Friday, January 23, 2015

Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascism on the Politics of Victimology: Victimology Is Not the Problem. Consideration of Our Victimology vs Other Victimology. Part 2.

Murder of Jane McCrea
Hannah Duston Killing the Indians

For Part 1 of this blogpost, CLICK HERE.

Topics Discussed: amorality of creative genius, paradox of addiction acquirement, poison of pop culture, dangers of being a rightwing artist or intellectual, Jewish game of 'good cop' and 'bad cop', Jared Taylor, Shifting Grand Strategies, Ross Douthat, amorality of creative genius, paradox of addiction acquirement,poison of pop culture, dangers of being a rightwing artist or intellectual, Jewish game of 'good cop' and 'bad cop', Jared Taylor,Shifting Grand Strategies, Ross Douthat, Jews and thought and anti-thought, Martin Heidegger, rise of civilization and homosexuality, Sparta as prison-rape society, Liberal use of homomania to tame blacks.

This is why the Right currently looks worse than the Left and why the white gentiles look worse than Jews. As Liberals command the elite institutions, they get to decide how the game is played. So, it’s permissible for those on the Left to dig up all the controversial stuff on the Right and go on the attack REGARDLESS of the talent involved. So, suppose there was a great author or composer of the Right who held controversial views that are deemed beyond the pale today. It doesn’t matter how great he was as a writer, thinker, musician, or artist. He is tainted as a scum of the earth for his unspeakable views. But the same is not availed to critics on the right against people of talent on the Left. Under the rules established by Liberals, nothing on the Left can really be considered beyond the pale. Sure, most Liberals will say Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were monsters, but even hardline communists are still not seen as necessarily evil — just overly zealous, misguided, or low-in-character than wrong in morality. So, Jean-Luc Godard isn’t excoriated for WEEKEND(a Maoist film that calls for the Khmer Rouge program for Europe), and Alexander Dovzhenko isn’t denounced for EARTH(a film that waxes poetic about the forced-collection of agriculture in Ukraine that would end up killing millions) in the way that D.W. Griffith has been for THE BIRTH OF A NATION. Even artists who were hardline Stalinists or Maoists are forgiven for their extremism or even praised for their commitment — misguided though it may have been — ,whereas there is no forgiveness for artists who espoused ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’ views. Hollywood Stalinists of the 40s and 50s are hailed as heroes and saints, whereas Elia Kazan is still defamed as a ‘rat’.
But then, artists who were ‘sexist’ or ‘homophobic’ in the past are forgiven — especially if they were on the Left — since it was routine for most artists in the past to hold views on the sexes and homosexuality that would now be considered taboo. Indeed, consider how even most films made by Liberals — and even homosexuals — treated homosexuality as a kind of sickness, weirdness, or perversion up to even the 1980s. Even in the 60s, Susan Sontag stirred up controversy from many Liberals and Leftists for openly discussing the issue of homosexuality in her piece in Partisan Review called ‘Notes on Camp’. So, for tainted artists/intellectuals of the Left, their greatness as artists or thinkers is thought to redeem their flaws of character and lapses in judgement, and this is especially true of those who happened to be Jewish. But, for tainted men of the Right, their greatness as artists or thinkers cannot shield them from endless condemnation and abuse from not only Liberals but from mainstream Conservatives as well whose main agenda isn’t to fight for conservative values but to prove to Liberals — especially Liberal Jews and their secret allies the Neocon Jews — that they’ve been cured of all the ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘antisemitic’, and now even ‘homophobic’ sickness and are now ready to be accepted and adored as ‘good Conservatives’ who are only committed to safe causes like reducing taxes for billionaire Jews, waving the Zionist flag, weeping before the MLK memorial, hating on ‘anti-Semites’ even more than the Left, and even bending over to the homo agenda. Genius can redeem even the worst leftist or Jew but no amount of genius can redeem the beyond-the-pale figures on the Right, especially if they said unkind things about Negroes and especially Jews. Who has established such rules? Liberal Jews, of course, and with the scales of justice tilted in this manner, there’s no way the Right can fight fair and win. Even vicious and nasty Jews who’ve said awful things about white gentiles, Christians, Muslims, Russians, Iranians, and Asians have high positions in government, media, and academia. But what about someone with even mildly critical views of blacks or Jews? He or she will be a total checkup, and if he or she is deemed to have a single unkosher wart, he or she will effectively be axed and blacklisted from all elite institutions. Consider how Jewish power forced National Review to fire John Derbyshire. And consider how a Neocon Jewess by the name of Jennifer Rubin pressured the Heritage Foundation to fire Jason Richwine. It takes very little for someone on the Right to be sniffed out and burned at the stake as a heretic, but someone on the Left or someone who’s Jewish can do a lot of shit before he or she is finally ousted from his or her position of influence. But even then, he or she will be allowed to return to power sooner than later. What’s really amusing — though also disgusting — is that some of the biggest witch-hunters on the Right are those on the ostensible Right called Neo-conservatism dominated by nasty Jews like the Kristols and the Podherotzes. Just as it was neocon Rubin who pulled the alarm on Richwine, it was dirty Jew John Podherotz who called the PC police on conservatives with more honest views on race. Neoconservative came over to the Right not to serve the Right but to purge the Right to turn it into something like West Bank: a Jewish-occupied and dominated territory. And mainstream Conservative establishment went along with this arrangement with the expectation that if it appeased Jewish demands, the Neoconservatives would finally convince a whole bunch of Liberal Jews to change their political stripes and join the GOP and become good and decent privileged country club Republicans. Of course, there was no chance of that ever happening. Instead, the Jews played on the willful naivete of the Wasp elites who thought they were cleverly playing the Jews but were in fact being played by the Jews.
Jews can be infectious when they work on people in such manner. Though plenty of Jews can be vicious, nasty, and repugnant, they can also put on sappy nice-guy faces and make others sympathize with them. Take a look at William Kristol and Michael Medved. And especially Ben Stein. Though none of them should be trusted, they look so nice and harmless. When they smile, they look like they really like you. So, Jews have a way of warming up your heart, and I can attest to this aspect of the Jewish character from experience. As Jews had to excel as businessmen, they needed inner traits that are cunning, devious, and sharp but outer masks that are nice, charming, and harmless in the ‘would I hurt a fly?’ manner. Just look at Steven Spielberg. He’s a cunning and ruthless Jew, but he looks like an innocent little kid. Even though he’s worth billions and committed to the Jewish supremacist agenda, every time I see him in a video, I wanna bake him some cookies, give him a hug, and send him some money.
