially as America began to lose its uniquely Anglo-flavor by design[as the American Republic was founded as a clear break from British power] and by historical development[as non-Anglo ‘ethnic’ whites rose in numbers through immigration]. If US were pure Anglo-American, Jews might have faced more difficulty in taking over elite positions because, after all, ‘Anglo-American’ identity has specific cultural meanings, limitations, and restriction. In contrast, the notion of ‘American’, especially as it developed in the 20th century, was a less clearly defined and designed notion; it was one that Jews were better prepared, mentally and culturally, to mold and shape in all sorts of Zelig-ish ways and not only for themselves but for everyone else. If America were mostly Anglo-American, Anglo-Americanism would have been established as the heart and soul of what it means to be American. But if the meaning of ‘American’ was opened up, Jews — who’d been playing funny games with identity through the centuries among goy peoples of the world — could use it like playdo to mold something that was more to their own liking and advantage, and today, nothing is as American as MLK cult, Holocaust worship, and homo celebration. [But it’s arguable that even if Anglo-Americans had been the solid majority of America, the Jewish minority would have prevailed just the same because of their stronger cultural identity. After all, Jews similarly took over Canada, Australia, and UK itself even though those nations had solid Anglo majorities. The problem with Protestantism is it’s been a purgative religion. One might even say it was a bleeding-cure religion. Protestants did to themselves what kosher Jews did to cows and sheep. Protestantism favors the purity of the idea over all else. It has no use for particularist customs, for cultural icons and idols, for passion and emotions, for natural animal drives, and etc. It wishes to purge society of everything but the idea. In Protestantism itself, the idea was about the pure and proper attitude toward God and His Truth. But Protestantism had an impact way beyond religion. Even the philosophy and culture of the Anglosphere and some Germanic nations became ‘anemic’, bloodless but for the logic and meaning of ideas. In some ways, this aided in the clarity of thought by defusing the forces of passion and prejudice, which is why Great Britain produced thinkers like John Locke, Robert Hume, and John Stuart Mill. But the downside was the lack of passion and zeal, without which a culture could become colorless and flavorless. Anglos became emotionally blank-slate-ish. It’s no wonder that the term ‘bloody’ became such a epithet among the British. Germans were Protestants too, but their relative backwardness for most of European history, their troubled/competitive proximity with other major continental powers, their powerful musical culture, and their deep reverence for nature kept alive the power of blood: blood and soil, blood and iron. In contrast, the British became fetishists for ideas and manners. British believed that ideas should be divorced from passion, and they upheld & enforced manners to the point of obsession because manners suppressed emotions, thereby creating an ideal environment for the dry exchange of ideas that had been bled of their overt emotional content. This suppression/purging of emotions also made the British experts at wit, a paradoxical mental tool that both fed on and starved emotions; use of wit was often motivated by negative emotions and hostility, but the piercing thrust negated the need for an explosive outburst. It was a way to be cutting and venomous while maintaining the composure of gentility and niceness. Protestantism was also for correctness and properness, so the British were into correct ideas and proper values, and the positive side of this was they were less likely to fall for the labyrinthine intellectualism of the Germans and the dazzling castle-in-the-air intellectualism of the French. But the downside of this adherence to correctness and properness was the all-too-snippy, snobby, and curt dismissal of whatever that wasn’t deemed ‘correct’ and ‘proper, and such an attitude undermined the possibility of depth in British thought. British thought and literature are often witty and brilliant on the surface but lacking in deeper dimensions; Richard Dawkin may be a great scientist on evolution, but when it comes to understanding human nature and people, he’s about the most limited Protestantist snob one can imagine. Anyway, this anemic-ness of Anglo-Protestant culture meant that if the traditional ideas, values, and manners were removed from the Anglo/American heart, there was almost nothing there to feel ballsy about. If you take this or that idea/ideology away from Russians, Russians will still feel Russian because being Russian is essentially a feeling, a passion; it’s about getting drunk and feeling the surge of vodka coursing through one’s veins. British like to get drunk too, but it’s just for fun. For Russians, they feel Russian-ness in the very flow of their blood. This is why Italy, Spain, and Greece, though under considerable sway of PC, are still less PC than Britain. There is a blood-ful sense of Italianness, Spanishness, and Greekness that go beyond ideas and values. Much of it has to do with FEELING Italian, Spanish, or Greek. But because Anglo-Protestant culture has been rendered so anemic, once the old ideas are gone, the culture feels empty and dry. So dry in fact that it thirsts for new ideas, and of course, Jews replaced the old ideas with the new ideas of PC, and not surprisingly, Anglo-Protestant types have been most enthusiastic in adopting them since they are people of ideas than blood. Jews, in contrast, are a people of blood and semen. Even if you were to take the ideas/ideologies from a Jew, a Jew is culturally still an obsessive, driven, and maniacal creature who revels in haggling, conniving, cheating, dick-slapping, and being nasty in so many ways. This is why Jews beat the Anglos. While Anglo-Protestant culture has been applying the bleeding cure on itself, Jews have been pumping their cultural balls with more semen.] Anyway, even though some of the characters of THE MIST are not extreme cases like Jack Torrance in THE SHINING, they too suffer from excessive cult of individualism. The black guy thinks he’s thinking for himself and being true to himself, a rational and proud individual. But his individualism is clouded by sociality because of his race-consciousness in regards to white folks of the town. He is less a free-thinking individual than a black individual; he stands on his own two feet but moves to the Negro beat.
So, he sees the situation not so much in terms of his individual self vs the mystery but in terms of his black self vs white folks who be taking him for a fool. The main character, David Drayton, comes across as the most sane, sensible, courageous, intelligent, and forward-thinking member of the bunch. The other guy who appears balanced and sensible is a funny-looking store clerk by the name of Ollie Weaks. He looks weak and inept, but he’s actually an ace shooter with the pistol and a capable all-around individual; his characterization was clearly meant to go against type, and it works as something more than a contrarian gimmick. But Drayton is the centerpiece of the film because he’s tall, good-looking, and the natural leader-type. And though willing to take charge, he doesn’t have the ego-vanity problems of the Negro or, say, the middle-aged bald white guy in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Drayton seems like the polar opposite of Mrs. Carmody, the deranged Christian woman who even comes to preach that the ‘beast’ has to be satiated with sacrifice so that others can live. This is maybe the most problematic part of the movie since no Christian, however crazy, would ever call for human sacrifice, especially to appease the forces of darkness, i.e. the Devil. [But maybe King’s point is that worship of God can easily shade into worship of the Devil, especially if one’s faith in God is of the Old Testament variety. Old Testament God commands not only reverence but fear. In the Book of Job, He is seen to ‘conspire’ and ‘wager’ with Satan{though some argue this Satan isn’t the Devil} in the horrors that befall Job. Though the Old Testament God is righteous and said to be perfect & good, He also insists He doesn’t have to explain or justify anything He does. Mankind should just shut up and put up; mankind should worship Him, trust Him, and just tell itself that there’s an ultimate design to everything He does. The problem with such an outlook is it can easily slide into nihilism of power. If God is all-powerful and if His power is never to be questioned, then it’s a question of might over right. In this, the Jewish God has something in common with the old pagan gods that embodied amoral power, one that demanded fear and trembling among the faithful. And yet, the Jewish religion is also about moral righteousness, about faith in God as not only the most powerful Being in the universe but also the most moral. So, the dark side of Judaism is it combined ultra-moral-righteousness with ultra-amoral-nihilism. Though Mrs. Carmody is a Christian, she’s clearly more into the Old Testament God than the New Testament God. And in her fusion of extreme moral righteousness and blind worship of power, even beastly power, she reflects something of the Old Testament God.] Some Christians have been known to do awful things to people to purge them of evil spirits, but that’s still not the same thing as offering humans as sacrifice to the Beast; it’s more like trying to torture the Beast out of the human soul. But then, maybe the movie is saying that even though the Biblical religions and pagan cults are supposed to be opposites, they share the underlying fear of the unknown and obsession with violence. Mrs. Carmody is a Christian than a Jewess, but she prefers the God of the Old Testament, God ‘of the Israelites’, and indeed God did tell the Israelites to go out and wipe out entire communities. Still, one could argue that God simply wanted the Jews to have a land of their own. God didn’t tell them to kill people as an offering to Him. Even so, it raises the question: If God is truly fearsome and ruthless, is there a dividing line between Him and the Beast? Mrs. Carmody sees the monstrous creatures as demonic forces but also as punishment from God. So, in a way, demonic forces are tools of God, and in which case, paradoxically, they can be said to be godly in a sort of an indirect way. Indeed, this moral-spiritual problem is present in the New Testament too, for the Second Coming of Jesus will be preceded the coming of the Beast with the 666 number that will lay the world to waste and save only the few good folks who deserve to rise to Heaven and be with God forever. For there to be light, there must be darkness. Just as Jesus needed a Judas in order for Himself to become the Messiah — via a kind of ‘human sacrifice’— , it’s like the world needs the Beast in order for it to saved by the Second Coming of the Lord. So, was Judas the agent of the Devil or of God. Is the Beast an instrument of the Devil or ultimately of God since the world must be destroyed in an End of Days for Jesus to return and save the few good folks. In a way, this is why some Christians take pleasure in horrible events. Though all Christians recoiled in horror at 9/11, some saw it as God’s punishment for man’s sinfulness. Though such talk is denounced as ugly, divisive, and demented, it is very much in the spirit of the Bible wherein God periodically punishes wicked mankind with all sorts of disasters. [Though such is denounced as an ‘irrational’ view, especially as it seems to condone the destruction of countless innocents in the name of moral righteousness, secular people have their own version of it. For example, consider all the black riots and violence that have been immune from moral condemnation since the Narrative says that History gives blacks the collective right to commit violence against the wicked white race. So, never mind that countless innocent whites have been robbed, beaten, raped, and murdered by black thugs. Because of the ‘original sin’ of slavery or apartheid, blacks are virtually given the right to rain down like a swarm of locusts and wreak havoc on white communities. Or consider the Allied use of violence during WWII. While Germany and Japan deserved to be defeated, so many innocent civilians in Germany and Japan were killed as the result of indiscriminate air campaigns. And yet, Liberals and Conservatives prefer to believe in the Narrative of the Good War, and the logic says that since we were the good guys and they were the bad guys, we had the right to attack them without mercy and even kill/rape millions of their innocents as justifiable sacrifices for the ‘good’. Or consider what Madeleine Albright said about 100,000s of Iraqi women and children who might have perished as the result of Western sanctions. Her response was "it was worth it." There are plenty of Mrs. Carmody’s among the Liberal intelligentsia. Consider cackling Hillary Clinton at hearing the news that Gaddaffi was lynched to death. And today, most of US foreign policy is about stirring up violence in the Middle East and Ukraine to serve the ruthless agenda of the globalist Jews. It’s like Jews are our Old Testament God, and we must do everything to please and appease them. And if millions die as the result, we just shrug our shoulders and say "it’s worth it." The innocent victims must be sacrificed to satiate the Jewish beast that postures as the new god of all humanity. Jews are taking out their trauma under God on all mankind that is now traumatized under the Jews-as-the-beast-god.]Mrs. Carmody the crazy Christian woman is plenty nuts... but then, she is a fictional character in a story created by Stephen King who also seems to be obsessed with great horrors befalling mankind. If extreme Christians are nuts for obsessing so much about the End of Days, why do so many horror and sci-fi authors and film-makers do much the same? Why do they find so much reward, fun, fascination, and excitement where literally millions or even billions of people are killed by some horrible disaster? In this sense, one could argue that the Drayton is something of a ‘psychic villain’ in the way that Tippi Hedren’s character is in THE BIRDS. Though neither consciously mean to do any harm to anyone, the disasters that befall the world around them could be seen as manifestations of their personal obsessions. Tippi Hedren is a ‘liberated’ modern woman whose sexual interest in the man of a small island community unleashes the birds that can be seen as manifestations of her subconscious sexual psyche. And Drayton happens to be a visual artist who specializes in Hollywood genres such as horror and science-fiction. Indeed, we see one of his paintings of THE THING by John Carpenter. And in the beginning of the movie, we see him work on a poster of Clint Eastwood’s character, the Man with No Name, in Sergio Leone Spaghetti Westerns such as FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, where the Man with No Name often functions as a kind of angel of death who enters a town and leaves with few people left alive. THE BIRDS and THE MIST are both, on some level, about the clash between cosmopolitan out-of-towners who tend to be more urbane & sophisticated and the provincial townsfolk who are more conservative and communal. [We notice a certain duality in the social dynamics between the out-of-towners and local towners. In one way, the crisis brings both groups closer together — as they are all are faced with a common threat/enemy — , but in another way, it drives them further apart since out-of-towners prefer rational solutions whereas local towners are more likely to fall under the sway of someone like Mrs. Carmody. And yet, we also see the simple dichotomy between out-of-towners and local towners loosen. The Negro is an out-of-towner, and Drayton is like a semi-out-of-towner in the sense that, even though he is of the community, he has professional links with the bigger world. Negro is a renowned judge, and Drayton is a successful artist who had contacts in big cities. At any rate, both the Negro and Drayton seem more urbane and worldly than most people of the town. The Negro has a vacation home in the town. And yet, we learn early on that there’s been bad blood between them in the past. And when the crisis hits, the Negro goes from urbane cosmopolitan guy to an Angry Black Man who talks about ‘his people’. He becomes like a racial Mrs. Carmody. Also, it would be too simplistic to say all local towners are socially conservative or provincial. An elderly local teacher looks Jewish-Radical-ish. So, even within the local community, people are likely to think and feel differently along class and professional lines.] Anyway, even though Drayton is freaked out by the horrors, the things that are happening are exactly the stuff he specializes in, indulges in, and wallows in as an artist. Though he’s an urbane/modern person who seeks a stable and rational life with his wife and child, the world of his imagination is one of endless horror, violence, suspense, and strife. So, in some way, it’s as if everything that is happening in THE MIST is the physical manifestation[or many-infestation] of Drayton’s imagination that is perpetually fascinated with the macabre, monstrous, outlandish, grotesque, and weird: a sort of ‘imagifestation’. It’s like the world of his ‘creative’ imagination has poured into reality. Furthermore, even though Mrs. Carmody is made out to be the lunatic who demands a scapegoat for ‘expiation’, she too is a kind of scapegoat of Stephen King so that he can dump all his own obsessions and darkness on her ilk while pretending to be a man on the side of reason, sanity, and goodness. After all, it’s King’s dark imagination that created the ‘end of days’ scenario in THE MIST where innocent people get killed — and where we the audience enjoy the thrills — in a world of beastly horror, so how convenient it must have been for King to shift all the moral blame on Mrs. Carmody. The denigration of Christian nutjobs[though the spiritual cuckoo-bananas of a mountain-sized Negro in love with a little white mouse warrants him the status of a holy angel] in the novels of King strikes me as disingenuous since the worlds he creates are indeed crazy and filled with all kinds of demonic spirits. If the world King presents is so monstrous, then craziness would be the norm, and a crazy Christian wouldn’t be any crazier than the stuff happening all around him/her. Mrs. Carmody is our scapegoat; she, as the vilified witch-hunter, is our witch who must be burned at the stake — or shot in the head — in order for us to restore our sense of order and sanity, which is rather a foolish hope since how can there be any true sanity where giant squids and mega-crabs from another dimension run amok to devour folks? To be sure, one could argue that even in a world gone mad, Drayton and his gang are coping with a higher degree of reason, caution, and sense than someone like Mrs. Carmody who only relies on the power of faith.[On the other hand, despite the greater caution of Drayton and his team, there’s something about rationalism that can make people less cautious in some ways. We generally assume that faith leads to incaution whereas reason makes us more cautious about what we do. After all, it was the Imperial Japanese with their mythic world-view who attacked Pearl Harbor. And it was the Muslim nutjobs with their faith in Allah who carried out 9/11. Those driven by faith may toss caution to the winds and plunge into action on a prayer. Consider all those African militiamen who ran into gunfire with the superstitious belief that they’d been made bullet-proof by black magic. But on the other hand, there is something about faith that can make people more cautious. As their faith is with higher powers, they might be willing to just hunker down and leave it up to God or gods to deliver them from evil; indeed as aggressive as Mrs. Carmody is, she urges everyone to just stay put and pray to God for salvation. In contrast, rationalism tempts mankind to figure things out and solve problems on its own.Of course, rationalism urges caution, but much of our data about the world is incomplete and unsure. But even with flawed or incomplete data, the rational mind has the habit of seeking some kind of solution. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it blows up in your face. I don’t know about the validity of the global warming scare, but we certainly don’t know enough to reach definitive answer, but the media, academia, and Wall Street — eager to cash in on Green Energy — have leapt to conclusions that SOMETHING must be done. Rationalism is great in making us proactive in searching for solutions, but proactive-ness can become a cult or fetish. We can get into the habit of being proactive with stuff we hardly know about. But as long as we’re under the delusion of rationality and factuality, we can end up supporting something like the Iraq War that was justified on the basis of mountains of intelligence reports, data, slam-dunk calculations, and theories... much of which turned out to be either wrong, bogus, deceitful, or hopelessly flawed. We say Japan acted irrationally in WWII whereas we acted rationally in the invasion of Iraq, but both decisions were really based on looney tunes calculations. But the cult of rationalism has, time and time again, blinded Americans to their often incautious proactive-ness. Nevertheless, the proactive spirit is what made the West, indeed what set it apart from other civilizations, such as that of the Persians, Egyptians, Byzantines, Chinese, Turks, and etc. Most civilizations throughout history have been reactive than proactive, or they were proactive mostly militarily but not in other endeavors. But then, military proactive-ness was often a kind of a preemptive reactiveness, i.e. the goal of waging war was to procure greater peace over wider territory for the long-term, thereby allowing for greater stability and constancy over the land. True proactive-ness seeks change and innovation from within for their own sake. The Byzantines, the Persians, and the Japanese tended to be reactive, i.e. unless met with external challenges, they preferred to keep things the same as much as possible. Japan only decided to change when it found itself hopelessly outmatched by superior British and American forces. Without such outside challenges, Japanese were content to leave most things as they were. The Ottoman Turks also got into the same habit and were forced into modernization only because of the threat from the West. In contrast, Western societies developed a mind-set that, even without external challenges, sought new ideas, possibilities, and solutions in every field. The Western mind-set had made the switch from the reactive to the proactive. Japan was forced to change as a reactive response to external challenges, whereas scientists, doctors, philosophers, artists, and businessmen in places like France, Germany, and Britain were committed to finding new things for the sake of finding new things. With the entire world having caught the modernization bug, we have yet to see if the non-Western modernization is in the reactive mode — catching up with the West to survive in the New World Order — or if it has genuinely caught the proactive bug and is committed to seeking new ideas, possibilities, and solutions for their own sake.] But then, one could also argue that the real problem with her is less her religiousness as madness or demented personality with which she was born. In other words, she didn’t become crazy because of her religion but chose a crazy form of faith because she was mad to begin with. Indeed, this has been the dangerous side of religion — and even ideology[at one point, someone mentions that Fidel Castro’s speeches are like those of Carmody]. People who are nuts or have personality issues have trouble grappling with reality and tend to develop a rather fantastic view of the world, and so, they naturally gravitate to something like religion, ideology, cult, or special cause that may serve as a kind of mental-moral-social underpinning in life. This is why religions and ideologies or movements like Communism, National Socialism, Homomania, and others have attracted so many people with the ‘true believer’ personality. People with mental/emotional issues have a weak grasp of reality, so they gravitate to a powerful vision/explanation of reality so as to feel their feet firmly planted in the world. Especially as modernity led to social/cultural disorientation, alienation, displacement, isolation, atomization, and disruption among so many people, individuals with problematic personalities were especially vulnerable to the crisis of confusion. In a more traditional social setting, they might have found a modicum of continuity and stability in age-old truths, traditions, and custom shared by all of the community. But in the modern setting, people with problem-personalities felt like lunatics dumped on the streets, and they sought a ‘home’ in a powerful cause, movement, ideology, or faith in order to feel rooted and grounded once again. So, the Middle East has seen a resurgence of Islam, Jews in Israel underwent an upsurge in ultra-nationalism, Leftists in the West found new meaning in the Palestinian cause, and urbanites in the US and EU have found the grace in their devotion to homomania. [In a way, mental problems have become almost universalized in the modern world. In truth, most people are normal and only a handful of people have real mental issues. Still, even for most normal people to feel normal and take pride in their normality, they depend on a social culture upholding and encouraging normal values and standards. Even the normal need to be aided and buttressed by a culture of normality. But the modern world is dominated by hideous/devious Jews, hissy/pissy homos, deranged feminists, pusillanimous white gentile elites, anemic Wasps, and rootless globalists. So, normal standards no longer exist, and if anything, young kids are raised with the idea that something is cool if it’s ‘subversive’, ‘radical’, or ‘transgressive’, and that explains why even all-too-normal white folks go out of their way to berate other white folks for being ‘too white’, presumably meaning ‘too normal’, while elevating themselves as ‘different’, ‘progressive’, or whatever. When cultural normality goes out the window, a kind of mass mental panic occurs even among those who are predisposed to normality. Everyone feels lost in a world where nothing is normal and begins to crave for the ‘new normal’, and this craving is so powerful that people will begin to cling madly to whatever offers them hope & meaning as the ‘new normal’ or the ‘new morality’. So, paradoxically, the forces of abnormality has been aided in the culture war by human nature that is wanting of normality. Just because the traditional normal has been degraded and disposed of, it doesn’t mean that people have come to reject normality altogether. Their natural desire for normality calls for something to take place of the old normal, and if a particular ‘new normal’, such as homomania, is put forth as the next great thing, the idiot masses will flock to it like flies to shit. This also explains the great success of Nazism in Germany and communism in Russia. As the old normals had been tossed aside, there was a powerful craving for the ‘new normal’, and when the Soviets and Nazis offered ‘new normal’ in the form of Stalinism and Hitlerism, people just mindlessly flocked to them. So, even though the ‘new normal’ is actually abnormal, its success owes to the natural desire for some kind of normality in the human heart/mind.] Of course, many such ideologies and causes are crazy or deeply flawed, but then, the people aren’t so much searching for the truth as for truthfulness, and something doesn’t have to be the truth to feel truthful. Just as being Liberal is not the same as being liberal, embracing the Truth is not the same as being concerned with the truth. It’s more a state of mind/feeling than state of knowledge. ‘Anti-racism’, for instance, is a kind of Truthfulness that has little basis in the actual facts about race, but people would rather cling to their sense of Truthfulness than deal with truths with their ambiguities and complexities. But then, it’s also the case that truth and facts can be debilitating in their own way since there are mountains of truths and facts about everything. Indeed, if we had to know with absolute certainty every little fact/detail about something before we take action, we’d never be able to do anything. This is why a perfectionist like Stanley Kubrick was only able to make only a single film in the 12 yrs between FULL METAL JACKET to EYES WIDE SHUT. He became obsessed with nailing everything down to the last detail. Every time we do something, there’s an element of faith since we can’t know everything about everything. Also, even if we could know everything about everything that ever was and is, that’s still no guarantee that our actions will bear fruit in the future. Even the best economists and financial experts don’t know what’s really going to happen. Even medical specialists can’t know or foresee everything, and indeed, science has, as often as not, progressed by trial-and-error by people who took a leap-of-faith with a new drug or procedure based on educated guesses or speculation. Rationalism has a decisive advantage over religionism in that it has a system by which the knowledge can be expanded, advanced, and improved. Today’s science is far beyond the science of 100 yrs ago, whereas religious ‘truth’ of a 1000 yrs ago is no truer than religious ‘truth’ of today. Also, if rational science becomes better the more it engages with the world, religion grows wiser the more it removes itself from the world, which is why the God of the Bible became ever more abstract and why Buddhism receded essentially into a ‘science’ of how the mind works than about how the world works. Improvement of reason relies on more engagement with the material world, whereas improvement of religion relies on more disengagement from the material world, and yet religion has a timeless quality lacking in science; the methodology of science may remain a constant, but the conclusions keep changing. Once religion has reached a certain elevated point as a system of thoughts and emotions, it beholds a Truth for all time, whereas science is tirelessly looking for new truths and new discoveries that may well overturn entire paradigms as to the ultimate nature of reality. The contrast between Mrs. Carmody and Drayton is sort of like the one between the bald middle-aged white guy and the black dude in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Though the two men of Romero’s movie don’t bicker about religious issues, the bald white guy is conservative and prefers to stick with what he knows, whereas the black dude is more adventurous and tries to improve his chances of survival. The bald white guy says they should all hide in the cellar, but the black guy says they won’t have anywhere to run, and so, with the blood of fugitive slaves in his veins, he wants to strategize a plan to make a run for it. In THE MIST, Mrs. Carmody wants everyone to stay put. Even though her reasons are not rational or even reasonable, she and her followers would rather stick with what they know than with what they don’t. Indeed, she believes mankind isn’t meant to know more than God wants it to know. Venturing out of the store to find answers/solutions would be rather like scientists trying to find the secrets of life and the universe. Stick with what you know, hunker down and pray, and have faith in the Lord, and that’s all you need, Hallelujah. Drayton, like the black guy in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, isn’t content with sticking with the known in the confines of the store. He is adventurous by nature — in his imagination as an artist and even in the choice of his vehicle designed for traversing rough terrain — and wants to use his head to things out. And yet, both Carmody and Drayton are walking contradictions. Carmody prefers to stick with the known, but she is totally obsessed with God, the Being that cannot be known by any person except through blind faith. Also, a part of her sees the crisis as a blessing since she finally got what she’s wanted all her life: recognition and validation — and power — as the most fervent servant of God. Prior to the crisis, people saw her as just a screwy religious lady of the town, but people are listening to her now, and the store has become like her own church, her own kingdom of heaven. But then, the crisis is sort of thrilling for Drayton and Weaks as well for they get to play the role of heroes. Without the crisis, Drayton would be just another a ‘yuppie’ artist, and his imagination would be limited to the canvas in his studio. As for Weaks, he’d be just a store clerk filling up the shelves. The crisis gives them the chance to play killer, hunter, leader, protector, philosopher, daredevil, and hero. Carmody seems more cautious and pragmatic in urging that everyone stay in the store because it’s a known & familiar environment, but then she is willing to make entire decisions based on her twisted faith in God. Drayton seems more rational and calculating in the actions he takes, but then he takes a huge leap of faith in driving away with a few others into the mist. For all he knows, the mist might extend over a few miles, over the entire eastern seacoast, over the entire nation, or the entire world. He has no way of knowing for sure, and yet he makes a leap of faith by driving into the mist; and yet, he thinks he is acting rationally. In the end, one’s rational powers are only as good as one’s rational knowledge. If someone forces you to pull the trigger in a game of Russian Roulette and you don’t know and have no way of knowing which chamber holds the bullet, your rational guess is no better than a religious one. The problem with the cult of rationality is it fools us into thinking we know even when we don’t. Surely, there’s world of difference between a dumb rational person and a smart rational person. A dumb person, no matter how rational and calculating, has a cloudy mind that can’t see very far. Try as he might, his mind is a foggy mist of low intelligence. But then, even smart people can act intelligently based on the intake of knowledge through their senses. Whatever their minds process has to be seen, heard, and/or felt. But, what is the use of rationality in a physical world in THE MIST where one can hardly see anything? Drayton is a smart rationalist. But, if Drayton has no way of knowing if the mist covers only the local area or the entire world, his decision to take his chances by leaving the store is based as much on faith as on reason. Also, he’s not only risking his own life but that of his own child and those who agreed to come along. And yet, he is searching for something real, for the genuine possibility that he might finally break out of the mist and find help. In this, he’s like Columbus and other European voyagers who took a leap of faith when they decided to travel the seas to find new worlds or new routes. As the character in Christopher Nolan’s INCEPTION asks at one point, "Would you like to take a leap of faith...?" In so much of what we do, we must be prepared to take a leap of faith because the future will always be cloudy in some way. And sometimes, it’s not always easy to tell if one’s actions are motivated more by reason or faith. At the end, did Drayton act more out of reason or faith? His plan sort of made sense, and he certainly knew the risks. But there was no greater chance that he’d be safer driving away than in staying put in the store. Maybe the mist would end some distance away, and he’d be out of the danger. Or maybe the mist will thicken and even scarier monsters will be up ahead. Worse, he could end up stranded in the middle of nowhere without food and water. And being inside his car would be even less safe than being inside a big store with people with whom one could cooperate. Though one reason for Drayton’s departure was to escape from the cultish mob mentality surrounding Carmody, another reason could be his restless nature. If Carmody is the sort of person who can never shut up, Drayton is the sort of person who always has to be doing something. It’s been said women are naturally more verbal than men, whereas men are naturally more into doing stuff like hobbies and going on adventures. Women need to yammer, and men need to hammer. So, it’s not very surprising that Carmody feels a constant need to talk on and on, whereas Drayton, as the archetypal alpha male, feels a constant need to doing something to come upon a solution. It’s OPRAH vs THIS OLD HOUSE. In the end, however, Drayton’s sense of reality is clouded by a ‘faith’ of what will happen based on his very limited grasp of reality as most of reality remains hidden in the mist and all communication links have been shut down. He receives no radio signals in the car, so he has no idea what is happening in the world outside the mist, if indeed such a world still exists. Like the character in MIRACLE MILE, he’s just acting on a few clues and hints. The human mind is such that, even with a few fragments, it instantly connects the dots and draws up entire scenarios. Consider how one only needs to read few paragraphs of a novel to found oneself immersed even though one hardly knows the locations, characters, backgrounds, and etc. The theory of Universal Grammar says children are hardwired to understand language, so just by being exposed to adults talking, kids naturally unlock the secrets of language. They don’t have to be taught every detail or structure of language to get the gist of how language works. Something effortlessly activates inside their minds and completes the language development. The human mind has also something like a Universal Grammar when it comes to processing the contours of reality. Just by telling someone just a few details about something, his or her mind begins to fill in the details in his or her own fashion. It’s like what the Leonardo DiCaprio character says in INCEPTION: "You create the world of the dream. We bring the subject into that dream, and they fill it with their subconscious."[This is why the cult of rationalism can be misleading. The rationalist believes what he thinks and knows is the product of his conscious reasoning, but what if his subconscious automatically filled his mind with conclusions that his rational/conscious mind hasn’t yet processed? Suppose I give a small set of clues to a rationalist, and he reaches a conclusion that seems to make perfect sense to him. But suppose his sense of certainty owes less to the facts — limited as they are — than his subconscious having filled in the blanks on facts that had been withheld from him. The subconscious has its own innate tendencies and impulses, but it can also be emotionally conditioned in association to certain ideas and images via media, education, and etc. As our media and academia are controlled by Jews, the subconscious of many people have been filled with images, fears, and paranoia about ‘white racism’ and ‘white privilege’, so all it takes is to say something like ‘white males’ and ‘black rape victim’ for a whole bunch of white Liberals leap to the conclusion that KKK-like college frat boys have raped and mauled an innocent black woman, as in the Duke Lacrosse case. It’d be totally crazy, but Liberals think their responses are entirely rational because their subconscious had been conditioned to make certain connections and leap to conclusions. Because white Liberals have been made to worship at the altar of MLK, they want to believe in a world of evil white ‘racists’ and innocent black victims. Of course, the reality is the opposite, with black thugs beating up whites and raping white women. Because the reality is so skewed against the Liberal Narrative and Liberals are so starved for any news stories that might confirm their prejudice-pretending-to-be-progressive, when Liberals come upon any tidbits of news where whites might be ‘racist’ villains, they lunge into motion like famished sharks in a feeding frenzy. Liberalism as it exists today is irrational; it’s mostly about the Liberal subconscious filling in the blanks and leaping to conclusions about evil white ‘racists’ and poor innocent blacks, as with the Ferguson and Trayvon Martin cases. Such conclusions are not the result of careful study of facts but of subconscious completing the pre-ordained picture favored by the Narrative based on incomplete facts. But the cult of rationalism on the Liberal side keeps Liberals fooled that they are indeed responding rationally.] So, even if a novel just gives a few hints about the characters and their backgrounds, the reader’s mind instantly begins to fill in all the extraneous details and connective links that weren’t even mentioned in the book. Our minds complete what were only hinted at. Of course, some artists can use language and expression very skillfully to trigger the desired responses in the reader. This is also how news works. Even when people see and hear just a few details of some event, their minds actively fill in all sorts of details that may or may not pertain to the actual story. So, if you go to a white nationalist and say a ‘teen robbed a white woman’, the mind will picture a street, some hooded nasty Negro, some innocent and helpless white woman, the ghastly violence, and etc. And if you were to use the terms ‘the Deep South’ and ‘murder’ and ‘bigotry’, many white Liberals will automatically create image-narratives in the mind of big fat nasty KKK brutes whipping a helpless Negro who then be roped and hung from a tree. This explains the KKK hysteria at Oberlin. Someone likely saw a passerby with a white blanket, and the silly Liberal subconscious went into overdrive, filled in the blanks, and saw the grand wizard of the KKK; and then when the rumors began to fly, all the other silly Liberals at Oberlin began to see in their mind’s eye an army of KKK riding into town to kill all the Jews, Negroes, homos, and Liberals. This is why the mind is both so effective and so dangerous. With even just a few facts, details, and information, the human mind can fill in the gaps and ‘see’ all kinds of possible scenarios. The problem is we can easily lose sight of the fact that our minds are only in speculative mode and take the leap-of-faith conflating speculation with absolute truth. And when such an assumption becomes associated with one’s pride, vanity, and sense of self-righteousness — and the fear of the shame/humiliation of being proven wrong — , what is often useful can become poisonous. Of course, gaps in the evidence are filled with images and sounds that are already familiar through personal experience or through exposure to education, news coverage, and entertainment. Since US media and education are so dominated by Jews, our minds are pre-supplied with all sorts of sounds and images that fill in the gaps whenever we hear the news. Since the Jews in the media have filled our minds with so many negative images and sounds about Putin and Russia, the moment we hear just a little about Russia, our minds are likely to fill in the gaps and blanks with nasty images of Russia, Russians, and Putin previously stored in our minds through our exposure to Jew-run news media, Jewish Hollywood[where Russians have been portrayed as villains countless times], and Jew-run education that conditions young people to worship the homo and hate Russia because it doesn’t allow ‘gay pride parades’ in Red Square. Like I said, Jews are always preparing for future power, and indeed, one effective way to prepare is to fill our minds with the kinds of images, sounds, and ideas that will automatically go into overdrive whenever we hear any tidbit of news. As Jews have filled the minds of countless Americans with negative images, sounds, and impressions of Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and white folks, the only thing that the likes of Rachel Maddow have to do is mutter a few details and show a few images in order for millions of American minds conjure up wicked and vile images of the-peoples-that-Jews-don’t-like. But the, American Conservatism works the same way, which is why so many American Conservatives are brainwashed idiots and dolts who are so easily swayed by the worthless likes of Rush Limbaugh. Their mind are pre-packaged and pre-loaded with so many pat assumptions that even a few details of a new story will make their minds leap to ready-made conclusions in a we-told-you-so manner. But as Jews control much of the media, our seemingly free will and free thought are really shaped by the globo-Zionist elites. The Jew-run media filled the minds of Americans with images of hideous & imbecile Westboro Church as the face of opposition to ‘gay marriage’ and with images of well-scrubbed & more-normal-than-normal homos standing on green lawns as the face of support of ‘gay marriage’, and so, whenever Americans hear about the ‘gay marriage’ issue, their minds automatically fill up with ‘hateful nutball Christians’ vs ‘clean-cut and oh-so-nice gays’. Since young people grew up with such images, sounds, and impressions crammed/streamed into their heads, they’re much more likely to fall prey to the ‘gay agenda’ than older generation of people who were less subjected to such Jewish-homo or Jomo brainwashing... or brainfilling. Indeed, the true danger of mind-control has more to do with brain-filling than brainwashing. What we know and come to believe cannot be washed away though we can try to repress it. So, the real trick of mind control is to keep filling the mind with new references of images, sounds, and impressions that will instantaneously, spontaneously, & automatically kick into gear whenever we’re bombarded with news stories. Anyway, though Drayton acts according to the best of his tactical and ethical reasoning, he also sort of ends up like being like Mrs. Carmody. In a world where the use of reason can reach only so far[given the paucity of what can be seen, heard, or verified], even the most reasonable is forced to fill in the unknown and mysterious with the best guess, speculation, or assessment, and this ‘best guess’ could actually be no better than faith. It’s like if you lack access to how the stock market really works, you ‘rational’ guesses are likely to be no better than guesses made on faith or by a monkey. Our impulsive need for action often undermines reason because, in order for reason to function properly, it needs ample time and patience to collect and process the data. But humans are always compelled to make decisions on politics, economics, social policy, personal matters, and etc. A company competing with other companies in the dog-eat-dog world of global capitalism cannot wait for all the facts to be analyzed and understood in order to make the best judgement because its delayed action or inaction will lose the advantage to its more dynamic rivals. [In times of war, it’s often a case of "damned if you, damned if you don’t". As all sides are pressed for time and space, they feel must be decisive and act boldly. If your side sits back, it will only play defense and its borders will be chipped away by the offensive rivals. Also, your commanders may suffer in morale because they are hampered in carrying out counter-offensives. But if you make bold/rash decisions based on insufficient knowledge, you can lose everything almost at once. This is the problem of the Takeda clan in Akira Kurosawa’s KAGEMUSHA. Following the death of their great lord, the clan goes into cautious defensive mode. But such inaction makes the rival clans suspicious and bolder in their advances against the Takeda clan. Playing only defensive creates a sense of inertia in the clan, and no clan can win in the long run if it only plays defense, especially as the ultimate goal of all the major clan is to unify all of Japan. But then, there’s also the danger of acting too boldly, which is what the son of late lord does as he leads a major offensive with everything he has. By playing only defense, you can lose it all in the long run, but in playing total offense, you can win everything or lose everything in a single day.] A war commander is fighting against time as well as against his enemies, and he doesn’t have the luxury of all-the-time-in-the-world to figure everything out before making his decision to attack or retreat. This is why gathering intelligence is so crucial in the competition for power, and this is why every government has a vast network of intelligence gathering. The less your enemies, rivals, and competitors know about what’s happening on your side, the less they can formulate effective offensive strategies, and the more you know about the other side, the more effectively you can devise on the proper course of action. Unsurprisingly, Jews hate Edward Snowden for blowing the whistle on how the Jewish-Zionist-controlled US government — in collusion of Israel, of course — have secretly been gathering data not only on enemy nations but on friendly nations and even US citizens. This gives the Jews a leg up on all of us, and of course, Jews are the masters of stealth. The Rosenbergs were Jewish, and they ferreted out the most closely guarded US secrets — atomic bomb — to Stalin’s totalitarian empire. When Jews hadn’t constituted the dominant power within the US government, they traded or exposed as much of Wasp secrets as possible in order to embarrass and discredit the Anglo-American order. But now that Jews control America, they are eager to guard as many secrets as possible, all the while violating the secrets of other nations & governments and the privacies of US citizens. If Jews and homos act like this for political gains, why wouldn’t they do this for economic gains in places like Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley? So, Jewish success and power aren’t only about intelligence as in I.Q. but intelligence as in stealing/exposing secrets of others, sharing secrets among themselves, and guarding their own secrets from their potential rivals. And the Jewish-run media are in on this as well, which is why Jewish-dominated publishing companies in the US will not release Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book about Jews and Russians: TWO HUNDRED YEARS TOGETHER. And since Jews run the media and academia, they can always spin the Narrative so that, when Jews suspect their rivals of guarding and sharing secrets, Jews are made out to be honest and courageous seekers/tellers of the truth and the champions of transparency; but, the same Jewish-controlled Narrative will demean anyone who probes and exposes Jewish power as ‘irrational, paranoid, odious, noxious, rabid, and virulent anti-Semites addicted to conspiracy theories.’ When it comes to Jewish power, it’s not only a matter of their Intelligence Quotient but their Intelligence Quality, and it just so happens that Jews have a vast and powerful intelligence-gathering-sharing-and-guarding network all across the globe — not only in government but via private companies like Google and Facebook that are totally Jew-dominated. Of course, other nations also have such apparatuses, but Jews are powerful not only in Israel but in the US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Ukraine, and yes, even in Russia. Vile American Jews routinely defame and beat up on Russia even though Putin has been very accommodating to Jews. But, Russian Jews are snakes just like American Jews, and even as they pretend to serve Putin, they are sharing all kinds of Russian intelligence with dirty American Jewish intelligence community. Remember how Armand Hammer worked both the US and USSR, while making billions off both. Consider how Arnon Milchan the ‘movie producer’ once used to cut deals with the Apartheid government in South Africa but now goes around producing movies like 12 YEARS A SLAVE and making himself out to be some ‘anti-racist’ humanitarian, all the while supporting the ongoing Zionist slaughter of Palestinians — that said, we must give credit where it’s due and acknowledge Milchan as the man who made it possible for Sergio Leone to make his masterpiece ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. Jews shamelessly play all sides. In person, Milchan can come across the nicest guy, but we must always remind ourselves that Jewish niceness is a kind of a cultural and possibly even evolutionary strategy to disarm opponents and rivals. Though there are plenty of nasty pushy Jews, some Jews are the masters of the shmooze, like the Sydney Pollack character Ziegler in EYES WIDE SHUT. It’s niceness as fatal warmth to melt the goy butter so that Jews can spread it on the bagel. In this sense, the nice Jew can be more dangerous than a nasty Jew for it is the nice Jew who likely to be more disarming of their opponents. Indeed, powerful nasty Jews often hire a bunch of ‘nice Jews’ to do the trick. [Though some Jews are just downright pushy and abrasive, there’s also the obsessive passive/aggressive Jew who seems nice on the outside but won’t ever give up on the inside. This kind of Jew was played to perfection by Charles Grodin in THE HEARTBREAK KID and MIDNIGHT RUN. They appear to be pushovers but they are actually pushy to the max. Even when they seem to be stepping back and surrendering, they are actually digging deeper through your defenses like the crazy gopher in CADDYSHACK. This kind of Jew is like a combination of Mr. Rogers and Harry Callahan. Notice how the Jewishy character in THE GRADUATE and the Jewish character in THE HEARTBREAK KID simply won’t give up even when they seem beat and finished. They are still in mode of the door-to-doors salesman who won’t leave you alone until you buy something. It’s like the Marx Brothers who act so funny and harmless but pull every dirty trick in the book to make you submit to their doggedness. Because of their faux-niceness, such Jews pretend to be the ‘nice guy’ and ‘victim’ even when they are the betrayers or transgressors.] Homos have learned the same trick, which is why they put on the ‘we are sooooo nice’ act, especially with powerful people. So, powerful people feel flattered that these clean-cut smiley-faced homos act ever-so-nice with them and become disarmed, and then, they find themselves bending over to the homo agenda in the spirit of reciprocation for the homo ‘niceness’ even though homo niceness was really just a ploy. Behind such ‘niceness’ is an ice-cold icepick agenda for power and control. Though all societies have had their secrets, Jews have become especially obsessive with and adept at guarding their own secrets and stealing secrets from others because Jews have long maintained a spiritual-and-ethnic separateness from the gentile populations. [Jews are also paradoxically the most contentious and cohesive of peoples.