And every time I watch Ben Stein, I hate myself for holding negative views of Jews since he looks like such a nice guy, someone you want to protect and shield from all the nasty Big Dumb ‘Polacks’ who wanna steal his lunch money.
Ben Stein - Would you hurt this lovable Jew?
Hyman Roth - Trust this Jew at your own peril.
But no matter how harmless Jews may look, they are always angling to gain an advantage over you. Indeed, the combination of kindly Jewish looks and steely cunning may have been due to evolution. Consider the character of Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER PART II. He looks like the most congenial and amiable old man in the world or th entire universe, like Yoda. But he’s as ruthless, cunning, and venomous as they come. Suppose you were a Jewish middleman and looked really mean. Based on your brutish appearance, others might be less likely to open up to you. But suppose you look like an amiable and nice person. The other party is more likely to put itself as ease and do business with you. But behind the Jewish face, his heart/mind is as cold as ice(at least when it comes to gentiles). Of course, many Jews are known for their aggressiveness, pushiness, and vileness, but if all Jews had been like this, gentiles would have been far keener about the true nature of the Jew. So, there arose a certain trait in Jews that enabled them to put on an unassuming and friendly demeanor to hide their true intention of gaining dominance over other people. Among warrior peoples, the favored physical trait was that which could scare the enemy with a single look. If you met a bunch of tough Viking warriors, just looking at their faces would have made you pee in your pants. Jews, in contrast, gained their wealth and power as middlemen operators, and so, at most times, they couldn’t just resort to angry faces and naked violence. They had to win over the warrior class to their side and make them do their bidding. Take someone like Henry Kissinger. In terms of looks, he couldn’t scare anyone. So, he used his charm and apparent warmth in the company of powerful men. Having won their confidence — and even a bit of trust — , he would work on diplomacy like a chess game to further American interests(or was it ultimately Jewish-American interests?). The Jewish way is to play ‘good cop and bad cop’. So, the nasty ‘bad cop’ Jews do all the screaming, shouting, berating, and bitching, AND the congenial ‘good cop’ Jews come to the gentiles and offer a deal that might calm the angry crazy Jew. It’s like in HOUSE OF GAMES, one guy slaps the woman and plays the ‘bad cop’ whereas the Joe Mantegna plays the ‘good cop’ and plays the role of protector... to win her trust and support in order to swindle her. Therefore, so many gentiles have fallen for this tripe — even some on the ‘alternative right’, which is why Jared Taylor thinks trashing Muslims might win him some friends among Jews.

Is Taylor stupid or just playing dumb? If Jews were mediocre, they would accept assimilation with white gentiles and support white majority rule. The problem is Jews see themselves as superior to whites due to their higher intelligence, deeper history, and stronger personalities.
Therefore, Jews are bound to reach the top in disproportionate numbers, and therefore, they will be resented by the less fortunate and privileged gentile majority. The most that mediocre people can hope to do is to join the mainstream. So, they are more likely to support the mainstream. But superior people will rise about mainstream, and their success and power make them feel nervous about all the resentful eyes of the majority. So, their best bet is to diversity the majority so that it won’t be able to unite together into a demographic fist against the Jewish thumb. This is why any long-term hope of white gentile alliance with Jews is misplaced. On this, David Duke sees the truth more clearly than the craven Taylor.

Jews think differently from most gentiles, and it’s about time that gentiles learn to think like Jews. Gentiles generally think in two modes: trees over the forest or the forest over the trees. Some gentiles get immersed in whatever they’re doing or obsessed with and fail to see the bigger picture. Other gentiles pretend to focus on the big picture as a whole. They lack the nimbleness of mind to work through the whole fabric.

Consider the dummy gentiles on the Jerry Springer Show. They are only fixated on their personal emotions and hangups, thus incapable of seeing or feeling anything else. And the audience members are only fixated on the entertainment aspect of the spectacle as they chant ‘Jerry, Jerry!’. But Jerry Springer is able to stand on stage with the gentile dummies, look down at the audience of gentile dummies, and connect how all these things come together to make a hit show from which he rakes in millions while gentile dummies all make fools of themselves as participants and spectators — in the live audience and at home.

Now, consider something like SEINFELD or CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM. What makes them stand out from most sitcoms(though I don’t enjoy them and have seen just a few episodes) is that, instead of going for a series of stand-alone jokes scattered across a thin plot-line, every detail that seems random and arbitrary end up connecting in a larger design. So, everything is, at once, seemingly unique/random and inevitably integral/interconnected. There’s a pattern to the put-on. It’s like most dummy gentiles just learn to play chess by moving single pieces here and there on a trial-and-error basis, whereas smarter Jews learn to master the strategy of understanding and using an ever shifting grand designs. This is the difference between the Asian mind and the Jewish mind. The Asian mind can learn to memorize and re-enact a great chess game with all its intricate moves, but it is lost when it has to play a game on its own by finding new solutions to new strategies. The Negro’s mind is more improvisatory, but the Negro mind generally isn’t good at foreseeing any kind of grand design. Negro’s ability to improvise is moment-to-moment and instinctive. It is the Jew who has the power to be both improvisatory and calculate in terms of the grand design. This is especially difficult since improvisation and grand strategy are opposite in spirit. To improvise means to constantly shift one’s actions and playing it by ear. Having a grand strategy means to prepare and practice an elaborate plan to perfection. How can a grand strategy be possible when one needs to improvise with every new move — indeed when every new move changes the dynamics of the game plan? One cannot play chess with a grand strategy because the opponent will upend one’s plans with unexpected moves. But if one plays chess only in the improvisatory mode, one can only think few moves ahead. But suppose one’s mind could formulate new possibilities of grand strategy with every move? Such a person would have the power of Shifting Grand Strategies. He would be unfazed by new developments that upend the previous grand strategy since his mind is instantly conceiving new ones. This is why Jews often win in foreign policy. Even when they bring about a mess like the Iraq War, they find new moves to save victory from the jaws of defeat. Though the original plan for a democratic Iraq may have failed, Neocon and Liberal Zionist Jews — working across the network of government, media, academia, and foreign policy — have improvised to intervene in the Middle East in new ways so that Israel will be the only one standing while the Arab/Muslim nations all burn up in internecine strife. Jews are always thinking ahead of everyone else. It’s like even though the so-called Right Sector did the brunt of the street fighting to overthrow the Yanukovich regime in Ukraine, it had no chance of gaining power since it acted in-the-moment and for-the-moment whereas Jews were only using it to clear the previous regime in order to bring in the new regime that would be subservient to Jewish supremacist interests. Right Sector and the supporters of Yanukovich were like the