A bunch of Jews are more likely to argue and compete among one another over just about anything than a bunch of goyim are likely to. But because such competitiveness have turned off a lot of gentiles who’ve dealt with Jews, Jews have had to stick together for protection against gentiles distrust and anger. Also, there’s the powerful sense of shared roots, blood, and mythology among Jews that has had a tempering effect on individualist Jewish egotism. Anyway, because Jews are always practicing contentiousness among themselves from an early age, they are better prepared to be contentious and competitive with non-Jews. But because Jews, who consider themselves to be smarter, feel nervous and even paranoid about the resentment of dumb majority of goyim, they always remind themselves that they must stick together against the goyim.] This was one reason why many Jews continued to speak Yiddish than gentile languages. Gentiles wouldn’t know what Jews were saying if Jews spoke in Yiddish. As for homos, they had to remain in the closet for a long time, and such secretiveness honed their psychologies to be especially adept at working-in-the-dark and being secretive. Also, as anyone’s reputation could be ruined in the past if he was exposed as a fruiter, homos became especially careful and creative in handling secrets. Today, Jews and homos are masters of intelligence sharing, which is used for intelligence shaming. If reputations could be destroyed in the past if someone were exposed as a homosexual, in the current Jew-controlled order, anyone’s reputation can be destroyed if he or she is exposed as a ‘homophobe’, i.e. someone who cracks a ‘gay’ joke or finds the act of fecal penetration among men to be anti-natural and gross. Since so many people have some ‘homophobic’ skeletons in the closet — surely even lots of Liberals said ‘fag’ at some point or cracked a ‘gay’ joke or laughed at one — , they are essentially living under a cloud of possible blackmail, and so, they better do like the Jews and homos tell them. If they go along and work as running dogs of Jews and homos, their ‘dirty secrets’ will be kept under the lid, but if they do anything to displease Jews or homos, the Jewish-Homo or Jomo intelligence network will kick into full gear and use the media to expose, shame, and destroy the person as a ‘homophobe’, someone’s said to be clinically sick in the head because he may have once that he thinks it’s gross for a male penis to ejaculate inside a fecal hole of another man or because he once said lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to adopt since orphaned children should ideally be raised by a father-figure and mother-figure since all human life is created through the sexual union of man and woman. It’s been surmised that one of the reasons as to why Walter Duranty of the New York Times didn’t report truthfully on the Ukrainian Great Famine — in which Stalin and his Jewish communist henchmen killed up to 5 million Ukrainians — was because he was blackmailed by communists for being a homosexual. In the current order, Jews and homos have many people by their balls because Jews and homos got the ‘dirty’ secrets on them; given the decadent morality of our world, your mind is ‘dirty’ if you believe in true marriage and your mind is wonderful if you believe fecal penetration among homo men is biologically just as legit as real sexuality between men and women. Blackmail operates according to the prevailing taboos of a society. So, in the past, it was damaging for a person to be exposed as a homo, which is why even Liberace sued a British newspaper for describing his style as fruity — even though the paper didn’t explicitly say he’s a homo — , but today, if someone comes out as a homo, he or she is showered with admiration and awe, as if there’s nothing more wonderful in the world than a guy sucking another guy’s dick and having his bunghole be rammed by another guy’s penis. So, homos cannot be blackmailed anymore, but anyone who may have cracked a ‘gay’ joke or muttered something unkind about homosexuality can be blackmailed and destroyed for merely thinking that it’s gross, anti-natural, and unhealthy for a male sexual organ to be sliding in and out of the fecal-stained anus. Even if that person is entirely for tolerance of homos and even for ‘gay marriage’, he could well be destroyed if he said something even mildly critical of homos, homo power, or homosexuality; it’s like even the mildest criticism of Jewish power can get you in hot water. And it’s getting so that if someone even laughed at or made a joke about transvestites or trannies — though using such a term can also get you in hot water — , his or her career can be destroyed too. So, no matter how ridiculously or ludicrously homos and trannies act, we are not supposed to laugh or mock them but look upon their behavior with awe, wonderment, and boundless affection-adoration-adulation. Switch the taboos, and the rules of blackmail are also switched. The current order is ruled by homosexuals and Holosexuals — Jews are ‘Holosexuals’ as neo-Jewishness is more obsessed with the Holocaust than anything else in Jewish tradition — , and the homo men and the Holo men surreptitiously gather and share intelligence among themselves on other groups so that if someone happens to do or say something that displeases homos or Holos, the Jomo cabal in the media will spring into action to bring that person down. Homocarthyism is many times more vicious and deadly than the short-lived McCarthyism ever was; also, whereas McCarthyism was loathed by much of the American intellectual and cultural elites, homocarthyism has the full backing of America’s media, government, Hollywood, and Wall Street elites. America today is so debased that anyone can be brought down for being exposed that he or she may have laughed at a ‘gay’ joke just once. And remember what happened to the Beauty Contestant Carrie Prejean who, when asked about ‘gay marriage’ by Perez Hilton, said she supported traditional marriage? The entire Jomo Cabal media apparatus went into overdrive to expose unflattering things about her secret life. Now, would the Jomo Cabal media have done the same to her IF she’d given the answer that Hilton preferred? No, she would have been celebrated and praised as the most beautiful and noblest person in the world. Such cases of shaming-and-destroying by the Jomo Cabal media demonstrate how blackmail can be used legally through indirect means. If the Jomo Cabal had threatened Carrie Prejean with an explicit message that it will smear her reputation UNLESS she comes out for ‘gay marriage’, that would have been criminal blackmail. But by creating examples like her, the Jomo Cabal sends a message to all Americans — especially those who aspire to be famous — that they better not say or do anything to displease Holos or homos since the Jomo Cabal will do to them what was done to Carrie Prejean. Now, one might say such a beauty contestant could have found solace among Conservatives who might have defended her right to and her rightness in standing up for true marriage, but there’s little comfort in the Conservative community for people chasing after glamour since all the vanity-and-popular-culture industries are owned and controlled by Holos, Homos, and their ilk. Unless Conservatives can create their own vast entertainment industry, even conservative-leaning wanna-be-stars and wanna-be-celebrities are going to have to put out ideologically and even sexually to the Jewish-and-homo or Jomo Cabal that uses most talent as tools or pieces of meat for them to cook, prepare, and market — after enjoying it for themselves. Furthermore, as today’s mainstream Conservatism is so slavish to Wall Street, Jewish elites, and the super-rich, it doesn’t even have the guts and spine to stand up for true marriage. If Wall Street super-rich want it, mainstream Conservatives either support it or refuse to fight it — consider Orrin Hatch of Utah who says he still opposes ‘gay marriage’ in principle but will no longer fight it since, well, uh, there’s nothing that can be done about it, especially as he wants Goldman Sachs to invest in Salt Lake City. Conservatives are worthless craven whores who suck up to the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Lloyd Blankfein. Anyway, returning to Drayton in the final scenes of THE MIST, his rational faculty is forced to make decisions with very limited information since he can’t see through the mist, has no understanding of the military experiment that dissolved barriers among parallel universes, has no contact with electronic media, and is exhausted almost to his wit’s end. He’s like a person in the dark trying to make his way through a minefield. Rationality beats irrationality, but it all depends on the context: Rationality is useless without a sufficient supply of facts. The advantage of irrationality in times of powerlessness and lack of information is it imbues people with a sense of power and meaning despite their clueless-ness and helplessness. From THE MIST, we can see how and why evolution came to favor the ‘religiosity’ gene. For most of human existence, mankind knew nothing or very little about science and how the world around them really worked. Indeed, outside Ancient Greece and some parts of Rome, even most advanced civilizations like China, Persia, and India failed to develop the scientific mind. Since mankind knew so little and couldn’t make sense of most things, their main recourse to having some meaning in life and feeling in tune with the universe was through the fear and faith in gods or God; furthermore, such faith gave people a chance to reason and think about the truth in a ‘Platonic’ way; consider how, even before kids are introduced to science and facts, they learn to think about stuff through games, imagination, and stories. In many apocalyptic movies, the emphases usually happen to be on the physical struggle for survival, i.e. breakdown of Rule of Law turns the world into a struggle of ‘every man for himself. Such is less of a concern in THE MIST since people are inside a food store amply stocked with food, water, and other basic necessities — like the survivors in the shopping mall in DAWN OF THE DEAD — , and instead, the movie’s primary focus is on the psychologies of the characters who are confronted with a mystery and horror so awesome and fearsome that they are rendered nearly powerless. They feel powerless on the physical level as the creatures outside are so terrifying, grotesque, and/or huge. Also, the mist has made it impossible for them to see much of anything, so no one WHERE the monsters may be lurking. But even more frightening and ‘disempowering’ is the utter surrealism of the event that defies every rule of reality they’d know all their lives. [Indeed, if such things were to happen in our world, how would we react? What would we think? They would undermine so many of the fundamentals of science that we’d been taught since grade school, and we would lose conviction in any sense of rational certainty. Even Richard Dawkins might be tempted to get on his knees and start believing in higher powers if not exactly in God. The events would defy and overwhelm even the minds of the greatest scientists who would be at loss of words as to what’s happening, and why & how. In this sense, the ‘good guys’ of THE MIST are, in some ways, the crazy ones because they cling to some measure of sense in a world that has gone utterly crazy. Suppose you were to wake up one morning and see the sun dancing around and singing "Mrs. Brown You Got a Lovely Daughter" by Herman’s Hermits. It’d be batshit crazy, and you’d be batshit crazier if you consulted an astronomy book to figure out why the sun is acting that way.] Maybe craziness is the norm. We understand the natural world much better now — how storm clouds form, how hurricanes develop, why volcanos erupt, and etc. — but in the past, many natural phenomena would have struck most people as utterly inexplicable, horrible, unreal, and mad. Since they couldn’t make sense of the world in physical terms — modern science as a universal knowledge is a recent development, even in the West —, they sought order within the framework of the human mind and heart that reveled in religious notions of magical or mysterious beings/forces commanding the forces of nature. All such notions turned out to be factually wrong, but they were psychologically ‘right’ in the sense that all minds seek some kind of equilibrium and ‘the answer’ for things even when true answers aren’t available. This is why the likes of Richard Dawkins tend to be shallow and vapid in their sneering dismissal religions and spirituality as so much bunk. They fail to realize that, prior to the rise of science as a reliable foundation of human knowledge[and the rise of modern economies that made universal education possible], it was all too natural and understandable for people to rely on religions for some semblance of order in the world, inner and outer. ‘Spirits’ served as connective links between man and the world, i.e. even though man knew little of how the world really worked, his belief in spirits assured him of the existence of higher powers behind both man and the world; and through such powers man and the world were thought to be ‘spiritually’ interconnected in some way. It was man’s power of fiction that enabled him to better cope with facts he couldn’t rationally understand. Of course, the likes of Dawkins are correct in complaining that religious people[especially in the Western world]have no excuse for being so ignorant and stupid they have access to universal education that more than amply teaches the basic facts of science. But then, the main culprit might not so much be religion as the degradation of popular culture and the undermining of family life. As the problem of broken families increases and as so many kids are into hedonistic junk culture, they don’t pay attention in school and fail to develop properly critical, let alone scientific, mentalities. And even though Political Correctness is secular — mostly anyway — , it is also antithetical to critical thinking, skepticism, open discourse, and rationality. Instead, it favors taboos, shaming, witch-hunts for heretics, group-think, clerisy-as-neo-clergy, culture of feminist hysteria, blank-slate homo indoctrination of children from kindergarten, the irrational cult of ‘white guilt’, and etc. It pushes secular dogmas than secular facts, and, as with the case of communism, it employs tools and tactics perfected by religious orders. [Let’s face it. Most secular elites of power and high intelligence have very little confidence in the mental abilities of most people — despite the Liberal elite’s lip-service to egalitarian principles — , and they much prefer to use quasi-religious or pop-propagandistic means to sway the masses. But PC isn’t just about smart people using taboos and emotional/sensual manipulation to control the dumb masses; it’s also about unintelligent people leaning on the crutch of dogma and emotional righteousness against people with higher intelligence and superior abilities. After all, the righteous feel they’re right even when they’re wrong. If, for example, 2 + 2 = 5 is said to be ‘anti-racist’, the righteous will feel justified in attacking the smarter person who can demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4. Consider the film OLEANNA in which a dumb female student feels so powerless when it comes to her mental abilities but then feels so empowered upon taking up an officially sanctioned dogma. Many middle-level managerial type prefer dogma because it is easier for their mediocre minds to understand and empowers them with the simple Truth. They know they can’t match wits with higher-level people but they can win in the battle-of-wills if they have righteous dogma on their side. Of course, the power of quasi-religious dogma is also used by smart people against other smart people. Suppose smart Jewish elites fear that their Narrative will be undermined by the scientific findings and rational arguments of other intelligent people who don’t care for the Narrative. Since smart Jews cannot win factually and rationally against people like Nicholas Wade, they use the power of dogma to rile up respectable and populist opinion against the ‘heretics’ or ‘inheritics’.] Dawkins ought to know all about the pitfalls of secular dogmatism because he got in hot water over criticizing a stupid ‘atheist’ woman who hysterically and falsely accused a man for ‘sexual harassment’ simply on the basis that he confessed admiration for her and asked her out on a date. PC is about as scientific as Marxist materialist ‘science’ or Nazi racial ‘science’. I mean what can one say about a form of ideology that promoted the fraudulent lies of Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin as Absolute Truth for several decades? But of course, there are certain taboos that even the secular-rationalist-and-free-thinking Dawkins will not touch since they constitute the third rail of PC as controlled by Jews. Dawkins is right to mock stupid Christian Creationists and idiotic Muslims who literally believe everything in their holy books, but that is too easy and too safe. If he were really courageous, he would challenge the anti-scientific biases and taboos that exist WITHIN the academic, intellectual, and scientific communities, a failing that is far more egregious since people who claim to be for science and truth should not be using taboos and upholding dogmas to shut down debate & research, ruin reputations, and distort or prohibit entire areas of knowledge. At any rate, in a bright world where everyone can see everything equally well, the person of reason is to be favored over the person of faith since the eyes can see, assess, and figure out things as they really are. One would be blind to stick to faith and only faith in such a world. However, if both the man of reason and man of faith are enveloped in darkness — even to the point where reasons is rendered almost useless — , is there an advantage in reason over faith? If you know a lot about how the stock markets work, your power of reason is a real advantage. But if lack access to the knowledge, you might as well rely on a fortune teller. In a way, this is why THE TRIAL by Franz Kafka goes from legality and sociality — where rationality is of paramount importance — to religiosity and ritualism. Try as he might, Joseph K has no access to his case on any factual level, so he finally submits to power as a dark mystery; it goes from modern to medieval. Though Mrs. Carmody is the one who called for human sacrifice whereas such an idea would never cross Drayton’s mind, it is ironic that he is the one who kills four innocent people in his car. Of course, he does it for what seems to be rational and moral reasons: better that they die quick merciful deaths than be devoured gruesomely by monsters; in a way, his act seems a noble act of self-sacrifice because, out of bullets, he faces the prospect of dying painfully at the claws of monsters unlike the others who were killed instantly. And yet, his killings are a kind of a human sacrifice to his cult of reason. Without knowing for certain what may happen in the next hour or two, Drayton took a leap of faith and rationally surmised that monsters will soon arrive and devour the passengers. Actually, one problem with the decision for the mercy-killings is the survivors should have known by then that monsters generally don’t attack people inside buildings or cars. So, wouldn’t they have been safe inside the car for at least a day or two? But then, minds on the edge of despair are not thinking very clearly; but then, even a cloudy mind that is used to thinking clearly still thinks it’s thinking clearly when it’s not. It’s like a person who’s used to jogging fast still thinks he or she’s jogging fast even when he or she’s slowed down considerably from exhaustion. I wonder if the rationale for monsters-generally-not-entering-the-food-mart is a metaphor for the movie experience where the horror consumes the screen but doesn’t enter into the realm of the audience — though, to be sure, a few giant insects do crash through the window at one point in THE MIST. Anyway, according to Wikipedia, the ending in King’s novella differs from the ending in the movie. In King’s original story, Drayton thinks he heard something on the car radio and, filled with uncertain hope, drives on into the distance. But what both endings have in common is the suggestion of how reason can slide into an article of faith. After all, if Drayton-in-the-original-story just barely thinks he heard something on the radio and drives into the mystery in search of a hope, he is operating on faith as well as on fact — or maybe ‘faict’. Anyway, when the mist lifts at the end of the movie, it creates the strangest kind of effect on our emotions: the paradoxical shock of the normal/obvious. The clearing of the mist doesn’t merely dissolve the unknown — the mystery mist harboring strange monsters — and replace it with the known/knowable but almost seems to transpose us from one universe to another. And yet, because this ‘new’ universe is the ‘old’ reality, we feel a sense of both liberation and enclose-ment; it’s like someone digging out of prison to arrive back in prison. [It’s sort of like the ending of THE PLANET OF THE APES where the Charlton Heston character finally breaks free from the ape society only to discover that he’s been ‘home’ all along.] The human mind and senses being what they are, when faced with the unknown, they aren’t merely content or careful to acknowledge the unknown but tend to fill the unknown with their presuppositions. Anyone who has walked into the dark woods know this. The mind doesn’t merely think ‘the woods around me are dark’ but tends to see the darkness as a vast and infinite universe of all sorts of possibilities. Or it can even be woods during daytime. One could enter a tiny forest but, surrounded by trees all around, could easily feel that the forest stretches on indefinitely on all sides. The mist has a similar effect on Drayton. His mind hopes that the mist will stretch on for just a few miles, but another part of his mind fears — and is fascinated by — the possibility that the mist may cover the entire world. Thus, even though Drayton and others can’t see much through the mist, the fact that they’ve driven for a quite a stretch in the mist[though, to be sure, even a short distance can seem epic when so much remains unseen and unknown] — and even seen a super-giant monster lumber past as if to claim the world as its own — subconsciously convinces them that the mist has taken over everything and probably envelops all the world. It is now The Reality, and humans have lost their world to the mist and creatures from parallel universes. And we come to feel the same way. So, when the mist lifts and we realize that it had affected only a small part of the American Northwest — and humans will soon restore order and reclaim their world — , the effect is far more jarring. It comes as a relief but also ‘disappoints’ because the profundity of our imagination is deflated.