guests on the Jerry Springer Show bashing one another. Just like it’s only Jerry who only wins in the end and grabs all the loot, Ukraine has essentially fallen into the grip of Jewish supremacism. Gentiles think of the then, the now, or the will-be. Jews are far keener in applying the lessons of the then to the now in order to bring forth the will-be of their. Jews have deep memory and faraway vision that informs their intensity in the present. Unlike gentiles who like to be simply ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘this’ or ‘that’, Jews are working across various modes & dimensions and connecting the dots and re-configuring the board to arrive at ‘what is good for the Jews’. And what is Jewishness but a combination of ultra-ancient-roots and ultra-modern-possibilities? It is essentially ‘fascist’ — an ideology committed to both ancient roots and futuristic vision — , and that is why Jews hated gentile fascism for it was the greatest threat to the secret of Jewish power. This is why Jews can play on both Conservatives and Liberals with such ease. Conservative gentiles think in only one mode, and so do Liberal gentiles, and so, they hate one another with the mentality of school children on the playground shouting, "you can’t play with my toy." But the divide between Liberal Jews and Conservative Jews isn’t so wide since both sides are really in it for ‘what is good for the Jews’, a mentality that goes back thousands of years. But as Jews are a demographically vulnerable minority in gentile-majority nations, Jews can’t be so candid about their true agenda, and so, some Jews pretend to be ‘liberal’ while some Jews pretend to be ‘conservative’, and so, they play all sides in order to win support from all kinds of gentiles for the interests of Jews. Just like the gentile clowns on the Jerry Springer Show think Jerry is on their side — and the audience thinks Jerry is laughing along with them when Jerry is laughing at them and making money off them — , both Liberal American gentiles and Conservative American gentiles foolishly think that Jews are on their side, when, in fact, Jew will play all sides to gain advantage in terms of ‘what is good for Jews’. This is why nothing frightened the Jews more than National Socialism that sought to end the bickering between the German Right and the German Left by creating a new order where all Germans — from the rich to the poor — would be united in pursuing ‘what is good for all Germans’ at the expense of the hostile Jewish minority elites. Jews love to divide-and-rule the gentile majorities along class lines, sexual lines, cultural lines, and national lines. This is why Jews push open borders. It is not to bring all the people together in the spirit of peace and understanding but to paradoxically bring them together to tear them apart so that they’ll be too busy fighting one another to have time and energy to unite against the Jews. And of course, a diverse people — or a mass of confused racially mixed/confused people — will be far less likely to unite to take on the alien minority elite.
Anyway, Jews are restless in applying lessons of the ‘here’ to ‘there’, the lessons of the past to the present, the lessons of one culture to another culture, the lessons of one situation to another situation. Everything is a testing ground and laboratory for Jews. They are always analyzing, experimenting, and theorizing. While most conservative gentiles study the past, their heritage, or other cultures out of nostalgia, exoticism, or some recreational interest, Jews study all the various events and realities of the world in order to formulate yet more effective ways to maximize their own wealth and power. So, what the Jews have learned from the recent events in Ukraine will surely be applied to future developments in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Of course, each event or crisis is unique and different from all the others, but there are parallels as well, and make no mistake about the fact that Jews are gaining lessons from the Ukraine crisis to prepare for the big plan in the Middle East. What are some of the parallels between Ukraine/Russia and the Middle East? Like Ukraine, the West Bank is made up of largely two ethnic groups, and Jews are helping Ukraine ethnically cleanse or crush the Russian Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine. The situation is different from the one in West Bank because whereas Ukrainians make up the solid majority of the people in Ukraine, West Bank is still overwhelmingly Palestinian. Even so, it’s the Jewish military that has the final say in West Bank, just like the ‘Western’-backed Kiev regime is using its military muscle to quell any rebellious passion among Russian Ukrainians in the east. Jews also see the Muslim Middle East like they see Russia, though, to be sure, with the fall and breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia is more homogenous and united than Jews would like it. Therefore, it would be difficult to Jews to play divide-and-conquer within Russia as they’ve done all across the Middle East. Nevertheless, the regime in Russia that holds the nation together is vulnerable since Russian economy depends pretty much on selling natural resources. Also, Russia depends on international investment and talent to run things since its institutions are corrupt and inept. And despite all the nationalist rhetoric, the relative success of Vladimir Putin has rested on the fact that the Russian economy did grow under him and he projected the pride of Russian power throughout the region. But as the Russian economy is being subverted— Jews are trying to undermine the Russian economy in the same manner they’ve done to the Iranian economy — , there could be widespread unrest in Russia, and the downfall of the Putin order will lead to the rise of the Jewish oligarches who will then swallow and lay claim to all of Russia forever. To know your Jew, just look at the face of Victoria Nuland. Why would anyone with any sense trust a vile and dirty Jew hag bitch who looks like that? She essentially has the mind of a mafia princess. It’s absolutely disgusting to think that American gentile politicians and military men must now defer to some scum queen hag like her or else be destroyed by the Jewish matrix of power that includes the media, Wall Street, academia, courts, government, and etc.
Victoria Nuland the Vile Power-Hungry Jewess
Fact of Life is that Jews are vile and vicious.
When Jewish power uses its media muscle and control over the law to force ‘gay marriage’ on state after state but there isn’t a peep of protest from the American Conservative Establishment, it should be obvious who really runs this country. American Conservatives talk big about Russia, China, and Iran, but it’s only because they are too chicken to talk back to their Jewish overlords. The American Right is like Ralph Kramden in THE HONEYMOONERS. Ralph is meek as a lamb before his boss at work but talks big about everything else at home.Where it really matters, Ralph is just a big fat pussy — like Rush Limbaugh who attacks Muslims, Russians, ‘Chicoms’, and etc, but hasn’t the guts to speak truth to Jewish power. Limbaugh used to fight homo power, but now that advertisers are threatening dramatic loss of revenue unless he ‘evolves’ toward accepting the homo agenda, he refuses even to bring up that issue anymore. Just like that craven coward Ross Douthat, Limbaugh is now discussing the ‘terms of surrender’. Dirtbag Conservatives like that are waving the white flag and surrendering to the ‘gay flag’ and promising to hand over all their weapons IF the homos might not fuc* them in the ass too badly.
Douthat’s excuse for surrendering is that ruling on ‘gay marriage’ will be ‘inevitable’. If that’s the case, why do Conservatives like him keep fighting abortion when Supreme Court long ago made it law of the land? And since when does a true conservative give up on his or her principles simply because something is forced into law? I suppose Abolitionists shouldn’t have bothered about slavery since it was just the law of the land in the South.