[It’s like the mice-and-the-maze scenario. Suppose mice are left in a very familiar setting but a maze structure is imposed on them. Sudden, the familiar-and-known environment becomes very strange and fascinating to the mice. The mice will be filled with anxiety & fear but also intense interest and curiosity. It will try to figure out this ‘new’ environment, but then, suppose the maze is lifted and the mice suddenly feel the shock of familiarity, normal, and the obvious. The moment would be both a relief and a disappointment. The mice would realize they’ve always been in the same place, but it would also be boring to realize that the maze had only tricked them into believing they’d been transposed to a strange and fascinating place.] At the end of THE MIST, we’ve not only regained sight of the real world but lost an entire universe we’ve come to believe in with fear and terror but also fascination and awe. Imagine if, like the mice in the above scenario, you entered and became trapped inside a maze for days on end. Though your conscious mind would know that the maze is finite and there has to be some way out, some part of your psyche will fear and be fascinated with the trepidation that the maze goes on forever and there’s no way out. But then, suppose the maze were to vanish just then and reveal that you’d been ‘going around in circles’ within a small area and you were actually standing pretty close to where you’d started from. There would be relief but also a kind of disappointment in the sense of "So, is this all there is?" This is why a Kafka’s stories are so unnerving. The mazes within them could be real, could be infinite, or could be just a prank. But then, if God is into pranks, even a silly little trick could be epic and infinitely mysterious for us insignificant creatures. Or consider the Zone in Andrei Tarkovsk’s adaptation of STALKER. Are the rumors about the Zone real, fabricated, or speculative? Is what has been said about the Zone the accounts of reliable witnesses, unbalanced kooks, or government propagandists[to keep people out or to distract dissenters with the hope of some kind of escapism? All systems of power rely on the element of myth because, once the curtains are lifted and the mechanisms are exposed — as in THE WIZARD OF OZ and ZARDOZ — , it becomes apparent that the actual operators of the system are people like you and me. They may be more intelligent and capable, but they are just people with all the problems and flaws that we have. For example, we are told that the Oscars are given by the ‘academy’, but what does the academy really consist of? It’s a bunch of industry people who don’t know or care much about cinema as art. And who actually decides on the awards handed out at Cannes Film Festival? The likes of Quentin Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, Whoopie Goldberg, and Kirk Douglas invited to serve as panelists. Or, consider something like the Nobel Prize that garners so much respect around the world, but who are the sort of individuals who really get to pick the winners? Many of them are hustlers, opportunists, and dogmatists of low moral character. Stanley Kauffmann, upon watching D.A. Pennebaker’s THE WAR ROOM, admitted being rather let down that the grand spectacle of politics was actually directed by guys like George Stephanopoulos and James Carville[the ugliest mofo that ever lived]. This isn’t to say that some systems aren’t indeed very powerful and awesome. Who would deny the real power of America. But no matter how powerful a system, its rulers are always emperors-without-clothes to an extent since they all-too-human despite their special aura of power and greatness. [Generally, while political leaders are propped up to seem more powerful than they really are, the true oligarchic masters who pull the strings are made out to seem far less special and powerful than they really are; indeed, many even remain anonymous and unknown to the public eye despite the tremendous power they exert through their puppets in government, media, academia, and various institutions.] The powerful may hide behind departments of this or that, or something called the ‘Federal Reserve’ or ‘Supreme Court’ or whatever, but behind such mythic titles and mystique, they are only individuals. And as individuals, they can be brought down. No individual is invincible after all. This is why the Wasp elites were brought down, in spectacular fashion I might add. This is why the seemingly permanent and impervious Soviet Union crumbled overnight. This is why the Russian Tsar lost everything overnight in 1917. Though they ruled over vast and powerful systems, they were still nothing but individuals, and when powerful people are ‘exposed’ as fools, idiots, and flawed morons, they are vulnerable to the forces arrayed against them. This is why Castro in Cuba, the Kims in North Korea, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and other such clowns rely so much on maintaining the myth because the true nature of power in those nations is so piss-ant pathetic and ridiculous. Of course, dumb rulers come to believe in their own grandiose myth of invincibility and may be brought down by their own absurd ambitions. Or, when rulers promote themselves as almighty and invincible but chinks in their armor began to show, they could be headed for a steep tragic fall; bigger they are, the harder they fall. This is why Jews, as powerful as they are, are careful to hide their power and use goy buffers/fronts[the shabbos goyim] to do their bidding[and take the blame when things go wrong]. So, if the Jewish agenda blows up, the bulk of the blame falls on the likes of Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and etc. Jews always remind themselves that history giveth, history taketh away. When the French people looked upon their king as magnificent and regal, they were awed by the mystique of power. But when the Revolutionaries debunked and mocked the mystique as phony baloney, the awe and reverence surrounding the king evaporated almost overnight. Jews did the same thing to the Wasp elites, ‘exposing’ them as an unearned privileged class of phonies, poseurs, old-boys-network, shallow bigots, vapid snobs, and etc. And this is why Jews monopolize the media. The media are the mist-machine that determines what we see and what we don’t see. Jews get pissed and hysterical if we try to remove the smoke-and-mist from their own power. They want us to see Jews — even rich, powerful and privileged ones — through the fog of Holocaust forever and ever. If we were to see the real Jew at last, we’d realize that we are being ruled by a conspiratorial network of arrogant, sniveling, nasty, contemptuous, self-righteous, venomous, and hideous individuals of low moral character who think, plot, and act in ways that only confirm the accusations of ‘anti-Semites’ through the ages. No matter how great and powerful a system, the people who run it are just people like the rest of us[even if they’re many times smarter than us], and if we see past the mystique of power and see them for what they are, we’d realize they can be attacked and brought down like the rotten French monarchy. This is why Jews feel they must monopolize the media in order to be the only ones with the power to weave the mist that fools us with their mystique of power combined with their mystique of eternal tragedy. Of course, this Jewish-made mist hides and/or obfuscates up all the truths about Jewish ‘historical crimes’ against gentiles, but that’s how Jews play the game. If the mist of Jewish power were to lift one day, we would see with clarity that the elites of this country are a bunch of nasty vile Jews who pull the leash on their craven goy running dogs. Anyway, ending of THE MIST is especially jarring because Drayton suffers from a kind of double remorse. A part of him is relieved that humanity is winning the war and rolling back the mist. But that development has nullified what he’d done to his son and the passengers in the car. For his mercy killings to be justified, the monsters of the mist should have triumphed over humanity. That way, his killings would have been morally sanctioned; furthermore, his own death at the hands, claws, or tentacles of the monsters would have ended his own misery. And yet, to wish the destruction of humanity just so his deed would have been justified is also terrible and likely guilt-inducing. [But given the nature of the ego, people sometimes subconsciously root for great tragedies if only to be proven right/righteous. Something in us would rather be proven right with the end of the world than proven wrong with the continuation of the world. This is true of religious folks. The end of the world would be a terrible thing, but some religious folks live with the conviction that the world will end on a certain date, and that conviction becomes the centerpiece of their lives. Since their pride and vanity are so wrapped in being proven right by events, they want to end to happen than not happen. If the end doesn’t come, it’d be a good thing, a blessing for humanity, but the devotees will be disappointed as if the continuation of the world is an affront to their righteous egos. When Noah built the Ark, he didn’t consciously want humanity to be drowned and killed in the flood. And yet, because he staked his pride and righteousness on the prophecy of the flood, a part of him found satisfaction in the providence of the Higher Power. Or consider the outcome of the Iraq War. A part of all of us — even anti-war people — didn’t want Iraq to turn into a fiasco since it would entail horrible suffering and bloodshed. And yet, another part of those who’d opposed the war were happy to see the implosion of the war because they were proven right and could say "See, I told you so." Righteous pride is very satisfying and addictive, even when it entails great destruction. Ron Paul may not be a drug user, but he sure got a high from right about the Iraq War and Wall Street. And consider the character of MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. One of the locals — the guy who played the ruthless fruiter in NO WAY OUT which should have been called No Gay Out — begins to hear messages from some being called ‘Indrid Cold’. He hears some numbers in his head, and the next day, a plane crash happens to be associated with those numbers: flight number and number of casualties. Initially, the local guy is distraught by the horror of such prophecy, but when another number he hears matches another tragedy, he begins to feel a certain pride, a sense of self-importance. He’s been a nobody all his life, but suddenly he feels special, like the chosen, like Noah who hears warning from higher powers. He’s gotten into the habit of wishing his prophecies to be confirmed though such confirmation will mean more innocent people will die in future tragedies; and we’re not sure if Indrid Cold causes such tragedies or merely warns some people of them; we are not sure if he warns some people to aid humanity or if he’s hustling humanity to go for the ultimate kill. The local guy is not an evil man and he’s grateful to the higher powers, of which Indrid Cold seems to be agent, for supplying him with premonitions of the future, but his bloated pride also makes him kinda crazy, like Roy in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. But even the main character of the movie — played by Richard Gere — falls into the same kind of mind-set. He surmises that the messages he’s been getting from Indrid Cold constitute a warning about some disaster at a chemical factory. Consciously, he wants to save lives. He sees it as his moral duty to convince people to shut down the factory. Consciously, he doesn’t wish for anything to happen at the factory. But because his righteous pride has become so entwined with the disaster, he is rather disappointed when, in fact, nothing happens. MOTHMAN PROPHECIES is a strange movie because we are never sure if Indrid Cold is a divine or demonic figure, or both. It belongs to a different kind of horror where the barrier between good and bad break down. It’s like THE OTHERS and THE WARD where nothing is really as it seems. Both films trick us into thinking in terms of ‘us versus them’ when the ‘reality’ in both films are, at once, far more complicated and far simpler, or they are far more complicated because they’re far simpler. Both movies work like human complexes. Complexes are formed by repression of simple problems. The repression makes the simple problem fester into dark complications in the psyche. And yet, because the complex has taken over the psyche, there needs to be a sophisticated means to drill through the complications of the psyche and recover the repressed simple problem.] So, Drayton is truly trapped within himself. If his fears had proven correct, his killing of the passengers — including his own son — would have been justified, but then it could well mean the end of humanity. He would be redeemed, but the world would be lost. As it happens, the world is redeemed, but[and/or therefore] Drayton is lost. When Abraham was ordered by God to kill his son Isaac, God intervened at the last moment, but US military, the great man-made power of the world, fails to stop Drayton from killing the passengers. Even though the military isn’t to blame, Drayton’s psyche may well feel cheated by the secular god of human-technological power. The mist partly serves as metaphor for the paradigmatic nature of the mind, i.e. the mind, when faced with an impenetrable mystery, takes few available clues and weaves them into a ‘world-view’ that takes on a life of its own and, in some ways, becomes as certain as the mystery is uncertain. Indeed, the greatest example of this is God. Mankind created a concept of utmost certainty in the face of unfathomable uncertainty, and the paradigm of a universe ruled by God came to be truer and more certain than the mystery of the universe itself. Especially when pushed up against a wall, the mind craves certainty because contemplation of uncertainty is too taxing as a luxury when one’s very survival is at stake. Paradoxically, though the mind works to clear away the mist and make sense of the world, in doing so the mind weaves a mist of its own by creating entire paradigms on limited or even flimsy evidence. Anyway, even though THE MIST is no masterpiece and not even a great movie — though it does have some remarkable moments — , it’s one of those interesting movies; and interesting movies aren’t necessary the best ones or even good ones. Some films, despite their greatness, don’t linger in your mind, whereas certain other films leave a long-lasting impression. They ‘shine’ in the way the bald-headed Negro Halloran explains in Kubrick’s movie: "It's just that, you know, some places are like people. Some ‘shine’ and some don't. I guess you could say the Overlook Hotel here has somethin' almost like ‘shining’... when something happens, it can leave a trace of itself behind. Say like, if someone burns toast. Well, maybe things that happen leave other kinds of traces behind. Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who ‘shine’ can see. Just like they can see things that haven't happened yet. Well, sometimes they can see things that happened a long time ago. I think a lot of things happened right here in this particular hotel over the years … and not all of 'em was good." Though ‘art films’ are thought to be more serious and deep, genre films can often be more provocative because genres work as a kind of game, and they become especially interesting when the game is expanded, complicated, subverted, twisted, and revised by intrusions of art, reality, personal vision, and etc. Also, it helps if there are more than one dominant author as a game is usually more interesting with multiple players. It’s like poker is more interesting and fun than a game of solitaire. It’s like a dialogue, trialogue, quadrologue, or polyogue is more interesting than a monologue, though monologue can be very intense. Though there are lots of riches to be mined in the films of Ingmar Bergman, Michelangelo Antonioni, and Robert Bresson, they are like intense monologues. There isn’t much of a game for the audience to play since it’s a one-man-show and one-man-vision. And the meaning is single-layered since there’s a single dominant author who served as both writer and director. Also, their films are meant to be art taken rather earnestly. But, directors like Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick almost always relied on other writers and often based their films on novels. As a result, there were multiple levels of game-playing: between the novelist and screenwriter, between the screenwriter and director. Instead of a dominant artist hitting the ball against the wall, there were several creative figures hitting the ball back and forth, making it a more varied game, though not necessarily a more meaningful or deeper one. Hitchcock and Kubrick – as well as Orson Welles — really stand out among the giants of cinema for, on the one hand, they were total masters who played the role of dominant authors[indeed no less than Bergman, Bresson, and Antonioni] but, on the other hand, preferred to ‘play’ with the stories of other men[usually novelists] and with the ideas of collaborators[hired screen-writers] — as well as with some of the most original and talented technical people in the business. If ‘pure film artists’ like Bergman and Bresson generally served themselves and if movie professionals generally served the story/vision/ideas of the writers[or just did as ordered by the production company], Hitchcock and Kubrick served themselves by serving the ideas of others, and it was this contradiction that made their films especially memorable and provocative. They were, at once, megalomaniacal in transforming the material to serve their own visions and generous in creatively playing a subservient role[as well as subversive game]with material originally laid out by the novelists/writers. It’s like in THE SHINING, Kubrick is sometimes the servant of King and sometimes the master of King, bending and molding the novel with the help of the screen writer Diane Johnson to tease out meanings and implications that either totally escaped King’s mind or came nowhere near his intentions. When such a creative game is played, it can’t possibly please everyone since the writer will feel that his original vision has been altered or corrupted whereas the director will insist on the validity of his own vision despite the writer’s displeasure, but it is this unsettled friction that keeps producing the sparks of controversies of interpretation. Indeed, the sort of films that have inspired the most discussion, analysis, and controversy are those ‘unsettled’ ones that are the products of multiple artists working both in contrast and collaboration. Consider VERTIGO, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, THE SHINING[which is now rightfully considered as a masterpiece], STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, THE SEARCHERS, HIGH AND LOW, THE GODFATHER, and etc. This isn’t to suggest that the films of Bergman, Antonioni, or Bresson are less important but rather that their meanings tend to be self-contained since they are the intense works of single dominant authors, and as such, there’s less of the ‘game’ in them. And this is why best films of Alain Resnais are, in many ways, more ‘fun’ to revisit because he collaborated with writers with their own visions, therefore playing a kind of game where he, as director, batted the ball around with the writers with their own ideas. To be sure, a writer-director can do it all and create a work of immense interest as a mind-game, but he or she usually happens to be juggler of genre and art or of different forms of art. Think of David Cronenberg, David Mamet, and David Lynch. Cronenberg has often been a writer-and-director using ‘puerile’ genre cliches as raw material for his intellectual concerns. Mamet has often grappled with real world problems that fascinate/obsess him most but on the poker table of genre formulations, a kind of test of truth vs trick. Lynch’s MULHOLLAND DR. is about as low and high — hide-and-seek game and tragic lamentation — as a work of cinema can be. It’s this tension between the puerile and the pure, between the game and the gravitas, between the apparently unserious and the deadly serious, and between the professional and the personal that make their films so difficult to pigeonhole but so easy to revisit as a kind of game that can be played over and over in search of new hints and meanings. At any rate, some art forms are necessarily ‘monologue-ish’: most authors write alone, most painters paint alone, and most sculptors design their works alone. But something like cinema requires so many levels of creative input that it’s often too much for one person to play the role of Total Author. And indeed, Bergman, Antonioni, and Bresson were able to sustain their high quality of work because they generally made smaller-budgeted films — though for the big production of ZABRISKIE POINT, Antonioni relied on American writers. Woody Allen, as writer-director, also made small-scale films. But for big productions, it’s difficult to imagine someone functioning as both the dominant writer and director. Terry Gilliam might see himself as a super-director, but he’s usually a total disaster. He can do well enough servicing the ideas of other people, as in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL. And he got real lucky with FISHER KING. But just about everything else he did is unwatchable. Art isn’t only about what to add