Ross Douthat the Douchebag who has the faux courage to stand up to Edward Cullen(of Twilight) but no real courage to stand up to the Homokin Lobby.
Of course, Douthat’s real reason for surrendering is he’s a vain prick who wants to be approved by the New York elites who tolerate him as a ‘token conservative’. As the ‘gay marriage’ issue has become so ‘sacrosanct’ among the NY glitterati, intelligentsia, ‘hip set’, and ‘smart set’, he just feels so uncomfortable standing up for true marriage. So, the dirty coward finds some excuse to give up on his principles to be accepted by the Liberal elites who hog all the ‘hip’ and ‘coolness’ factor.
Scum like Limbaugh, who bark like Ralph Kramden about Russians, Iranians, and ‘Chicoms’, don’t have the guts to speak the obvious truth: that it was the Jews who did the most to undermine and destroy true conservatism in America and that the rise of homo power owes mostly to Jewish domination of finance, big business, media, and government. With craven and cowardly dirtbag Conservatives like him — and with so many dumb Americans doing nothing but muttering ‘ditto’ to that worthless fat pig — , it’s no wonder that the American Conservatism has become a vast wasteland of stupidity, opportunism, and obedience to the rich and powerful. Since Jews are the richest & the most powerful and since new Conservatism has been defined as serving the whims of the super-rich, there is a sickening logic to the behavior of American Conservatives: they are little more than whores who put out to the highest bidders like Sheldon Adelson, Mark Zuckerberg, and all those finance capitalist Jew scum on Wall Street. Jews make demands, and the rest of us, more or less, deliver on their demands. The most we can do is plead with our ‘terms of surrender’. So, the Democratic Party surrendered to Jewish dominance and bargained for their ‘terms of surrender’. The GOP surrendered to the Neocons and begged for their ‘terms of surrender’. Most American goyim are like the Manzo character in SEVEN SAMURAI who, in the opening of the film, says there’s no point to the fighting the bandits since the villagers will just lose. So, the most they can hope for is to surrender to bandits and plead with them to leave just enough for them to eat and survive. The Manzo-fication of America is progressing at an alarming rate. Indeed, when American Conservatives don’t even have the spine, guts, and balls to stand up for one of the most fundamental principles of conservatism — the sanctity of marriage and the family — , it is NOT any kind of real conservatism.
Manzo, the advocate for appeasement-collaboration in SEVEN SAMURAI and model for new American 'Conservatism' made up of craven cowards like Rush Limbaugh and Ross Douthat.
And this ‘gay marriage’ business isn’t even liberalism, some measure of which is necessary for any healthy society. There is a meaningful way to fuse conservatism and liberalism on the issue of homosexuality. All we need to do is look at the truth of biology. It’s true that some people are born homosexual and have strange abnormal wants and desires. As sexual feelings are powerful and pervade so much of our social existence, a modern and democratic society should make room for homosexuals to lead the kind of lifestyles they want. This would be the liberal side of the equation, and indeed, if most conservatives had adopted this position long ago, the homo lobby would have had a more difficult time to push their agenda. It was because much of American Conservatism was defined by the Christian Right that stupidly espoused Creationism and the mentality of ‘God Hates Fags’ that the homo lobby was able to portray themselves as progressive & rational as opposed to the bigoted, extreme, and inane prejudices of the Christian Right. As Jesus said of Roman power, "give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s", the conservative position on homosexuality should have been "give unto homos what is homos’". But people like Pat Buchanan turned things extreme by denouncing all of homosexuality as if the US Constitution should follow the teachings of the arch-conservative elements of the Catholic Church. With such religiously sanctioned small-mindedness on the American Right, it was easy for Jews and homo to frame the debate that rationalism and science are on their side while the American Right indulges in fantasy, what with dumb Christian Rightists even arguing that any homo could be made straight through prayer and etc. Of course, religious people have a right to believe whatever they want to, but the American Conservative establishment should have spelled out a more rational and fact-based position on homosexuality. But as the Republican Party came to rely heavily on the votes of the religious right, it remained mum on the issue while dumber and dumber things were said about homosexuals by the Christian Right and small town bigots. So, the debate became one where the choices were between the homo agenda as defined and supported by the ‘progressive’, ‘rational’, ‘intellectual’, and ‘sophisticated’ urban Liberals AND ‘gay-bashing’ as defined and pushed by the mindless Religious Right, moronic preachers, and brain-dead Evangelicals. Indeed, the Religious Right’s position on homos got so dumb that even many young Evangelicals began to sympathize with homos. But in fact, the choices need not have been between surrendering to the degenerate ‘gay’ agenda and assenting to the narrow-minded dogmas of the Religious Right. Most people, liberals and conservatives, could have come to an understanding that some people are born homosexual and should be left alone to pursue the kind of lifestyle that brings them happiness and pleasure. But as no moderate position was offered by the Right on the homo issue, it was easy for Jews and homos — who came to dominate Liberalism and the Democratic Party — to persuade a lot of people that the only choices were between ‘rational’ support for ‘gay marriage’ or blind religious bigotry(with its posterboy being the Westboro church that was especially hyped by the Jew-run media as the face of ‘anti-homosexual’ forces when, in fact, most people who opposed ‘gay marriage’ are not ‘anti-gay’ or ‘anti-homosexual’ but pro-normal, pro-truth, and pro-decency, i.e. they were not opposed to homos being homo or doing their homo stuff but merely standing up for the truth of what real marriage is all about. For example, if I oppose the teaching of Creationism in public schools, I’m not necessarily anti-Creationist. I could still support the right of Creationists to believe whatever they want to and preach whatever they want to from their pulpits. Rather, I would really be pro-science in the conviction that biology classes should teach things that have been verified by the scientific method. Give unto science what is science’s and give unto Creationists what is Creationists’. But the clever Jews and homos, with their disproportionate control of the media, exploited the extreme elements in the Christian Right to create the impression that opposing the ‘gay’ agenda means that you are no different from dimwit Bible-thumpers who have nothing better to do than to stand around with placards saying "God Hates Fags". So, unless you totally sign onto the ‘gay’ agenda, you are attacked as ‘anti-gay’. But the radical ‘gay’ agenda goes against the true of liberalism. True liberalism is about being open-minded and tolerant. It is about giving unto A what is A’s and giving unto B what is B’s. Since homos want to lead their kind of lifestyle, they should have their ‘gay’ world. But as marriage developed out of a fusion of biology and morality, it should belong to straight people willing to bind themselves in a sexual-and-moral contract. So, defending true marriage is not anti-‘gay’. It is pro-normal, pro-decent, and pro-biological. But the new kind of Liberalism or ‘progressivism’ pushed by Jews and homos has nothing to do with tolerance. Rather, it compels everyone to agree with, praise, and celebrate the narcissism and megalomania of homosexuals or risk being attacked as mentally ill ‘homophobes’ and even being denied promotion, fired from work, and blacklisted from further employment in both the private & public sectors. This bogus Liberalism isn’t about having different people get along in a spirit of tolerance but elevating certain people to iconic and holy status to the point where all other groups must pay special tribute to them. It’s really a tributary system where all groups must line up to bow down before Jews and homos with offerings of gifts and loyalty. Jews and homos sit around like the Egyptian elites in the opening part of TEN COMMANDMENTS and expect other people to walk up to them, bow down, and pledge allegiance. We now pledge allegiance to the ‘fag’ than to the Flag. Indeed, homos don’t even have to use the term ‘gay pride’ as the very word ‘pride’ itself has been made synonymous with homosexuality by the Jew-run media. The word ‘pride’ has been used so promiscuously in relation to homos that if someone hears ‘pride day’, they immediately think it’s about homosexuals. So, the term ‘pride’ has become closely associated or ass-ociated with men who do fecal penetration on one another, with women whose idea of ‘sex’ is grinding their poons together, and with men who have their penises cut off and fitted with fake vaginas. That is what is most closely associated with ‘pride’ as the result of the Jewish control of the media and academia.
Thanks to Jewish influence, PRIDE = HOMOSEXUALITY or LGBT or LGBTQ or whatever they'll call it tomorrow. So, 'we are all same inside'? Does that mean the inside Barney Frank's poophole is the same as the inside of a vagina of your mother? Do human lives come out of mothers' vaginas or out of homokin's anuses? Ours is the Age of Narcissism, and no group is as narcissistic as homos are. So naturally, narcissistic idiots sympathize with the 'gay' agenda. Narcisso-centrism in action.
And what do we get from Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Ross Douthat? Uh, pleading with Jews and homos for the ‘terms of surrender’. It was bad enough when the word ‘gay’ was changed and redefined to refer almost exclusively to homosexuals. There was once a time when gayness was a style that, though more common among homos, could be affected by straight men as well. But ‘gay’ was made synonymous with homosexual as the result of the Liberal domination of media and academia. But today, the arrogant and triumphant homos, with the full-backing of Jewish tycoons and oligarches, have gone all out and have claimed PRIDE itself to apply primarily to their own degenerate kind of sexuality. But then, these foul and disgusting homo activists are selfish and self-centered enough to hog the entire spectrum of colors in designing the ‘gay flag’ or ‘gay banner’. This should hardly be surprising when so many homos have the personality of the loathsome and petulant Chris Crocker.

Though we can understand why many people sympathized with the problems faced by homosexuals and transvestites in the past — as many of them were bullied, humiliated, shunned, or even attacked — , just because a people were once victimized or suppressed doesn’t mean they are angels. The British mistreated the Irish, but them drunken ‘Micks’ can be awful nasty. We know that Gypsies had been discriminated against, but it’s also true that many Gypsies are very unpleasant people. Likewise, though Jews do have a right to claim periods of victimization at the hands of gentiles, Jews have been a very nasty, devious, and exploitative people — and we can see evidence of this all around in our world. And even though homos in the past were sometimes beaten up and insulted, homo power must be scrutinized closely because the homo personality is bitchy, snotty, self-centered, narcissistic, delusional, and contemptuous. Homos have the ‘drama queen’ qualities of women and the aggressiveness of men. They are bitchy sons of bitches. Because of this, homos are not content to be left alone to be homo. They see the world as a kind fashion show where they should command the most attention of the neo-aristocratic kind. Consider that film LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN. In the early part of the film, we see the homo guy get beaten up by his older brother, and we sort of sympathize with him. But how does he act later when he becomes lovers with a repressed homo union manager who embezzles funds to shower his lover-boy with all sorts of treats? The fruitkin acts like he’s a queen or something, as if the world exists only to be his oyster. And when the union manager loses his job and runs to the homo lover for sympathy, how does the latter treat him? With disdain and irritation. Instead of offering a shoulder to cry on, he just bitches to the man-in-trouble to get him some more champagne. Of course, not all homos are like this, but plenty of them are. Indeed, you average homo has a personality closer to the guy in LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN than Tom-Hanks-as-angelic-homo in PHILADELPHIA. Tim Cook is deluded enough to think that God’s greatest blessing to mankind is to make some guy want to bugger other men in the ass.