but what to take out. While ‘less is more’ may be too simplistic as a formula, more certainly isn’t more in art, but Gilliam just piles on his movies with everything he can get hold of; it’s like pizza with 100 toppings, including potato chips and jelly beans. Hitchcock and Kubrick knew how to use the chef’s knife. Gilliam cooks like the Three Stooges. Quentin Tarantino is another who takes great pride as a kind of super-auteur, one who does it all, but most of his story ideas are merely rehashes of exploitation B-movies, and most of the dialogue is about filling the mouths of his characters with nonsense talk about everything and nothing, though some of it’s very cleverly written. Tarantino is like someone who sits on the potty at the dinner table and thinks he’s a genius because he talks with food in his mouth while pissing and shitting at the same time; you see, he can do everything at once. How far he’s sunk morally and artistically since his first and best film RESERVOIR DOGS. If Nero or Caligurla became film-makers, he would have been someone like Tarantino. A writer-director of genre works has a less daunting task than a writer-director of art films because any work in genre is already half-prepared. Even if you want to write an original Western, the genre formulation already provides most of what you need, and your job is to rearrange and revise things for the ‘reboot’. In contrast, imagine if someone were to be a writer-director of an ‘art film’ about the actual West that might have been. He would have to do a lot of research into the history and culture. He would have to delve deeply into the personal psychologies of the characters and unearth truths that go against the cliches of the genre. Art is about seeking the truth against the legend than just printing the legend. This is the difference between GOODFELLAS and SCARFACE. It is also why Sam Peckinpah’s BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA failed rather miserably. Instead of creatively interacting with someone else’s script, Peckinpah played the dominant roles of writer[though he did have a collaborator] and director. Such a dual-task calls for double-the-concentration-and-effort. Alas, Peckinpah took on double-duty with half his usual input. Besides, Peckinpah was best as an interpreter and reviser of another man’s vision than a creator in his own right. It was bad enough Peckinpah was having problems drinking and directing, but when he opted to drink, write, and direct, it was all too much, and the film was a disaster, though a fascinating one like those grotesque car crashes. For BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA to work as art, Peckinpah needed to dig deeper into his characters, but the emotions reek mostly of drunken macho cliches and whatever focus/clarity exists in the film is too hung-over with morbid self-pity to illuminate anything. But it fails as genre too because Peckinpah mopes and gropes with too much earnest intensity for the material to come alive as narrative or game, as in THE GETAWAY. Frank Darabont, as far as I can tell from THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and THE MIST, is no more than a crafty professional. He’s very good at what he does but lacks the personal vision and mastery of Hitchcock or Kubrick[or even John Carpenter at his best]. Even so, he seems to have given much consideration as to the possibilities and meanings of THE MIST, and his effort, even if confined to Hollywood conventions, is effective and interesting enough to have produced a work of considerable interest that’s worth revisiting a few times. I wouldn’t go so far as to claim, as indie film-maker Shaun O’Connor did, that it’s a very great movie, but it is the rare horror movie that I found engaging on several levels instead of making me wonder when the next big fright is gonna hit. Anyway, though Stephen King is a big Liberal, I wonder if he’s as really naive as most Liberals are. He seems to have a mind and some knack for irony. In the early part of the movie when an MP[military police] enters the store, an old woman — a school-teacher as it turns out — complains about how it’s so wrong that so much money is spent on military technology when it could be spent on education. It’s the sort of Liberal cliche claptrap we’ve heard a million times. Spend more on students, less on bombs and missiles, blah blah. But do such Liberals ever realize that we spend so much on bombs and missiles precisely because we spend so much on education? US spends a tremendous amount on public education, private education, college education, elite education, and etc. Indeed, if US didn’t spend so much on education, it would also spend a lot less on the military since many more people would be uneducated, without skills, and without the know-how to run businesses and government. It’s because US spends a vast amount on education that a lot of people become businessmen and make a lot of money and hire a lot of people. And all those people pay taxes to the government, and when a government has lots of money, it can afford a massive military for self-defense and to exert its influence around the world. Also, knowledge = power, so naturally, lots of highly educated and highly intelligent people want to work at the cutting edge of science and technology, and some of them are going to be fascinated with military technology since nothing is as powerful as bombs and missiles. Think about it. If you’re a smart kid and provided with education, you will likely go to a top science and technology school. Since you’re so smart, you’re going to want to advance technology to come up with better stuff whether in the private sector or government-military sector. After all, it wasn’t illiterates who manned the Manhattan Project. No, it was the culmination of American system of mass education and elite education. Though for most people, education means learning the basics to get by in life, for really smart kids education means gaining super-knowledge to push science and technology in new directions, and this is as true with military technology as with consumer electronics. If Bill Gates had been interested in the military, he might have committed his time and energy toward making better bombs and missiles. So, I wonder if King just naively agrees with the sentiments of the old teacher or was aware of the ironic connection between massive spending on education and massive spending on the military. After all, if knowledge = power, then more knowledge will crave more power, and where is power more exciting than in the military? Republican presidents or Democratic presidents, they sure get a kick out of the fact that US can kick ass all over the world. And Jewish Liberals take great pride in the fact that America and Israel spend a great deal on education and produce world-class Jewish scientists who can build better weapons with which to massacre untold numbers of Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians. Anyway, those who want to hold the power must also control the Narrative. It is the Narrative that either lends spiritual or moral justification in seeking, holding, and expanding the power. One can have power without the ownership of the Narrative, but the power will seem unjustified and unwarranted in the eyes of the masses. It’s like gangsters can have control over a neighborhood, but people would still see gangsters as gangsters, thugs with illegitimate power. It’d be power as power without moral justification. This is why even gangsters have gone for public relations stunts, posing as Robin Hoods of their neighborhoods or as the lesser of two evils. Italian mobs, for instance, rigged things in Italian-American communities so that ‘moolies’ would be kept out[a sort of crude working class version of what rich Jews do in Manhattan through their politicians, judges, and lawyers], and that much was indeed appreciated by the community as the even the mafia is preferable to Negroes. Better to have organized crime than jungle-ass crime. Also, as the early generations of Italian-Americans didn’t know their way around Anglo-American or Irish-American dominated big cities, they had to rely on community organizations, and the mafia sometimes offered social advice and protection, which was also the case with the Chinese gangs — or at least in the movies. The story of the American Revolution presented a Narrative that made the Colonial rebels out to be committed freedom fighters willing to sacrifice life and limb for Liberty and made the British King out to be the worst tyrant that ever done lived. The truth was very different. The British had been almost as beneficent to the colonial folks as Wasp elites were later to the rising Jewish elites. However, the British feared that if the colonials were given equal footing in every sphere, their power would eventually surpass that of the motherland since the New World was so vast in size, resources, and potential population. So, total equality was out of the question IF the goal of the British were to maintain dominance. Some colonial elites took umbrage at this — as well as being fired with ambitions for themselves to take over as the new elites — and cooked up some simple-minded Narrative about freedom vs tyranny. Rising Jewish elites felt sort of the same way. Though they’d been allowed to succeed beyond their wildest imaginations in the Wasp-controlled America, they knew that Wasps had gotten used to being the ruling elites of America and employed all manners of controls — subtle and not-so-subtle — to ensure that Jews would rise high but sufficiently high to challenge Wasp dominance. So, Jews figured that the way to undermine Wasp power was to gain control of the academia, media, and entertainment and change the Narrative so that white gentile folks, especially of Wasp stock, would be castigated and derided as especially wicked, bigoted, privileged, odious, noxious, toxic, rabid, virulent, and etc. So, even though Wasps continued to wield elite power well into the 70s, their moral advantage premised on the founding myth of America had been pulled from under their feet. The new Narrative said the American Founding had been on sound principles but the Revolutionary elites ultimately chose privilege over equality, power over freedom, ‘racism’ over universal values, and provincialism over the Proposition. With the New/Jew Narrative breathing down their necks, white elites found themselves on the defensive, trying to justify their power and privilege by becoming more politically correct themselves, teaching their own kids to be anti-white, increasing ‘diversity’ in elite ranks, and, most of all, sucking up to vile, nasty, and hideous Jews. That said, even without the Old Narrative, the rule of white gentile elites would be assured in an overwhelmingly white gentile nation since white rulers would have been supported and buttressed by the great white majority. But it’s different with Jews. As Jews are a small minority in the US and an even smaller minority in EU and Russia, they rely on the control of the Narrative to morally browbeat and humiliate the much larger gentile population. Without the control of the Narrative, gentiles would look upon Jews as too powerful, too influential, too subversive, too privileged, too aggressive/pushy, and too arrogant. But the Jewish control of the Narrative lends moral justification to Jewish judgmentalism. This is why Jews are nervous about the Nakba Narrative. For the longest time, Zionist Jews and their allies in both Israel and the US insisted on the lie that most Palestinians had voluntarily left what-is-now-Israel-proper because Arab authorities had sounded the alarm and scared them into fleeing from Jewish military advance. According to this Narrative, Jews had wanted the Palestinians to remain in their homes; Jews wanted to live with Arabs in peace as fellow Semitic brothers & sisters and next-door neighbors. But, or so the Narrative goes, the paranoid Arab demagogues had spread the ‘canard’ about Jews coming to spread terror and violence upon the Palestinian population, and that is why all those Palestinians departed from what-is-now-Israel-proper on their own. But in truth, the reason why over 700,000 Palestinians fled from Israel proper was precisely because the so-called ‘canard’ was true, indeed not just as prophecy but as practice. Jews did enter Arab territories and did spread terror-looting-violence-rape-beating-killings to drive out the Palestinian population. Jews take great pride as speakers of truth to power, so why did they lie about the Nakba for so long? Jews only admitted the truth when the mountain of evidence simply could not be denied. Even so, Nakba Denial had been the backbone of the Zionist Narrative well into the 80s; and the great majority of Americans never even heard the word ‘Nakba’ and have no idea what really happened; and many who do know just giggle at what happened to the Palestinians while being totally oblivious to the fact that Jews are engineering the Nakba of white populations in America and Europe. If Jews had to choose between Truth and Power, they’ll go with Power. Now, if Jews could only choose between Truth and Survival, I could understand them choosing the Lie in order to Survive, but there’s no threat to Jewish Survival in any part of the West. What Jews want now is supremacist power; indeed they are addicted to it like a degenerate gambler is to gambling. And so, they keep pushing the Narrative in order to morally justify their power since, without such moral justification, people would see the Real Jew at last. So, Jews have to keep flashing the Holocaust yellow Star of David because if the Narrative fabric were torn off, we would see not some holy tragic Jews but a bunch of rich arrogant degenerate Jew a**holes intoxicated with power, lust, hatred, contempt, bigotry, hypocrisy, and hideousness. Same goes for the Chinese Communist Party. Surely, the Communist Party elites know that the actual modern history of China isn’t as simplistic as they pretend it to be. It wasn’t a simple case of wicked British Imperialists invading and selling opium to weaken the helpless and tragic Chinese. If anything, thanks to Britain’s forced opening of China, a great deal of progress has been achieved by the Chinese in the following century. But the power of the Chinese Communist Party is based on the Narrative that the China since the 19th century had been controlled by ‘foreign devil’ invaders and their running dog lackeys[or racial/national traitors] who’d chosen self-interest over national pride, BUT THEN, the great Communist Party under the leadership of Mao Zedong drove out the foreigners, quashed the greedy running dog lackeys, and enabled the Chinese to ‘stand up in the world’ once again. Without such control of the Narrative by the Communist Party, the Chinese people would find out about all the horrors committed by the Communists and realize that today’s Communist officials are a bunch of self-serving autocrats who say one thing but do something other for their own personal interests. So, the Narrative is very important. Without moral justification[or the mandate of heaven or mandate of the ‘people’], power tends to be shaky. Batista found out as much in Cuba. He had the money, the connections, and the military on his side. But he was seen by most people, even his allies, as just a lackey of international gangsters. He power seemed raw and repulsive than cooked with moral flavoring. Same with the Shah of Iran. He amassed huge fortunes, had big powerful allies around the world, and had the military on his side, but he never controlled the Narrative could have morally justified his power in the eyes of his people. This is why Jews are fanatical in controlling the Narrative. It’s not about serving truth or justice but about morally justifying Jewish power by morally shaming white power. Jews are never ever to be trusted. Indeed, the evidence of the Jewish nature can be found in the Bible. Consider the tag-team match of God and Moses in the Exodus. Moses goes to the Pharaoh and insists that the Hebrews be freed and allowed to depart. Pharaoh tells Moses to kiss his ass. So, God sends all sorts of bad shit to Egypt. So, the Pharaoh figures it’s not good to have Jews around and allows Moses to lead his people out of Egypt. But then, God messes with Pharaoh’s mind, and the Pharaoh reverses his command and orders the Jews to remain. And then God punishes Pharaoh for not letting the Jews go. Then Moses again goes to the Pharaoh and tells him to let the Jews go, and the Pharaoh tells Moses to please take the freaking Jews out of Egypt. But then, God messes with his mind and he reverses his order again, and so, Egypt is punished again for not letting the Jews go. This is how Jews play the game. We saw it with Saddam Hussein. No matter what Hussein did, Jews found another reason to mess with him and destroy Iraq. Or take Iran, Syria, or Palestinians. It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t with the Jews. The Pharaoh was fuc*ed whether he decided to let the Jews go and make the Jews stay. If he decided to let the Jews go, God messed with his mind to make him reverse his command, and then he got punished again. Same with Putin, Russia, and Ukraine. No matter what Putin does, he’s made out to be the big bad pharaoh. As Jews control the governments of the richest & most powerful nations and the international media, they have the power of god. One bunch of Jews play the role of Moses and another bunch of Jews play the god-like role of messing with the minds of world’s leaders. Jews want Putin gone; they want him assassinated like Stolypin got assassinated. So, it doesn’t matter what Putin does. He’s a marked man because Jews are hideous, disgusting, power-mad, and venomous. Jews are the rats-and-snakes of the world — and weasels too, of course. Just look the vile countenance of Victoria Nuland. And then, consider the New Testament where Jews, time and time again, go to Roman authorities and demand that ‘heretics’ — those hated by Jews — be punished and killed. Most of the time, Romans are like, "Look, we are tolerant, so just as you Jews have the right to be Jewish, people you deem to be ‘heretics’ have the right to believe what they wanna believe." But Jews ultimately couldn’t tolerate Jews like Paul who deviated from the orthodoxy, and so Jews kept insisting that Romans flog and/or kill the ‘heretics’ such as him. We see the same sort of thing in America where Jews of all stripes go to goy authorities and say such-and-such heretic must be blacklisted, defamed, fired, shunned, punished, sued, demoted, destroyed, and etc. In a way, it’s much worse today than in Roman times since Romans really held the power over the Jews and could & often rejected the Jewish request in the interest of fairness for all, whereas Jews now control the elite institutions in goy majority nations. So, it’s like Jews have both the power of the Roman imperial court and the power to Rabbinical authority to stone all heretics they don’t like. Imagine a hypothetical Ancient World where Roman elites were stooges & puppets of Jews and felt compelled to fulfill every Jewish request. Instead of Romans ruling over the Jews with Roman version of Rule of Law, Romans would essentially be rubber-stamping the aggressive and nasty agendas of Jewish elites in Jerusalem. Today’s goy elites in America are like that. There was a time when GOP elites lent an ear to Jews but didn’t necessarily agree with or pander to Jewish requests. There used to be a place in the GOP for both pro-Zionists and the so-called ‘Arabists’ who called for a more balanced policy in the Middle East based on American than Jewish interests. But look around today, and the goy elites of the GOP has completely caved into Jewish demands. They are paper tiger caesars who kneel before the Big Neo-Rabbi like Darth Vader kneels before the Emperor.) Anyway, we were saying something about how Jews tend to dismiss and degrade as ‘atavistic’ the attachments and emotions that gentiles feel about their identity, tradition, land, and roots. We need to break out of Jewish-imposed mental straitjacket. To be sure, emotions of blood-and-soil can be atavistic if they’re blind, extreme, and crude. Who with sense would deny that Germans and Japanese in the 1930s overstepped their bounds on matters of ‘blood and soil’; but then, keep in mind that UK, US, and USSR all, in the end, fought for their motherlands than for any abstract ideas. The British people really got into war when the Germans began to bomb London, not when Germans were bombing Warsaw. Indeed, before German attack on the UK, many Anglos had wished UK had never declared war on Germany. And it was the love of motherland that inspired Russians to make tremendous sacrifices to roll back the German tide. And Chinese surely loved their own nation when they resisted ‘foreign devils’ and the Japanese. And it was when Pearl Harbor was attacked that Americans finally came together to fight the ‘lemon-colored characters’ — as John Wayne called them in SANDS OF IWO JIMA — and rack up another victory of good ole USA(that is before Jews, homo, Negroes, and craven white cowards made this into a shit country). And why did Americans feel as they did on 9/11? Because their homeland was attacked. But the lessons of 9/11 and the Iraq War should remind us that unscrupulous and opportunistic politicos can manipulate nationalism to hijack mass passions for actions that have little or nothing to do with national interest. Oddly enough, the new ‘atavism’ in America is a kind of ‘anal-vism’ as the homo ‘rainbow’ is the new Red, White, and Blue(the new patriotism as ‘gaytriotism’), and the Jomo Cabal wants to reignite the Cold War against Russia over the fact that Putin doesn’t like ‘gay pride’ parades and homo propaganda in Russian schools. (For Russians, Red Square shouldn’t be turned into a Pink Fair. It’s sacred ground where Russian soldiers have marched in honor of the millions who perished for the motherland in the Great Patriotic War. But dirty Jews and flaky homos have no respect and reverence for such things. They feel revulsion toward Russian people and Russian culture. Jews hate Russians as much as they hate Palestinians and ‘white trash’ in America. Jews want to desecrate the holy ground of Russia, just like they want to desecrate the holy holes of white women with Negro dicks and jigger-jiver cum. For Jews and homos, a ‘gay pride’ march down Red Square wouldn’t only be a triumph for ‘gay rights’ but a ‘gay victory parade’ over Russian patriotism and pride. It is ironic that Red Square especially became sacred for celebrating the defeat of Nazi Germany but Jews and homos attack Putin and Russians for being the ‘New Nazis’ for not bending over to the Jomo agenda. The ultimate Jewish fantasy is to see a bunch of homos take Russian flags and dump them on Red Square in front of Russian-Jewish oligarchs. Jews are really the scum of the earth. Homos have no sense of roots because their form of sexuality rejects and denies the truth of sexuality. Homos are obsessed with surfaces, with the looks of things. They like the flowers but ignore the stem and roots that make the petals possible. Homos don’t like to get their hands dirty with the soil in which the roots extend and from which the stem sprouts — though they don’t mind getting their penises dirty with fecal matter. Most homos can’t have much feelings for a film like SIBERIADE that is about family, village, community, tradition, earth, and roots — though there are exceptions like Terence Davies and Hanif Kureishi who do have a profound sense of family and roots, however troubled it may be. The essence of Russian culture isn’t even Orthodox Christianity. It’s what might be called earthen-ness. It’s something Jews and homos are hostile too since rooted-ness to one’s soil makes people conservative and ‘identitarian’. Jews are not opposed to attachment to soil per se as they are the biggest pushers of ‘blood and soil’ ideology in Israel. But when it came to goy lands, the gentile attachment to their own lands could mean Jews being regarded as aliens and outsiders. Also, because Israel is so small, its cannot survive and prosper on its own. It needs the support of other nations around the world that are controlled by Jews. So, while Jews are all about ‘blood and soil’ in Israel, they go out of their way to weaken such consciousness in other parts of the world. Also, earthen-ness isn’t exactly the same as blood-and-soil. Earthen-ness is a more spiritual and sentimental quality. Blood-and-soil is a crude form of nationalism, whereas earthen-ness is a matter of the heart. Blood-and-soil is a literate elaboration of one’s tribal passions, whereas earthen-ness is something that’s felt even by illiterate peasants who never even saw a book. Despite the mockery, Woody Allen nailed the essence of earthen-ness in LOVE AND DEATH where some Russian guys holds a clump of earth close to his heart and says he hopes to build on it. Such feelings of earthen-ness, as dim-witted as profound, are missing among Jews. Even blood-and-soil Jews in Israel lack this earthen-feeling. Jewish culture, having developed in the arid Middle East, looks to Heaven for its meaning. So, even though Jews love their Holy Land, it’s special because God blessed it. Earthen-ness is a feeling of one’s feet upon moist dark soil. Even without Orthodox Christianity, Russians would feel a sense of earthen-ness as its deeper roots are pagan. This is why the communist revolution was especially damaging to Russia. As in the short story "Antaeus" by Borden Deal, Russian culture was uprooted from the earthen soil, and Jews were especially zealous in carrying out this ‘terracide’ because they saw Russian culture as a field of poison weeds that must be destroyed at the root level. So, if Putin really wants to save Russia, he mustn’t focus only on ciities but foster a feeling of Russia’s attachment to the soil. Every Russian should be made to carry around a patch of earth and say "I wish to build on it." Anyway, homos today are especially trashy and vapid because they can proudly and happily be homos. Homos do have a special aesthetic sensibility, and in the past, when they weren’t allowed to be openly homo, they lent their talent to themes and subjects of gravitas, depth, and meaning. So, even though the homo sensibility generally tends to be narcissistic and shallow, when its keen eye and delicate touch were put in service of matters of substance, homos made a great contribution to civilization as a whole. Homo sensibility is shallow but homo talent is genuine. In the past, homos had to repress their shallow narcissism and use their talents for things of higher value. Today, homos can use their talent in the service of nothing but their shallow narcissism, and the effect of this on culture has been dire and trashy. It’s like Negroes are naturally animalistic & savage but have genuine musical talent. In the past when Negro savagery was socially repressed or controlled somewhat, Negroes used their musical talent to make music of great worth. But since Negroes are now allowed to be happy wild savage Negroes 24/7, their musical talent is mostly in the service of thug-porn rap music.) Some ‘analvists’ are cheerleaders for World War III because their most important duty as ‘good Americans’(addicted to late night talk shows that promote Zionism and homomania as the very essence of Americanism) is to rid the world of ‘homophobia’ as no good and decent American could tolerate a world that doesn’t see the beauty and glory of ‘marriage’ between two guys who ram each other in the fecal hole. I mean if American-as-Apple-Pie Archie Andrews was willing to give his life for a homo Senator, then all those young American men and women should sign up for the armed forces to defeat Russia so that homos in Russia can have a massive victory parade down Red Square to be renamed Pink Squeer. (Jews and homos are so aggressive in their perverted form of proselytizing that they’ve even inundated the sphere of apolitical entertainment with their hysterical agenda, and of course, Mainline Protestantism, emotionally famished due to its rejection of traditional values, hungrily feeds on PC as its neo-puritanism. You can’t escape from PC propaganda even in escapism. As Jews control everything from elite academia to mass entertainment, the Message is crammed down your throat and up your ass wherever you turn.) Anyway, while any set of emotions can become perverted, turned extreme, and/or exploited & manipulated by demagogues, there’s no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. For example, we don’t have to do away with public education and public libraries in the name of opposing of Marxism, Stalinism, and Maoism. And we don’t have to reject blood-and-soil identity and passions in order to prevent something like Nazism, Japanese militarism, or unhinged & twisted form of American patriotism that led to the invasion of Iraq. One way to guard ourselves from being manipulated by the powers-that-be(of any stripe) is to opt for a kind of mea-fascism or my fascism. The problem with both Italian Fascism and German National Socialism was they happened to be one-man fascisms where everyone had to bend to the one-man-fascism of Il Duce or Der Fuhrer. But if every Italian was his own ‘Mussolini’ and if every German was his own ‘Hitler’, they would have had a stronger sense of selfness and independence. After all, both Mussolini and Hitler lived by the Frank Sinatra motto "I did it my way." Thus, paradoxically, the problem of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany was not so much that Mussolini and Hitler were leaders but that not enough people were like Mussolini and Hitler, at least in the sense of sticking to their own sense of rightness. In other words, the problem was less Mussolini and Hitler’s powerful sense of their own individualities as the lack of such sense among others. If every Italian male was like Mussolini, he would have followed his own sense of rightness than just blindly following Il Duce, and if every German male was like Hitler, he would devised his own ‘Mein Kampf’. (This is why Joachim Fest’s father portrayed in the memoir NOT I was a kind of mea-fascist. He had his sense of rightness and refused to budge under socio-political pressure. Though his values were opposite of Hitler’s, he had one thing in common with the man he loathed. He felt he was right, and he wasn’t going to surrender his soul to anyone whatever the price. He stood apart from so many Germans who either surrendered their own minds to Der Fuhrer OR saw Hitler for what he was but went along since ‘everyone else seemed to be doing it’ and for their self-interest. But Fest’s father refused to go along no matter the price he would have to pay. What he did was extremely difficult, especially as he lived under a ruthless regime that could have even had him killed. To be sure, he was lucky as Nazi Germany tended to be mild domestic/German dissidents as long as their opposition wasn’t overt; in contrast, Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China were totally paranoid and even went after loyal supporters of the regime as potential enemies, so one can imagine what happened to anyone with just a sniff of dissent. For the most part, Nazi Germany built concentration camps for their perceived enemies, whereas Stalin and Mao built huge prison systems not only for class/political enemies but anyone who might be enemies and that could be just about anyone. Anyway, when we consider the level of cowardice among white Americans in relation to Political Correctness, ‘anti-racism’, Jewish supremacism, and homomania, we should honor and respect the level of courage on the part of Joachim Fest’s father. He was no Fascist in the ideological sense, but he was a mea-fascist who did it his way to the end. He not only refused to turn over his mind/soul to Hitler’s crazy regime but refused even on the practical level for the sake of his professional life. How many white Americans are willing to risk anything in the defense of their conscience, values, and principles? Rather, we have so-called ‘conservatives’ in the GOP bending over to every Jew-Zionist-homo demand because the power to make or break anyone is with Jews and their mini-me allies the homos. Fest’s father stood his own ground Hitler because he was ‘his own Hitler’.) Though both Mussolini and Hitler railed against individualism — as did Lenin and Mao — , they insisted on their own individualities. Thus, everyone should be, at least to a certain extent, indulge in mea-fascism or ‘my fascism’ that insists on one’s own free will, one’s own freedom of conscience, and one’s own freedom of vision; a mea-fascist is much less likely to be the dupe of men like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Mao, William Kristol, Barack Obama, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and etc. If being ‘atavistic’ is to be blind and closed-minded to new ideas and different values, there is the way of ‘atavision’ that values the sanctity of blood-and-soil bonds while also being open to possibilities of change, progress, reform, and even revolution, for sometimes, revolutions aren’t so much about destroying the old/traditional/conventional as about sweeping aside the moribund, false, and stale to clear the way for the true, vital, organic, and living. Though conservatism/rightism has become associated with the musty, moldy, and crusty, it can also stand for the rebirth and revival of the earthy, fecund, and fertile against the trivial, frivolous, faux, and sterile fashions of decadent Liberalism gone stale and corrupt. The problem with many conservatives is that they prefer dead wood over the living soil. They’ve become so attached to the great tree that grew out of the soil that it is their object of worship even long after it has stopped growing & bearing fruit and is beginning to wither and die. But there’s no way to reverse the process of dying, let alone revive something that is dead. And yet, the soil is forever fertile and give birth to new trees. So, the living soil fertilized with the blood and sweat of those who toil over it should be the true basis of conservatism. It’s like China and Russia have seen the passing of so many dynasties, kingdoms, ideologies, and etc, but the sacred motherland remains because China is still the land of Chinese and Russia is still the land of Russians. New systems will arise from the blood and soil of the people in China and Russia, but the great constant shall remain that China is China and Russia is Russia. So, conservatives need to remind themselves that all systems — political and ideological — that arise in any nation will eventually grow like a tree, grow old like a tree, and die like a tree. One shouldn’t fixate on the tree. Greater than the greatest tree is the soil that gives birth to new trees. The real agenda of conservatives should be to keep the soil fertilized with the blood, sweat, and tears of one’s own people so the trees of the future will be theirs. This is why, when a people come to rely on foreign labor, they may own the trees and reap the fruits but the soil may be claimed by the rising tide of people who toil over it. This applies to class dynamics as well and explains why noblemen couldn’t maintain control forever. For example, though Russian aristocrats claimed ownership of everything that grew on the land, the people who sweated and toiled over the soil were the peasants, and in time, they demanded their freedom and ownership of the land. This is why Americans are so short-sighted when they demand more cheaper labor from abroad. With the help of foreign laborers, American farmers will grow lots of trees & fruits and profit from them, but as the number of aliens increase and eventually outnumber the population of white Americans, the newcomers will claim ownership of the blood-and-soil of America. If the newcomers are white, they could meld in with the native white population and adopt the existing national/cultural identity — consider how a lot of Irish immigrants in Britain became British(both John Lennon and Paul McCartney have Irish ancestry) — , but if the newcomers are of another race, they are likely to insist on their own identity, especially if their numbers keep increasing. (In the past, the failure of non-whites to integrate fully was blamed on white racial discrimination, but the problem persists despite 180 degree change in white attitudes because multi-culturalism and natural race-ism among the non-whites who tend to be immune to Political Correctness that mainly targets white gentiles with certain ‘sins’ of history. PC has vilified whiteness to such an extent that the New White Pride among white ‘progressives’ is showing off how they loathe whiteness — among white Conservatives, New White Pride is showing off how much they adore ‘diversity’, which is why they go out of their way to praise the likes of Ben Carson to high heaven, aka "We got ourselves a Negro!" With white people acting like that, why would non-whites respect whiteness? So, even mixed-race people tend to emphasize their non-whiteness than their whiteness, as if the white part of them is a disease. And yet, on the subconscious level, part of the reason why non-whites fume against whiteness is paradoxically because they admire whiteness and want to be white or whiter. Take a mestizo who looks more white than Indian. He or she will likely emphasize his or her non-white blood and act offended if someone says he or she is ‘white’. But do you really think he or she really wishes not to have white blood? Would he or she really prefer that he or she be a pure-blooded Indian with darker skin, short neck, stocky body, and clueless Guillermo-like demeanor? What he or she wants is to have the cake and eat it too. He or she is glad to white features because such is favored by most people, but he or she also wants to play the ‘noble victim’ card. As for people who aren’t white at all, they could be fulminating against whiteness to assuage the fact that they are not white. Subconsciously, they might want to be white or have white features. But since they are not what they secretly want to be or don’t have the features they desire, they are likely to feel inferior and unworthy if they were to be honest about themselves. So, PC serves as a kind of crutch for their wounded egos. By spitting on whiteness, they can make believe that they don’t harbor feelings of inferiority complex, that they don’t want to be white, no sirree, no mammie. But action speaks louder than words. If yellow PC tards really hate whiteness, why are so many yellow girls putting out to be white guys? Why do they want their babies to have Eurasian features? And why do all those Negro men go for white women if they hate whiteness so much? How come even funny-looking Hugo Chavez dumped his original wife for some blondie?) This was why a city-state like Sparta was doomed to eventual failure. Though ruled by Spartan militarist overlords, most of the work was done by Helots who made up 85% of the population. Though the Amish are rather backward in many ways, they have the right idea in their own communities. Owning the soil is far more important than owning the trees that grow out of the soil. While a tree that grew from the soil with the help of alien/foreign laborers may make you rich, it’s only a matter of time before those foreigners come to claim your land as their own as they’re the ones who poured their blood, sweat, and tears into it. Initially, many Mexicans and Central-Americans came to California as ‘humble laborers’ looking for any kind of work, but as their numbers swelled, they are now saying the Golden State is theirs since so much of brown sweat and labor have been poured into the land to make the fruits grow and restaurants run.

Same goes for South Africa where white conservatism focused on the trees but not on the soil. Whites were eager to hire blacks to work the farms, factories, and mines, but as blacks poured so much blood, sweat, and tears into the industries that made South Africa, they claimed everything as theirs and demanded political control over the nation. This is what the Israeli kibbutzers understood all too well. If Israel were to become a Jewish homeland and if Israeli soil were to be made sacred through Jewish blood, then Jews had to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work themselves. And in order to encourage Jews to do manual/menial labor than just white collar jobs, a kind of socialism was necessary so that the all Jews would share sufficiently in the economy so that even the lowest Jew could live with dignity. And indeed, this was behind the idea of National Socialism as well, which is why Hitler detested the kind of capitalism where big money-men tried to keep all the profits for themselves while despising the workers as dirty peons. Hitler felt that all Germans, even the lowliest worker, should be treated humanely and be given a chance to live with productive labor, pride, and dignity. And indeed, National Socialism worked pretty well among Germans. It is when Hitler decided to invade other nations that Germans became nasty and began to treat non-Germans — especially in the East — as slaves and helots. And indeed, Jews have found the same problem when hiring Palestinians to do the labor for them. Jews may prosper in the short term from cheap Palestinian labor, but in the long run, Palestinians are going to feel that they should own the land since it’s their blood, sweat, and tears that made the fruits grow. This is why even ‘lowly’ work should be done by your own people. The problem is that when a nation becomes rich, too many people become spoiled and don’t want to do stuff that is dirty, dangerous, and demeaning — a problem that exists in both West and East — , and so, there’s a temptation to hire cheap labor from abroad. It’s a matter of Blood & Soil versus Sweat & Toil. The problem is that foreign workers may settle and never leave. Worse, if laws permit, they will bring over their numerous relatives and their numbers will swell — just like Jewish numbers swelled in Egypt after Joseph brought over his Jewish relatives who then brought over other Jews and so forth and so on. And as the native population have come to prefer pleasure and good times in the short term over survival and dominance in the long term, they have fewer kids(as their priority is to live for today and for themselves), and therefore, they will become even more dependent on foreign labor. Also, generous welfare benefits may discourage ever poor natives from working, so foreign workers are required to do more of the jobs(as they are willing to work for lower wages and fewer benefits). However viable this may be from a short-term economic perspective, it is a recipe for losing one’s ancestral land to another people who go from helots to the new elitse. For all the PC propaganda about diversity and equality, most people in the West are obsessed about status and privilege — especially Liberals who attend places like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton — , and their snobby attitudes have affected even poor Americans, which is why even poor Americans look down on ‘lowly’ labor. One of the good things about National Socialism and Communism was they valued all kinds of labors — on the factory floor and on farm fields — as essential, valuable, and dignified, which is why they, in their own ways, tried to provide decent living standards for even low-level workers who worked hard; National Socialism did a much better job in this regard. Now, that was being ‘atavisionary’. The problem of decay afflicts both conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism can grow stale and begin to rot because it has a tendency to cling to the product than to the process of life, creation, and growth. So, if fertile soil produces a great tree that produces wonderful fruits and flowers, foolish and narrow-minded conservatives may try to preserve those fruits and flowers as the essence of truth. But fruits grow moldy and flowers wilt and fade. If conservatives try to preserve them by drying them and removing all their moisture, they may last but the moist essence will have faded, and the culture will grow funeral, as with the Ancient Egyptians: a static culture without growth and development. Or conservatives might try to encase and crystallize the perfection of a ripened fruit or a blooming flower — like fossilized organisms preserved in amber — as the Nazis tried to do through art with their concept of ‘Aryan’ beauty, but when an ideal is frozen, it is petrified, stiff, and inert. So, living conservatism must be in tune with the cycles of life, with the birth-growth-death-and-rebirth of things.