Anyway, the White Right needs to stop being allergic to victimology in wholesale manner. Yes, radical victimology can become inane and ridiculous, but victimology has its uses for every group and is indeed the basis for most kinds of righteous action. For a people to come together for united action, they need to feel wronged, betrayed, oppressed, and/or aggrieved. Indeed, even mainstream politics works like that, with Democrats acting like so oppressed by Republicans, and Republicans feeling likewise about Democrats. Anti-war Democrats said George W. Bush was King George, Tea Party members say Obama is Emperor Obongo. Indeed, most of the so-called ‘alternative right’ is mostly about ‘angry young white males’ yammering about how they’re been dispossessed and displaced by Jews, Negroes, the tide of color, and etc. It’s all about victimology, but many on the Alt Right don’t admit this since they see themselves as the advanced guard of some neo-aristocratic order that will supposedly be ruled by ‘superior’ individuals such as Richard Spencer, Jack Donovan, Keith Preston, Mark Hackard, Greg Johnson(the Hitler-loving sociopath), Matt Parrot, and Matt ‘Me So’ Forney. The idea that these bunch of guys constitute some kind of superior Nietzschean breed is a riot. Most of the time, what they do isn’t much different from what people on the ‘left’ do: bitch about oppression and dispossession. The Left bitches about the Koch Brothers, and the Alt Right bitches about elite Jews, wild-ass Negroes, and some homos. But that’s okay since politics is all about feeling wronged and aggrieved by the ‘other side’ and trying to address the problem through open conflict and war OR to redress the problem through arrangement and compromise. Just because Alt Right people believe themselves to naturally superior racially, intellectually, or morally doesn’t mean that they are not into victimology. If anything, their sense of wounded superiority makes their victimology all the more intense. And we can see the same thing especially among Jews, Negroes, homos, Muslims, and Chinese(in China). Their victimologies are especially charged because they nurse wounded sense of superiority. It’s like what Amy Chua and Jeb Rubenfeld discussed in THE TRIPLE PACKAGE: the combination of superiority complex and wounded sense of insecurity that comes with the feeling that an unjust social order forced them into a position of inferiority. Jews feel this way intellectually and historically, and Negroes feel this way physically and rhythmically. Homos feel this way artistically and culturally. They feel that they, the superior breed, had been forced to live marginal or inferior lives in a society ruled by mediocrities who were represented by white straight gentile conservative folks. And indeed, there is some truth to this since the white elites and white majority of the past did cooperate to suppress the full power of Jewish intellect, Negro athleticism and sexual threat, and homo flamboyance and etc. And the Chinese, as they grow richer and stronger, are feeling that they must restore their civilization as a kind of Neo-Middle-Kingdom, and they resent that the world, especially the West(led by America), is conspiring to suppress their ‘place in the sun’. Surely, smart and educated Chinese must know about the Jewish domination of the US and much of EU. They must know that it’s the Jews who are directing the hostility against China — though white gentiles(especially on the Right) also fan the flames because China-bashing is one of those permitted ‘prejudices’; white conservatives hope to form an alliance with Jewish power against China as the main bad guy, i.e. if Jews fixate on China as the main threat, they might be nicer to white Conservatives and tolerate(and even reward) them as necessary allies. And of course, the Bush regime did just this with the Muslims/Arabs/Iranians. By fighting this so-called War on Terror and fixating on Muslims, many venal and opportunistic white Conservatives hoped to win over the Jews — or at the very least have the Jews go easier on white Conservatives since both sides would be united in fighting the swarthy ‘terrorist Muzzies’. Of course, Jews understood the nature of the game and exploited white Conservatives in return. The Neocons more or less hinted to white Conservatives that a major political realignment would be on the horizon if the GOP went along with the Neocon plan of turning Iraq into a client state of the US. Though we all like to bash Bush and Cheney — and they deserved to be bashed — , we can’t entirely blame them for this desperate last stand. Even after 8 yrs of Clinton — and the ensuing Clinton fatigue and the sinking of the stock market with the popping of the tech bubble — , Bush II couldn’t get the majority of popular vote and just eked by with a victory through means that were either controversial or dubious. Even before 9/11, it would have been apparent to the GOP elites that demographic changes, cultural shifts, the rise of homo power, preponderance of pop culture(controlled by Liberals), the ascendancy of Jews over Wasps, the shift to Democratic Party affiliation of the super-rich, PC education, cult worship of MLK and Oprah, the near-total Liberalization of the federal bureaucracy, and etc. all pointed to big troubles for the Republican Party. Since Jews were the most powerful group in America, the best bet was to win them over. Since the GOP and most American Jews differed on so many social issues — and since Clinton had made Democratic economic policy not only tolerable but favorable to the global elites — , the only issue with which the Republicans could hope to win over Jews was the Middle East issue, and so, Bush and Cheney took a desperate last stand for the GOP with the Iraq War. Would history have played out differently if the war had been a great success? Who knows? But it was a total flop, and it sunk the GOP ship to the bottom of the ocean.
Of course, Bush also went for a populist strategy to win over the new demographics. With easy housing loans to the ‘people of color’ — especially Meso-Americans from south of the border — , the GOP hoped to make the ‘Hispanics’ into the ‘Conservative minority’. But especially with the collapse of the housing bubble, that hope also sunk to the bottom of the ocean. Besides, the main historical and racial grievance that many Mexicans harbor in both Mexico and in America has to do with the ‘gringo’. While Mexicans, on a social basis, dislike Negroes more than they blancos — whom they like in some ways — , they see gringos as the dominant forces of America, as the rich folks who are holding the browns down; browns see blacks as pushing them around but not pushing them down. Of course, Jews are now the elites, but Jews have used the media — even Spanish-language TV stations in America are owned by Jews — to fool the Mexicans that they are fellow allies against the ‘gringos’. As things stand, Jews can scapegoat and badmouth white Conservatives all they want, but no one better speak out about Jewish power — not even a Hispanic like Rick Sanchez. And the Hispanic elites, being craven and opportunistic, sided with the Jews who fired Rick Sanchez since they receive so much of their funds and support from Jews. So, a lot of Mexicans, while not sympathetic to Jews, see white folks as their main enemies. Jews, they don’t like, but whites they hate. This doesn’t mean that Mexicans hate white folks on an individual or social level. If anything, many Mexicans have positive impressions of white folks as ordinary folks. But there is the other image of the white man as ‘Yanqui’ and ‘gringo’ that is very much a permanent fixture of the Mexican historical memory and cultural perception. It’s like many Jews don’t mind white people as individuals. In fact, many Jews like to get along with them, even in the South filled with Christian Evangelicals. But Jews have this image inside their heads of white Christians and gentiles as the pitchfork wielding ‘antisemitic’ mobs who are gathering with torchlights to smoke out the Jews. Though Jews often bitch about how white gentiles must rid their minds of negative antisemitic stereotypes that go back to the Middle Ages, Jews are never willing to abandon their stereotypes of white gentiles as the deranged ‘mobs’ gathering to burn Jews as heretics. Of course, we might point to the Holocaust, an event of the 20th century, to justify Jewish fears. Also, there were pogroms against Jews in the late 19th century in Russia. But seen in context, every group have suffered pogroms. Just ask any minority groups in Africa, Asia, Middle East, and Europe. German minorities in the East were often attacked by locals. Many were raped, looted, and killed, indeed worse than what the Jews got in Russia. As for the Holocaust, it was carried out by one nation, not all European nations. If anything, much of the white world united to defeat Nazi Germany. Furthermore, though Nazis were excessive in their Jew-hatred, there were many rational reasons for hating Jews as too many Jews were into robbery through finance capitalism — which happens on even a bigger scale today — and into radical agendas that sought to destroy entire gentile nations and remake them from scratch according to the ideological fantasies of fanatics like Leon Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kaganovich. Jews were nothing like the innocent, helpless, and blameless victims of European history that we so often see portrayed in the media and movies. To be sure, there are many Jewish historians who take a much more nuanced view of what really happened, and they’ve written books on the subject, but they are meant only for the elite community. Jews figure that the mobs are too stupid to understand nuance, complexity, and ambiguity, and so, for the masses, there’s stuff like SCHINDLER’S LIST where every Jew is just the most lovable and harmless creature in the world. But then, SCHINDLER’S LIST is also a middle-brow work because it doesn’t merely present Nazis as monsters. Because Nazis are presented as bad humans — but humans nevertheless — , suckers may be fooled into thinking that it’s not Jewish propaganda but a genuinely insightful work of art. It has just enough shadings of ‘complexity’ to fool ‘respectable’ viewers that it’s not a cartoon about good vs evil but a thoughtful work about the strange human faces of evil.

The main difference between American Liberalism and American Conservatism is the former thrives on victimology whereas the latter much less so. Also, the American form of victimology accords sympathy not for all groups but only for certain groups based on a very survey of history. One has to be a ‘person of color’ generally in order to qualify as a victim. Most whites need not apply — unless they are Jews and often white Hispanics who go around calling themselves ‘people of color’ because they might have a drop of mestizo blood or because, even if they’re fully white, they pose as victims of imperialist ‘gringos’ or ‘yanquis’. Also, some ethnic groups are allowed to indulge in victimology as long as they make themselves out to have been wronged by wasps. So, the Catholic Irish and Italian-American communities can complain vis-a-vis the American Wasps. Generally, American victim-hood is about what happened IN America. So, even though Cambodians went through one of the greatest hells in the 20th century, they and their Cambodian-American compatriots can far less sympathy in America than blacks who faced discrimination IN America. But there are exceptions, especially of course with the Jews. Though Jewish-American experience was pretty positive and ultimately greatly rewarding, Jews have convinced all Americans to see Jews as the greatest-victims-of-all-places-and-all-times because of what happened to Jews in Europe during World War II. Indeed, the fact that the Holocaust Museum is in Washington D.C. should tell us something about how Jews have rigged the game. Indeed, more Americans care about the occasional victimization of Jewish settlers by West Bank Palestinians 1000 miles away from America than all the victimization of whites that take place IN America at the hands of black thugs, illegal invaders, and Jewish finance capitalists & PC commissars(who have destroyed many more lives than so-called ‘McCarthyism’ ever did.) Indeed, Jewish-and-Homo or Jomo Cabal is now so aggressive with Political Correctness that they don’t even bother to invoke the ‘dark days’ of McCarthyism anymore. There was a time when Jews used the principle of Free Speech Rights to protect Jewish subversives, radicals, and porn-kings(especially of the Left), and back then, Jews used to invoke McCarthyism endlessly to drive home the point about how important it is for America to allow everyone to speak freely and get a fair hearing. But Jews no longer fear the possibility of institutions going after them since they control all the elite institutions. Indeed, even during the Bush II era, elite institutions did everything to serve and pander to Jews. So, screaming ‘McCarthyism’ is a bit embarrassing to Jews nowadays since people might realize that it’s the Jews and homos who are the real McCarthyites who want to restrict free speech, destroy lives, blacklist people, defame others with guilty-by-association, and etc. In the current situation, we are more likely to hear the invocation of McCarthyism come more from the Right. So, victimology is really a political game, and its rules are determined by those with the power. Of course, all groups did this, do this, and will always do this. So, even though Christians, upon grabbing power, killed many pagans and destroyed many temples and burned many witches, they always made themselves the paragons of the victim-narrative. It didn’t matter how many people the Christians came to persecute, torture, and kill. Their narrative just recycled the same song-and-dance about the Crucifixion of Jesus by Jews and Romans, the feeding of Christians to the lions in the Coliseum, and the persecution of Christians at the hands of Muslims. Never mind all the terrible things the Christians did in the Crusades. Never mind all the Christian torture chambers. Never mind all the ‘cultural genocide’ Christians perpetuated against pagan peoples and cultures, indeed to the extent that every last vestige of Germanic paganism was wiped off the European continent — if you think American Indians had it bad, they have nothing on the Northern European Germanic pagans whose cultures were wiped clean. (To be sure, there were certain social, moral, and political gains as the result of such Christian violence and domination. Every new order has to break lots of eggs to make a new omelet. Think of how the US and USSR pounded Germany and Japan in WWII to remake them into better nations. Think of the violence used by Franco in Spain and Pinochet in Chile to ensure that communists would never have a chance of coming to power.) So, all victimologies are selective and hypocritical. They all wail about the ‘poor poor us’ but turn a cold eye to ‘you guys’. Of course, there are exceptions in history. The Greeks, despite their contempt for barbarians, weren’t without certain recognition of the tragedies of other peoples and could even be self-critical of their abuses. And in America, a lot of white Liberals and even Conservatives embrace victimology in the form of ‘white guilt’ that must be atoned and redeemed. So, they don’t cry about ‘we white victims’ but ‘we white perpetrators of evil who must now apologize to the poor poor people-of-color’, though the degree of sympathy really depends on what the color is. Despite the wrecking of the Iranian economy by Zionist-US-led sanctions, how many Americans on both Left and Right feel any kind of sympathy or guilt about Iranians who, for all their faults, have courageously resisted the vile agenda of the Jew-led New World Order? Zero. How many Americans lost sleep over the fact that 100,000s of Iraqi women and children may have been killed due to US sanctions in the 1990s? How many care about all the Palestinians who’ve been brutalized as the result of US-backed creation of Israel and all that happened since? How many Americans feel anything like real guilt about FDR’s imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War II? How many feel guilt about the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where kids and grannies were indiscriminately wiped out with the adults, most of whom were civilians, by the way? How many Americans know of the targeting of German-Americans during World War I? How many Americans know or care about all the Mexican-Americans who were robbed, raped, or murdered by blacks? In Texas, when a young Mexican-American girl was raped by a whole bunch of blacks, New York Times — which should be called Jew York Times — hardly expressed any outrage over it; I guess NY Times blew its wad on the hysteria over the fictional rape of the black whore of the Duke Lacrosse Case. Indeed, the Jew Yuck Times reporting of the rape was so ridiculous that even Leftist journals complained about it. Even so, some Leftists probably raised a stink about it because the victim was an 11-yr old Hispanic girl. If she had been white, forget it. As David Duke wonderfully detailed in a video of his, Jews manipulate the media to selectively promote certain victimologies over others.