Petrified Forest - Dead Mummified Conservatism
As Arthur says at the end of EXCALIBUR, "One day, a King will come, and the Sword will rise... again." One part of history is about cyclical repetitions and variations, and true conservatives must be willing to revolve with the cycles of history. Life is cyclical, with new generation growing from the existing one that will also return to the soil. (In a way, maybe a strain of libertarianism can be tweaked to serve the agenda of natality against fatality. We tend to associate libertarianism with fixation on the here and now. Because ultra-individualists tend to be hedonistic, they find the idea of family to be burdensome. If one’s tied down to family, there’s less time and money for indulgence with gambling, drugs, arts, entertainment, travel and etc. This could be one reason why so many libertarians have a soft spot for homos. Most homos spend most of their time on stuff that makes them feel good. Though ‘gay marriage’ has been made a major issue, its ultimate goal is actually anti-marriage as it subordinates the very meaning of marriage to individualist foibles & fetishes instead of subordinating individualist peculiarities for the sake of marriage. The idea of marriage is, to a large extent, about surrendering some of one’s individuality for the greater good of family, love, producing a new generation, and raising the kids right. The whole feminist notion of ‘having it all’ is bogus. Though one can juggle marriage with other things, one cannot be 100% with everything. If you decide to major in physics, you’re not gonna be as good in biology or French literature. I suppose there might be super-geniuses who may be exceptions to the rule, but for most of us, taking on a certain task means we can’t do other things or other things as well as we would like. If a creative person decides to spend the next year writing a book, he’s not gonna have time to become an expert pianist. Even Superman discovered he couldn’t do it all. Because he tried to save California from a nuclear attack by Lex Luthor, he failed to save Lois Lane — he saved her only by cheating through a strange kind of physics that makes no sense. Even Superman has only two hands and can only be at one place at a time. If there’s someone drowning in the Atlantic Ocean and another drowning in the Pacific Ocean, Superman can only save one of them. The idea that he should try to save both is nuts. He would end up saving no one, like in the Aesop tale about the dog that wanted both the bone in its own mouth and the bone reflected in the water and lost both. It’s like the Rolling Stones song that goes, "You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just find, just what you need." Or, it’s like the Stephen Stills song that goes, "Well there's a rose in the fisted glove/And eagle flies with the dove/And if you can't be with the one you love honey/Love the one you're with." Only a selfish & childish fool expects & demands everything and bitches & whines when he/she can’t have it all. Anyway, people with genuine respect for marriage accept it on its own terms. They recognize the biological, social, historical, cultural, and moral basis for marriage. So, their approach to marriage is to sacrifice some of their individuality for the good of community & society since marriage has provided human community with meaning, both horizontally and vertically, for thousands of years. But vapid libertarians think everything exists to satisfy the peccadillos of individuals, especially rich, successful, and powerful individuals — after all, we don’t see any libertarians supporting ‘incest marriage’ since it’s not associated with wealth and privilege as the homo community is — , and so, if the notion of ‘gay marriage’ makes homo individuals oh-so-very-happy EVEN THOUGH most homos don’t even have any interest in marriage, then libertarians must force ‘gay marriage’ on society. So, the notion of ‘gay marriage’ — biologically useless, morally corrupt, socially meaningless, legally coercive — makes marriage bend over to individualist decadence. True, homosexuality exists in nature, but then, so does mental retardation. While we shouldn’t insult or make life miserable for mental retards, we shouldn’t pretend that mental retardation has the same value, biologically and intellectually, as normal mental abilities. Homosexuality is, in essence, a form of sexual retardation. Some guys are sexually retarded enough to want to smear their penises with fecal matter and have their bungholes be porked by other mens’ penises. Lesbians have sex by struggling to screw a vagina with another vagina. That stuff is sexually retarded. Some people are born sexually retarded like some are born mentally retarded. We should acknowledge this fact of biology — how it’s filled with defects and dysfunctions — , but we should not pretend that mental or sexual retardation is of the same value as mental and sexual health & normalcy. Homos should perhaps be called ‘retardo-sexuals’ or ‘sextards’; or if we wanna be somewhat sensitive, ‘sexually challenged’, especially when it comes to reproduction as, to this day, I haven’t heard of a single case of a life-form being produced by male fecal-penetration or female mutual-beaver-to-beaver-munching. Anyway, because libertarians are fixated on the here-and-now, they see family and community as hindrances to their self-centered adventure for pleasure. But suppose the libertarian egocentrism could be made to expand on its sense of self. Suppose libertarians could realize how short life is, how fast youth passes by. Genuine adult youthfulness goes from 18 to 35 — though some might say, up to 29. Up to 18, you’re learning to be adult, and after 35, you better look to the future because in ten years, you’ll be 45, which certainly isn’t young. And in the scale of history, let alone biology, human life is just a blip in time. So, you really mean nothing on your own, and the only way your essence can last and survive is by producing an heir, a word we don’t hear too often these days. We take for granted that humanity will go on whether we have kids or not because there seems to be people all around us, but when so many people feel the same way, they will all leave it up to others and fail to produce their own heirs. It’s like in volley ball where a ball is coming to your side but no one hits the ball because everyone thinks someone else is going to do it. Because everyone, even libertarians, in modern society is part of a large social order, we tend to loosely identify with others and assume that our essence will survive down the ages even if we ourselves don’t have children. Because our minds are focused on ideology and culture than on biology and genes, we feel it doesn’t matter if we don’t produce heirs as long as others produce children who will be raised with the values we agree with. But such a thinking is dangerous for it places the ideal before the real. And such thinking is also behind mass white suicide in the West. Too many white folks think it won’t matter if the West is majority non-white as long as non-white majorities in the West of the future speak Western languages and uphold ‘progressive’ ideals — though even that seems unlikely as many non-whites have failed to assimilate properly; in France for example, African immigrants are assimilating to globo-hip-hop-jigger-jiver culture than to French high culture. They’d rather listen to Rap music than read Racine; they’d rather dominate sports, beat up white guys, and hump white girls than become literary critics of the French comedy of manners or scholars of French schools of philosophy. If ideals and ideology are more important than reality, you shouldn’t complain if you’re replaced with another person as long as this new person shares your ideology or values. Suppose space aliens come to France and zaps every French man into dust and replaces him with Pakistanis or Africans on condition that they speak French. Would that be alright? Or, suppose I drug you, kill you, and erase you from the face of this earth, but I give your house and job to another person of another race who, nevertheless, believes what you believed in. If ideology and ideals are what matter most, what does it matter if you live or die as long as the person who replaces you is ideologically/idealistically rather similar to you? If you believe it doesn’t matter if your people in your nation fail to produce enough heirs to keep control of their nation as long as foreigners taking over the nation share the values of your people, then you yourself might as well be replaced with someone else... as long as he shares your values, more or less. How about if some people drive you and your family out of your house but keep all the possessions and flip through your family albums and wear your family clothes and jewels? Since they pay some interest to your family history and belongings, would it be the same as if your family is still in the house? Using that logic, white folks and black folks playing at American Indians are just as good as real American Indians. We might as well say the Washington Redskins and Hollywood actors with painted faces are just as Indian as real Indians. This is what happens when ideology takes over reality. Even before there was any ideology, a race of people developed in Europe for tens of thousands of years with particular gifts, beauties, temperaments, and features. This wasn’t the product of ideologies but of the realities of geology, geography, nature, struggle & survival, and myriad other factors. This reality that was 10,000s of yrs in the making is now being threatened of being wiped out because white folks have become infected with a filthy Jew-ideology of PC that is less than one hundred years old. A race created over 10,000s of years on sacred soil is willing to sacrifice the genetic memory/inheritance of eons of reality for the trashy fad of ideology and why? Because they’ve come to worship scummy Jews, a vermin race of people who look upon goyim as cattle to control and exploit. Just to assuage Jews, there’s no limit to which white people will go to debase and destroy themselves. Jews have used the mind-drug of ideology to benumb gentiles of the truth of reality. Anyway, if libertarians could be made more aware of the span of time, maybe their sense of ‘I’ could extend beyond their own life-spans. Instead of using ‘I’ to mean only ‘me here and now’, the ‘I’ could come to mean the wider-and-broader sense of Epic ‘I’ that connects one to the past and the future. It’s like the Viking ‘prayer’ in THE 13TH WARRIOR: "Lo there do I see my father, lo there do I see my mother my sisters and my brothers, Lo there to I see the line of my people back to the beginning. Lo they do call to me, they bid me take my place among them in the halls of Valhalla where the brave may live forever. ‘I’ exist because other ‘I’s before the currently living ‘I’ — you, me, he, or she — produced future ‘I’s and ‘I’ will exist into the future because I will produce my ‘I’s who will produce their ‘I’s. That’s the true ‘I’s on the Prize. We would be more aware of this if we lived in a small community, as the Amish do. If you lived in a tight community of, say, five families, it’s be easily apparent that if all the parents in the community didn’t have kids, it wouldn’t only mean no kids but no more community. The community will just vanish since parents didn’t produce heirs. But because big cities have so many people, even if a whole bunch of white folks don’t have kids, there’s the sense that the city/humanity will go on because there are so many other people. In truth, if too many people thought like this, the city will begin to die and be starved of people... which is why advanced nations with low birthrates have become do dependent on foreign labor and immigrants. Why should one’s ego be limited only to one’s short life in the here-and-now? That be like Vito Corleone having no kids, but Vito was no dummy. Like ">he said, "a man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man." He could have made all the money in the world, but without kids, he would have been just a hit song than a hit album, a 45 than an LP. Without continuity, even a great life is a dead-end. Incidentally, some idiots think Don Draper of the worthless MAD MEN is a ‘patriarch’, but he is no such. He’s just a silly playboy. Vito Corleone, now that is a true patriarch who command respect and the sort of man every guy should emulate, at least when it comes to family life because gangsterism is pretty loathsome — unless it’s used against Jews who are the biggest gangsters in the world.) It’s like the end of ZARDOZ when the cyclical balance of life has been restored. Thus, true conservatism must always be somewhere between nature and culture. Without culture, men are like brutes and will succumb to Negrotics. But if humankind chooses only culture and totally separates itself from nature, race, soil, and etc, it is reduced to either petrified menopausal dogmatism or sterile fads & fashions blowing in the wind. Thus, just as life is about the constant cycles of life, growth, death, and rebirth, a living culture must constantly be reconstituted, revived, revised, revitalized, and re-birthed. Indeed, what was one of the greatest cultural events in all of human history? It was the Renaissance that was at once reactionary and revolutionary. Artists and thinkers of the Renaissance looked to the forgotten past for inspiration and sought to recapture the glory of Classical Europe, but in doing so, they found wholly new inspirations, methods, and ways that even surpassed the achievements of the Ancients. Renaissance looked to the future by looking to the past. This is what a lot of conservatives fail to understand as they rigidly, even timidly, cling to the ‘truisms’ of the past or conventionality. The reason why China began to fail and decay was because its ultra-Confucian elites ignored biology and separated themselves from the natural process. Of course, they had sex and produced kids, but their culture became one of fancy-pants learning, pompous putting on airs, silk gowns, turning healthy dogs into hideous-looking Pekinese, and ‘binding’ & crippling women’s feet so that women would be refined, dainty little creatures without ‘big ugly natural’ feet. Chinese did to female feet what Japanese did to the bonsai tree. This is why Russian, German, and Japanese forms of conservatism were healthier in some ways because they never lost their sense of reverence, attachment, and association with nature. Jews are somewhat strange because, in some ways, no people have removed themselves more from nature than Jews did. According to the Genesis, nature became sinful with the Fall of Eden. And therefore, the ultimate path of man’s salvation was to reconnect with the glory of God. In this sense, the story of Adam and Eve is similar to Buddhism that also sees the world as sinful, ugly, hideous, cruel, and monstrous. But there is a key difference. According to Buddhism, nature was always horrible and any Edenic view of nature could only have been a falsehood. The Buddha story says that Siddhartha was raised in Edenic splendor by his father who did everything to shield his son from cruelty, death, disease, aging, and etc. He was brought up in a garden setting than a nature setting; garden is essentially nature selected, pruned, arranged, and enclosed by man to create the impression of serenity that is lacking in real nature in which leopards and tigers routinely feed on spiritual pilgrims who will likely freak out and shit their pants than find peace of mind.
Man-eating Tiger: 'You seek enlightenment, I seek lunch.'
Temple of the Golden Pavilion - Kyoto Japan - Illusion of Nature as Oasis
But then, Siddhartha caught a glimpse of reality outside the oasis bubble created by his father, and the illusion was pricked in an instant. So, there was, is, and can never be any kind of Eden according to Buddhism. If anything, the horror of the world is ironically the product of a holy vision of the world. When consciousness wants something beautiful and wonderful, it creates an illusion of paradise, but that very desire for beauty and wonderfulness creates vanity, narcissism, competition, and possessiveness. And then, consciousness comes to hate and destroy all the things that stand in the way of what it desires; and indeed, the violent forces of nature reflect such ruthless competitiveness. To claim one’s own eden, one must crush other edens in endless cycles of competition. If you want a tasty dish of pork ribs, an innocent pig must be cruelly slaughtered. Most of life sustain themselves by devouring other life. So, the only escape in Buddhism is the Nirvana, the very extinction of consciousness itself through meditation that dissolves all the vestiges of illusions that clutter and infect our minds. What happens in ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SUNSHINE MINDis like partial neuro-surgical nirvana that wipes clean the attachments to certain images and emotions that bring pain and suffering to certain individuals. Buddhist Nirvana goes much further of course, to the point where the meditative process un-weaves the entire fabric of consciousness until there’s nothing left. Though Judaism also has a very dark and depressing view of nature, it nevertheless begins with a vision of a perfect nature where God, man, plants, and animals were all part of the same harmony. It’s possible that Buddhist pessimism arose from an over-abundance of life whereas Jewish pessimism may have been the product of scarcity of life. In India, someone like Siddhartha would have noticed dense jungles where countless animals and plants devoured one another all the time without end. Life was being produced everywhere, but it also meant suffering, death, and decay were everywhere as well. So, even or especially in a world of plentiful life, there was endless cycles of pain and cruelty. In the drier Middle East, Jews might have been more aware of insufficient water and the harshness of conditions that limited the varieties and quantities of life. So, maybe Jews thought that if trees and animals were to repopulate the region, it would be like the restoration of Eden. But Buddhists knew better since they were surrounded by tons of life but only saw misery and death and disease. Siddhartha saw too much life and associated too much life with too much suffering and death. Jews saw too little life and maybe thought more life would restore the paradise. So, we have to be careful about what Jews really meant when they spoke of ‘nature’. They most certainly didn’t have jungles and dense forests in mind. They had in mind the mostly dry, craggy, and sparse landscape of the Middle East — though, to be sure, the Middle East was more fertile thousands of years ago. So, whereas Buddha was against all of nature and all of reality — since the reality he knew was surrounded by bountiful animals and plants of nature devouring one another — , Jews dreamed of a restoration of Eden-like nature where they could be one with God again. Even so, that could only be in the future when God may finally forgive and bless the Jews again. For the time being, Jews held a hostile view of nature(especially as the dry and craggy nature that they knew seemed ‘fallen’ and ‘cursed’) and concentrated on abstract concepts and values that were divorced from nature and its processes. And yet, there was one area where Jews were obsessively attached to nature, and it had to do with sex and blood. Because the great Covenant between God and the Jews involved the Jewish pud and something about how a kid is a real Jew only if he or she was born of a Jewish mother, the Jewess’s hairy bush — and some Jewish women got serious pubes — became like the great fertile Edenic forest for the Jews. Thus, Jewish religion and culture are both very anti-nature and very pro-nature & pro-biological(in a very limited way). Though both Buddhism and Judaism/Christianity take a very negative view of the physical world, Buddhism believes there’s no way to redeem man, life, and the world — all must be rejected and unraveled of their false illusions — , whereas there is always a sliver of hope in Judaism and Christianity that there might be reunion of God and man in a world blessed once again. Judaism awaits the day when the true Messiah of the Jews will arrive to defeat the enemies of the Jews and when Jews will finally be washed of their wicked ways so that God will love them again, and then and only then, the rest of humanity may be blessed through the redemption of Jews. Christians believe that the true Messiah already arrived and spread the Gospel for mankind, so mankind has been provided with a time period in which to spread this Holy Truth so that mankind will be prepared when Jesus returns again. This kind of longing is found in the story of the Holy Grail in Arthurian legends — at least from what I gathered from EXCALIBUR — where the king is a being between divinity and mortality. It is through him — "You and the Land are One" — that the world can be redeemed and saved once again. There was a time when God, Man, and the World had been One in Eden, but the unity was lost. Though mankind got all the blame, there’s a hint, as in the story of the Holy Grail — if the king is to be seen as a metaphor for God — , that the fault lies as much with God as with man. After all, Arthur gives into despair and summons his knights to seek the Holy Grail; similarly, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, He, instead of forgiving Adam and Eve who really didn’t know any better, let the world fall to condemnation and despair and pretty much left it all up to humanity to restore balance, order, and holiness in the world. In this sense, Perceval can be seen as a kind of Jesus-like figure. The king had lost interest in the world, and it was too much for the people of the kingdom to restore the world and make flowers bloom again, so Perceval had to serve as conduit between Arthur and the world. Similarly, humanity couldn’t by itself restore the lost order of the fallen Eden, and so, the figure of Jesus Christ had to arrive to serve as a conduit between God and man so that we could believe in the hope that ‘God and the World are one’. Of course, in many of these stories, there’s the problem of women and sexuality. Uther loses his kingdom because he gives into uncontrollable lust. Arthur isn’t so wild, but he cannot control his love for Guenevere. Love/romance may be more elevated than animal lust, but it’s just as or even more powerful on the human psyche. (At the very lust, there’s no illusions about lust. It’s on the level of Beavis and Butthead going ‘boing’. You see it, you want it. A man sees a woman as a ‘ho’, or a woman sees a man as a hunk, and that’s that. In contrast, love tends to be dreamy, so the man has a tendency to romanticize the woman as damsel-ish sort, and the woman has a tendency to see the man as a ‘white knight’. Uther had the hots for Igraine, and that was about it. In contrast, Arthur love for Guinevere was filled with hope. He saw/dreamt in her what wasn’t there. Lust is getting turned on by the smell of pussy juice or manly sweat. Love is being inspired by the misty scent of perfume.) And against Merlin’s warnings, Arthur marries Guenevere who’s actually a passionate woman who’s turned on by power and studliness; she’s actually more like Uther in her desires. So, even though Arthur is the king and the man of law, Guenevere has the hots for Lancelot the mightiest knight of the kingdom. Well, at least Lancelot was white. It’s far worse today. In the past, the candidate for the ‘strongest man in the world’ was someone within the domain since most people lived in isolated communities. So, white women were turned on by the toughest white man in their own little world. But today, all the world is globalized via mass media and tons of Negroes have made their way to the West through the slave trade in the past or massive immigration or illegal migration today, and white race is haplessly surrendering to the Big Negro. It’s gotten so bad that not only are white women are turning into mudsharks but it also turns out a href="">white males are getting off watching their own wives be rammed by Negroes. And you thought things were pretty wild in EYES WIDE SHUT — it is indeed funny as hell that the password is ‘fidelio’, ironically alluding to Beethoven’s opera about a wife’s supreme loyalty, indeed so great that she goes under guise to save her husband, whereas in the film, the wife has profoundly unfaithful fantasies, and the guy goes under guise to ‘spiritually’ cheat on his wife. This is what has become of ‘racial progress’. Nicholas Wade wrote TROUBLESOME INHERITANCE dealing with stuff like I.Q. but a far more troubling but necessary book would be titled TROUBLESOME INTERCOURSE: HOW THE WHITE RACE IS BECOMING SEXUALLY CONQUERED AND DESTROYED BY THE BIG ASS NEGRO. And according to the above-linked article, the lunacy is indulged by rich white guys — judges, lawyers, C.E.O.s, etc. — who get off by watching their own white wives be pummeled by Negroes on beds in their own bedrooms. It goes to show how degenerate the white race has become. (Incidentally, the article still places the burden of ‘racism’ on white males. It sees no ‘racism’ in white women who regard black males as the racial-sexual superiors to white males. It sees no ‘racism’ in black men finding white women to be racially-sexual superiors to ugly black women. It sees no ‘racism’ in black men taking delight in conquering white women and humiliating white males who’ve been reduced to psycho-sexual slave status. It sees no ‘auto-racism’ on the part of self-loathing white males who degrade themselves this way. Clearly, if any group is the ‘victim’ of such an arrangement, it’s the white male. I mean what can be more humiliating than a man willingly allowing another man, especially of another race, bang on his wife on his own bed? Can you imagine black guys having guys of another race bang their women, especially on their own beds? But the Jew-dominated paradigm says white males must be held accountable and accused of everything. It’s like the Omar Thorton case. Omar killed a bunch of innocent whites, but the Jew-run media discourse was ‘did those whites deserve it because they were racist?’ So, even when white males are sexually humiliated and conquered by ghastly Negroes, the burden of ‘racism’ must be on white guys. So, never mind that they’ve surrendered and turned over their wives as sex meat for racial supremacist Negroes who look down on white males as ‘faggoty ass white boys’. White guys are still the ones suspected of ‘racism’ because their terms of surrender may not be pure-of-heart enough. So, it’s not enough that white guys surrendered sexually and lost. For them to be truly cleansed of ‘racism’, they must surrender with total happiness and devotion, with the happy dopey countenance of someone like Ken Burns, who makes my skin crawl. As Winston Smith learned to love Big Brother totally and completely, white males must totally love Big Brotha who is humping their white wives on their own beds. But then, is this any different from Ted Cruz the so-called Christian’s sucking up to Jews even though Jews have caused the most harm to both white Christians and Arab Christians? It’s Jewish power that is suing Christian bakers for not making ‘gay wedding cakes’ and forbidding chains like Chick-Fil-A from operating in many cities. It’s Jewish power that unleashed the massive crisis in the Middle East that led to the demise of so many Christian communities there. White males now exist to sexually put out to Negroes and politically put to Jews. It’s downright disgusting. White race is a disgrace.) On the one hand, white males get some kinky pleasure from being pussifed by the bigger Negroes whom they worship in all those NFL and NBA games. But their view of humanity has been reduced to animalism. So, Negro studs are ‘bulls’ and their wives are to be ‘mated’ with the bulls like dogs in a kennel. And white wives are addicted to super-size-me cumbaya orgasms. With hedonism as one of the primary values in our culture, pleasure isn’t enough; you must find superduper pleasure, and if white women have bigger orgasms with Negroes and if white guys get bigger orgasms while whanking off to Negroes doing their white wives, I guess it all makes demented logical sense in a libertarian sort of way. We went from utilitarianism to you-titillation-ism. White guys get off from feeling both pussified and ‘empowered’. "Empowered how?", you may ask. I guess they feel like humans watching their wives and Negroes ‘reduced’ to wild animals. It could be that some rich guys married women for their looks, and these women are really trophy wives, possessions; they are like horses and dogs you put out to mate. Also, paradoxically, those who seek the most money, most privilege, most power, and most status are likely to be most obsessed with the game of ultimate power and ultimate pleasure. Even though they’d like to win in all categories, they are obsessed with power even when they’re at the losing end. When worship of power becomes the ultimate end in and of itself, a man prefers to worship even the power that crushes and humiliates him than to defend his own power and hono. A power-mad person not only wants the most power for himself but wants to be associated with and/or bow down to the greatest power. Since these power-mad white guys cannot defeat the Negro and feel humiliated and belittled as a result, they still want to worship the greatest power, and in sports and sex, it’s the Negro. For the same reason, many whites prefer to ruled by Jews in business, finance, law, and government since they just worship the greatest power, and in intellectualism, it’s the Jew. But then, this shouldn’t be too surprising since the West abandoned all its indigenous gods for the greater or greatest God of the Jews. As many rich white guys attracted trophy wives with money and success than with raw manhood, they are bound to feel a degree of insecurity over the fact that, if they were to be judged by the yardstick of pure ‘manhood’, they’d be nothing but a bunch of piss-ant Jerry Quarry’s and Gerry Cooney’s flattened on the floor by stronger Negroes who would then sexually conquer their white women. People who are really obsessed with power try to get the most power for themselves, but when they come upon power that is greater than their own, they initially try to resist it but may eventually come around to kneeling down before and begging to be allowed to suckle it toes. There was a time when white guys were threatened by black rise in sports and resisted it, but in time, white guys accepted and worshiped black athletic power that destroyed and humiliated whites on the ring or the field. So, it was only a matter of time before this worship of the power of the Negro stud would enter the bedroom. Of course, since white women want security and money, they’d rather settle down long-term with richer white husbands, but they drool over the Negroes who be dominating sports, pop music, and porn; it’s like white homo couples may settle together but they also have big Negromos or homogros come over and ram their partner in the ass. Also, rich guys like to show off what they can afford for their wives. They take pride in providing their wives with the best of everything. In the past, it was about how they could buy jewelry, fur coats, and fancy coats for their wives, but today, some rich guys like to brag that they got their wives what they really want: a bigass Negro.
Mr. Ed for Marnie
In MARNIE, Sean Connery’s character was proud and glad to buy his wife, Marnie, a big black horse, but today, some rich guys are getting big black ‘bulls’ for their wives. Yet, some of these demented freaks are members of the elite! Is it any wonder that what passes for the biggest moral issue of the day is ‘gay marriage’? In moral terms, US has moved into the decaying phase of the Roman Empire. ZARDOZ was prophetic in this regard. As in so many stories in the Bible, mythology, legends, and history, the power of lust-love-sexuality is proving to be the most unstable force in the story of man. Indeed, it’s all the more so today since the borders are dissolving and the West is being inundated with the tide of color. At least sexual problems of the past were mostly within the race. Whether Uther lost or Arthur won, the power was within the race. But today, entire Western nations are being invaded by millions of Africans who want to mate with white women, and most white guys have been raised with PC and don’t even have the guts to fight for their race and land. And their women are being applauded for being race-sex traitors because Jews run the New World Order. And finally, white guys are getting off watching not only women of their own race — but their own wives — get humped by Negroes. In a way, the title of the movie THE BIRTH OF THE NATION was very significant. Though used metaphorically, a nation is indeed literally born and perpetuated through the actual childbirth of its women. After all, if United States upon its founding had only consisted of intellectual men who were into ideas and values, it would have gone extinct after all the founders and their contemporaries grew old and died. But the Republic lived on because the Founders and most other white men humped white women who produced many white babies from their white vaginas. No race can survive, thrive, and remain true to itself unless males of the race mate with females of the race. Thus, the nation is REBORN or RE-BIRTHED with each generation, and if white folks are to hold onto their ancestral lands, white males must mate with white females — mostly anyway. And D.W. Griffith understood this, and he understood perfectly that the threat posed by the Negro was essentially sexual in nature. The movie is almost universally attacked and derided today by PC-castrated ‘faggoty-ass’ white boys, but Griffith understood and defended the truth of his race and culture. For his people to survive, they must do something about the Negro, and they must keep white women away from the Negro. People who attack the movie are essentially calling for the genocide of the white race. They are, in effect, saying that white men don’t have the right to defend their honor and boner against the racial-physical-demographic-and-sexual threat posed by Negroes. Critics of the movie might as well say white guys should just hang themselves after offering their women to Negroes and Jews. Incidentally, the politics of 300 and the remake of RED DAWN is hardly different from BIRTH OF A NATION, so why did they get the green light? Because outrage over ‘racism’ is purely selective, entirely a matter of ‘who,whom’, which is why Israel is allowed to get away with just about anything and why hateful Rap music is hailed and promoted by the music industry, even though, ironically enough, Rap culture presents Negroes as wild uncontrollable animals beyond anything depicted in white ‘racist’ propaganda in the past. Even the worst blacks in THE BIRTH OF A NATION are civilized compared to the Rapper image of black-hood. RED DAWN remake stokes yellow peril ‘paranoia’, and that serves Jewish interests in distracting Americans from the reality of Jewish power. And 300 can be used as Neocon war porn to promote more Wars for Israel. One place where white gung-ho-ism is approved is in the Middle East where Jews can use it to wreak havoc on Muslims and Christian Arabs.
(I find it hilarious that the very people who are offended by THE BIRTH OF A NATION are less offended by GONE WITH THE WIND. Both have scenes where a white woman is threatened with rape. In THE BIRTH OF A NATION, white women are pursued by black men, and white men come to the rescue. Today, we are told it is so ‘evil and racist’ for white people to notice that blacks pose the main threat as thugs, for white males to feel protective of their women, and for white women to seek white male protection from black thugs. Instead, white folks should be ‘good’ and ‘anti-racist’ and see blacks as either saintly Magic Negroes or righteously angry victims — violent only because of the trauma of ‘slavery’ — , white males should feel no protective warrior instinct for their own women, and white women should be ‘progressive’ and see white males as potential rapists who promote a ‘rape culture’; that is the Jewish idea of what constitutes ‘good white people’. In GONE WITH THE WIND, a white woman — Vivien Leigh — is approached by a nasty-looking white guy who’s about to rape her... but she is saved by a noble and dutiful Negro who, of course, had no thoughts of sex — especially with a white woman — on his mind. So, it’s evil to show blacks as rapists but it’s just wonderful to show white guy as a would-be rapist and a black guy as the noble hero who defends white women by beating up the white rapist. White guy saves white woman from black rapist: BAD. Black guy saves white women from white rapist: GOOD. When fantasy becomes fact, print the fantasy. Look around the world today. How many instances of white women being saved from white rapists by noble black guys do you see? If anything, there are so many black-on-white rapes that any sane person should recognize THE BIRTH OF A NATION as a great prophetic movie, but it’s dismissed while fantasies like THE GREEN MILE are spoon-fed to all white suckers.
GREEN MILE - Moutain-sized Negro who luvs a little white mouse. Dang, I bet he luvs cigars too.
It’s natural for any man to defend his territory and his woman/women. In the original STRAW DOGS by Sam Peckinpah, David Sumner — Dustin Hoffman — uses extreme violence to defend his turf and woman from thugs. So, why shouldn’t white guys in THE BIRTH OF A NATION have used violence to defend their women from ghastly Negroes? Of course, Hollywood is run by hideous Jews, and the remake of STRAW DOGS features white southern thugs as rapists of a white woman when, in fact, the epidemic of rape — especially interracial rape — in the South is perpetrated by disgusting apelike blacks.) The two races are not the same, and indeed, the Negro is much stronger and more muscular than whites. Though there’s much emphasis on the big penis of the Negro, that’s not the main threat to the white race. After all, Jews like Ron Jeremy have big schlongs, but no white guy ever felt threatened by such a flabby funny-looking Jew. The real threat is muscular, as when Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali destroyed and humiliated so many white guys. If a muscular white guy with a ‘Greek dick’ — the relatively small ones on Ancient Greek sculptures — beat up a flabby black guy with a big ding dong, women will revere the white guy. Some might argue it’s perfectly okay for whites to admire the likes of Johnson and Ali since US is meritocratic; as Patton said, Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Purely from a individualistic viewpoint, this is true enough. If indeed most whites and blacks were equal in athletic talent, and if, by some chance, black guy happened to be champion, it’d be no big deal as there would be a good chance that some white guy will take back the championship. But the racial issue isn’t about individuals because there are GROUP-BASED DIFFERENCES between whites and blacks. So, it’d be stupid to see Johnson or Ali as a black INDIVIDUAL who happened to be champion. No, their power was representative of overwhelming black superiority over whites in sports, and as such, their victories signified a collective threat/danger posed by most blacks on whites. Thus, for whites to worship the Negro athlete isn’t merely to admire a particular individual who happens to be black but to worship the entire black race, indeed even to the point of being honored to have some black guy do one’s wife. Obama is the New Birth of a Nation where the New Ideal is for a white woman to reject a white guy altogether, open her poon to a masterful Negro, and push out of her disgusting and foul mudshark poon the hideous mulatto baby that looks, crawls, and fouls the earth as Obama and his fellow mulatto ilk do. That is the interracial future that is being birthed from white vaginas all across America and Europe, and yet, the biggest moral issue among white millennials is ‘gay marriage’ instead of their racial survival. US is still rich and has technology far beyond other nations, but when a people lose their grip racially and morally, they are doomed to failure. The moral priority of any group should be survival and power; all else is gravy. White men have forgotten how to be like Vito and Michael Corleone who, for all their faults, were upstanding husbands and fathers. Of course, even as white males succumb to Negro power by having their wives be rammed by Negroes, they will still be made to carry the burden of ‘racism’. They will be accused of regarding Negroes as sexually maniacal beast-studs than as complex human beings, or they could also be accused of ‘sexism’ for regarding their own women as nymphomaniacs. But then, don’t the wives often initiate the idea? Aren’t they the ones who go to their white husbands and say they’d like to get it on with a Negro? And it’s not like these Negroes are slaves who are being forced to act against their will. So, the racial stereotyping goes both ways. While some white guys may do get a kick out of regarding Negroes as sex-hungry beasts and their white wives as horny ho’s, Negroes surely see the white guys as a bunch of soft, slow, and ‘faggoty’ white boys who can’t even arouse their women; and white wives see their own husbands as racially-sexually inferior losers compared to black guys. But according to PC, it’s only the white guys who should be blamed for racial stereotyping. How can anyone avoid noticing the stereotypes since the whole arrangement is indeed based on genuine and general differences among the races? Talk about Liberal cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, it praises interracism for its open-mindedness but then feigns shock that interracism works according to the logic of actual racial differences.
This is especially tragic for poor white males because they lack the socio-economic advantages of rich white men who can at least compensate for their sexual defeat/surrender with their considerable money and status. So, even though they’ve been reduced to watching Negro ram their wives, they can at least flatter themselves that they’ve hired the ‘bulls’ or Negro ‘bucks’ to do sexual circus tricks. And even though their wives sexually get off Negroes, they know they better stick with their white husbands who have the financial power and social privilege. After all, according to the magazine article, the Negroes are screened and must perform by the rules set by rich white people. Rich Romans in the Ancient World did the same thing. They figured the rich and powerful are deserving of the very best and the greatest pleasures. If Negroes could give their wives the greatest pleasures, then their wives must have it, and they, in having hired the Negroes, could take pride in being able to afford the very best for their wives. Anyway, since Negroes know that rich white folks have money, connections, and status, they must play by the rules even as they hump the white guys’ wives.
But what about poor white guys? They have no money, status, and connections for any kind of protection from the Negroes. With rich white couples, Negroes bang the wives and then go back to their crib; and rich white couples can go on living in their white neighborhoods and carry on as if nothing happened; and their kids won’t know anything about it. But among poor whites, Negro males whup white guys and turn them into pussified white boys; Negro males are flagrant in their sexual moves on white girls, and white girls, having lost all respect for pussified white boys, go with Negroes and turn their vaginas into mulatto-making machines. The defeat and conquest are total. Rich whites can do the interracist thing as an act, but for poor whites, the interracist conquest becomes an everyday reality, especially as blacks can so easily whup white boys. This is why Jews in the media are so eager to cover up all the black-on-white violence in integrated neighborhoods. This is why Jews use their power of media to maintain the impression that southern whites are oppressing blacks when, in fact, the reality has black thugs robbing, raping, and murdering whites — and whupping white boys and taking white girls who are turned into mindless mudsharks. But don’t expect anyone on the American Right to sound the alarm since mainstream American Conservatism is into the Magic Negro myth of Dr. Ben Carter and Allen West — as if all Negroes could become like them one day — and since the so-called ‘alternative right’ sphere is filled with all these ridiculous neo-Nietzscheans who see themselves as tough-and-proud-white-guys-with-the-balls-to-stand-up-to-Negroes when, in fact, they’d get their white ass whupped in a second by most Negroes. With excess pride, the truth died. And then, there’s all this dry and tiresome stuff about IQ differences, as if all those whites are being beaten, robbed, raped, murdered, or pussified because of Negro Forrest Gumps!
Anyway, in any ideal order, the elites should be leading the masses. So, the white elites should care about the white masses. By noticing that white masses are being victimized by Negroes who rob, rape, and murder whites, white elites should step up to the plate for the white masses and guide & inspire them. But what are white elites doing today? Collaborating with Obama the Jews’ boy and even inviting Negroes to come and hump their wives. The Romney family hasn’t gone that far yet, but as they’ve adopted some African baby. In a way, it’s just as bad as the Negro piece of shit will surely grow up to marry some whit girl and have mulatto kids with her. If it’s not "Hey Negro, have my wife", it’s "Hey Negro, take my daughter." White race, what a disgrace. In any racial community, men are supposed to lead and the women are supposed to produce the next generation. But among whites, the men are embracing their pussy-boy role and women are dreaming of having kids with Negroes. And of course, Jews are laughing like hyenas at the sight of these pathetic white idiots in America and EU — and Jews are now working to destroy Russia as well so that it to will be ruled by Jews who will use their control over the media, education, and government to turn Russian guys into ‘faggoty’ SWPL dorks and Russian women into worthless mudsharks. This is why they are ‘dirty Jews’.

Anyway, a kind of ‘inferiority comfort’ seems to be coming into place in the white community. When the white man is faced with the Negro man, he’s bound to feel some degree of inferiority complex since the raw power of the Negro is so overwhelming; it’s like how a weaker dog feels in the presence of a stronger dog. Though Woody Strode played John Wayne’s ‘boy’ in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE — and the movie was set in a time when black men had no choice but to be subservient to whites — , if the two were matched head-to-head in a naked boxing-wrestling match, Strode would have whupped and ass-fuc*ed the Duke in two minutes and then would have raped all of Wayne’s women from mother, wife, sister, and daughter.
LEGEND: White male alpha & black beta sidekick / FACT: Black male alpha & white beta sidekick
So, the white man’s fear of and anxiety about the Negro is totally natural, normal, and healthy, and indeed there’s nothing that is morally shameful about THE BIRTH OF A NATION. But as Jews have filled the white race with all this bogus moral crap about ‘white guilt’ and Eternal black sainthood and victim-hood, white guys try to repress any negative emotion toward blacks. So, even rational fear and anxiety about the Negro is considered to be ‘bigoted’ and ‘racist’. But, the fact is there is no racial equality between whites and blacks. Blacks are tougher, rougher, thicker-voiced, and harder-muscled. And more aggressive and wilder. So, it’s problematic for white folks to feel easy about the black threat. If Negroes were to rampage through rich white neighborhoods, white folks would be forced to wake up, grab their guns, and fight like the hero-warriors of THE BIRTH OF A NATION. But since rich white folks live in their own safe bubble of privilege and safety, white guys can slowly ease their inferiority complex into a kind of inferiority comfort vis-a-vis the Negro, whereby they become accustomed to the fact that they are a bunch of pussy boy dorks in contrast to black men. (Also, since privileged whites don’t have to deal with the black reality firsthand, they can edit and select only the kinds of images of blacks they prefer; or Jews who run the media and academia can do the editing and selecting for them to stoke their white masochism. It’s like most whites in the North didn’t know anything about the Negro, so they could make believe that Harriet Beecher Stowe’s UNCLE TOM’S CABIN was a honest and compelling depiction of the Negro soul. Joyce Carol Oates, who’ve turned herself into Harriet-Beecher-Stowe of our time, is a privileged white woman who can shut out the reality and only choose to believe in the Noble Negro of her dreams. In one of her stories, a white woman finds herself being chased by a Negro... and the Negro turns out to be an angel. ROTFL.) Indeed, the psycho-social move towards inferiority comfort isn’t only happening in elite circles but among the lower orders, as depicted in SPECTACULAR NOW(starring Miles Teller, Shailene Woodley, Brie Larson/directed by James Ponsoldt), which presents a racial situation where a white boy is lauded for being graceful, understandable, and cool about some big tough Negro stealing his blonde girlfriend who, by the way, tells to his face that she had the biggest orgasm with her new black boyfriend. But the white boy, Sutter, being a goody-goody PC-castrated boy, seems okay with his inferiority comfort. (To the extent that SPECTACULAR NOW features a genuine social trend, it cannot be faulted because the purpose of art is to make us come to terms with truth and fact than dwell in fantasy. So, the film, as with THIRTEEN by Catherine Hardwicke, is more honest about racial/social matters than most movies about youth. But SPECTACULAR NOW is far from an honest movie. While it shows us the pussification of the white boy at the hands of a black dude, it sugarcoats the racial angle in various ways. For instance, a good many positive authority figures — teacher and doctor among others — are black. Of course, there are decent black teachers and doctors, but I find it hard to swallow that a white kid who happens to be so dysfunctional is aided by upright black citizens who seem to be everywhere. Furthermore, the black dude who steals the girlfriend is made something of a figure of pity. In one scene, he goes to the white guy and makes a threatening move, and the white guy steps back like a wussy beta dog. So far so honest as such things happen everywhere. But then, the black guy puts on a sappy face and says he, yes he, is jealous of the white guy because he, the black guy, can’t connect with the white blonde girl like white guy could. You see, the black guy has the muscle but he’s not as cool and funny, and he wants to know what magic the white guy used to make the white girl so happy. So, even though the black guy took the white girl from the white guy and is physically threatening the white guy, we are supposed to feel sorry for the black guy because, gee whiz, the white guy was better at making the white girl laugh. So, the white guy, who’d just been threatened by the black guy, puts on nice big smile and offers some pep talk to boost the Negro’s ego and morale. White guy tells the black guy that he, the black guy, should be so proud because he’s the star athlete AND the star student of the school. So, let’s see... the black guy is supposed to be the star football player, one of the best students in class[also to be aided by affirmative action to be sure], and humping the hot blonde girl of the school... but he, the black guy, is deserving of our and the white guy’s pity because... he doesn’t make the white girl laugh enough. It’s like Mandingo Party for juniors. As for the white girl, even though she’s a mudshark traitor to her own race and went off with a Negro stud for her own pleasure/interest, we are supposed to look upon her with admiration because she’s so soulful and still worried about her former white boyfriend she so unceremoniously dumped. So, even though she shits on her own race, we are supposed to feel sorry for her feeling sorry for the white guy. Well, isn’t she so kind? The sexual message of the film seems to be that alpha gorgeous white girls will now go with alpha stud Negroes; and white boys should find inferiority comfort in their defeat and settle for homely beta white girls. Even so, SPECTACULAR NOW has some good acting and is many times more honest than the most youth movies in the 80s and 90s. And for a few moments, it achieves the status of art when the white guy visits his estranged father. The scene could have been wrenched for cliched emotions but delivers the pangs of being stabbed in the heart for the first time.) Of course, inferiority comfort is much easier with rich whites since they have the money and power to devise their own step-by-step program to ease into their inferiority comfort according to their chosen pace. In a way, it’s like the ending of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE — Kubrick’s film version — where we are shown a vision of the elites cheering and clapping as Alex the thug sexually conquers a nubile woman. Just as the elites in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE can make a deal with the thugs and buy them off with sex and money, rich whites in America are using their money and position to come to terms with the black racial-sexual threat in their own selective and tempered way. It’s the game rich folks play, and it may be fun for awhile, but, in the end, it spells doom for civilization, and their kind will fall too.



  1. I'll come back and read this entire, awesome post when I have time. Just scanned it and noted the bit about Jews using "homophobia" to smoke out "antisemites". I had wondered why the neo-con infested Republican gang had recently adopted sodomites as their pet Group Entitlement. Now I know. Thanks, and I'll put up a link to you at a new site of mine (TSJ having been Jew-exiled to the deep web) @

  2. Andrea, when you post an article its like an entire book every time, its absolutely fucking astonishing ! ! !.

  3. An interesting segment from "A serious Man" by the Coen bros.

    The last line from this scene

    “What happened to the goy?”
    “The goy?…... Who cares?”

  4. We're a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our
    community. Your web site provided us with valuable
    info to work on. You've done a formidable job and our whole community will be
    thankful to you.