According to Jews, if a black guy hits a white person, the white person’s face must be blamed for the ‘privilege’ of having been there to ‘bruise’ the black guy’s hand. Indeed, even Liberals sometimes get confused by how this works. Consider how Obama and Eric Holder(couple of Jews’ boys) charged Liberal-dominated big city schools of being ‘racist’ for suspending black males more than others — even though they surely know that the ones making the disciplinary decisions are mostly Democratic administrators, black as well as white. The narrative of white ‘racism’ against blacks must be upheld at every turn in order to keep the white Americans burdened and paralyzed with feelings of defensive ‘white guilt’ that robs them of the confidence and pride to come together for their own interest. As America becomes more diverse, there’s a chance that more and more Americans will act like whites in the South who stick together against black power. (Or maybe not since so many white women are choosing to be mudsharks squeezing mulatto babies out of their vaginas. As even white girls grow up worshiping black football/basketball players and wiggling their asses to rap music — and as American Conservatism now worships MLK and censures the Confederate Flag — , it might be a matter of time before masses of white southern women have black babies, and all of the South becomes more or less Brazilianized.) Jews are so devious, arrogant, and powerful that they now think they can get away with just about anything. Even secular Jews feel, think, and act as though the entire gentile world exists only as herded cattle to serve their increasingly degenerate and demented agendas. (The entire world is turning into one vast Jew-run Gulag in which goyim are driven like cattle and must obey, but people fail to see the reality since Jewish-run entertainment and celebrity-centric hedonism mask the reality of our imprisonment and servitude with illusions of a theme-park utopia in which the greatest pleasure is waving the ‘gay flag’ to celebrate and praise the ‘pride’ of homos. Most of us are cattle or sheep, but Jews have selected and found goy collaborators who run around as loyal sheep-herding dogs who constantly bark at us with PC to best serve their Jewish masters. So, even the remaining Wasp elites do little else but bark at white masses for their lack of proper enthusiasm for fighting ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘homophobia’ DESPITE the fact that most of America is bowing down to such a demand 24/7. The remaining Wasp elites don’t try to unite the whites against the Jews. Like the French elites who folded during WWII and decided to collaborate with German overlords than lead the Resistance by inciting the masses of Frenchmen, the remaining Wasp elites in both the Democratic and Republican parties figure they should just surrender to the terrifying Jews and get theirs by playing ‘house goyim’ for the Jews to control the ‘field goyim’.) So, if a disgusting bitch like Masha Gessen wants to wage political and economic war on an entire nation like Russia over some trashy nonsense about ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay pride parades’, that is what the foreign policy wing of the American government is committed to doing with the full acquiescence of the now worthless Wasps. If Jews say ‘gay marriage’ must become law of the land all across America and those who believe homosexuality to be gross or a sin should be fired and blacklisted, that’s what cities all across are doing. And there isn’t any opposition from the Right but only meekly worded terms of surrender as proffered by the worthless punk Ross Douthat. And there are toadies like Charles Murray bending over on ‘gay marriage’ and praising Jews at every turn EVEN THOUGH Jews played an instrumental role in pushing him out into the wilderness after he wrote THE BELL CURVE. Of course, what with even Evangelicals being turned onto ‘gay marriage’, it goes to show that most of American Conservatism is just a sham. A true conservative remains true to his/her principles EVEN IF 99.99% of the world goes against him/her. In a totalitarian system, everyone is forced to go along with prevailing dogma and everyone must force himself or herself to ‘love Big Brother’ since lack of earnest enthusiasm could be taken for heretical tendencies. Though the current West is not classically totalitarian, power is so concentrated with the elites(with control over the mass media, mass education, and everything else) that we are seeing an alarming increase in the uniformity of thought across the entire spectrum of the ‘left’ and ‘right’. Indeed, it’s getting so that there’s really only the manipulative elites and the mindless herds who just go along. (Perhaps, the elites promote stuff like tattoos and body piercings to create the false impression that the idiot masses are ‘rebellious’ and ‘maverick-like’. If you can’t think freely, at least you can look like a ‘non-conformist freak’. Of course, truth/health has less to do with conformism vs non-conformism than sensible vs insensible. After all, conforming to a healthy eating plan is good while non-conforming by chewing on glass is bad. Smoking is bad whether done as conformity or non-conformity. Whether you smoke because everyone else does or because no one else does, it’s equally bad for you. Whether you exercise because everyone else does or no one else does, it’s equally good for you.) It’s especially alarming since the control of elite institutions by the globo-Zionists and their minions is almost absolute. The US government is also like a one-party state. Though there are still Republicans in Congress and state/local governments across the country, the real power rests in Washington, and just about every bureaucrat and policy-maker in all levels of the American government are Democrats and/or servants of the Jewish-Homo Cabal. It’s far worse now than decades ago. Patrick Buchanan writes: "In the case of Nixon, political enemies controlled both houses of the Congress. Washington was a hostile city. Though he had swept 49 states, Nixon lost D.C. 3-to-1. The bureaucracy built up in the New Deal and Great Society was deep-dyed Democratic. Most crucially, the Big Media whose liberal bias had been exposed by Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew were hell-bent on revenge. All three power centers — the bureaucracy, Congress, the Big Media — worked in harness to bring Nixon down. No such powerful and hostile coalition exits today with Obama. In 2008, Obama carried D.C. 24-to-1 over John McCain. The While House Correspondents Association has at times behaved like an Obama super PAC. Liberal Democrats dominate the bureaucracy and control the Senate.Any Republican attempt at impeachment would go up against a stacked deck." In other words, if you think things were back during Nixon and Reagan, forget it, as it’s much worse today. Though Democrats back then also dominated government, media, and academia, it was far from absolute. The government and media had room for elements of the real right as well as the elements of the real left. Also, there were more regional divisions of power back then. Today, the US government, media, and academia are not only nearly completely Liberal, Democratic, and/or ‘progressive’ in a handful of megapolises, but most people with genuinely conservative values and attitudes are not even allowed to work in elite fields even if they wanted to and worked their butts off. Indeed, the laws have been re-written to ban people who hold certain creeds. Increasingly, governments across America will not hire anyone who thinks homosexuality is gross and ‘gay marriage’ is nonsense. And we know that no major politician could get elected if he went against the agenda of AIPAC and the global Zionists. And newspapers will not hire people who aren’t ‘sensitive enough’ and too ‘politically correct’. So, someone like Mike Royko or Jimmy Breslin could never get a writing gig in today’s media climate. Instead, only shrill purveyors of PC or mealy mouthed pseudo token-Conservatives like Ross Douthat or David Brooks — or Kathleen Parker — are allowed to be the voice of Conservatism(and of course, most of the time, they are berating the real American right for not changing its mind on ‘gay marriage’ and ‘amnesty’; these pseudo-cons, whose main priority is to be invited to cocktail parties of rich Liberal Jews, are embarrassed of being associated with real conservatives who still refuse to bend over to the Jomo cabal). Indeed, many Liberal journalists and pundits of few decades ago were more conservative than many mainstream Conservatives today.
But then, much of the blame must fall on American Conservatism that favored mediocrity over talent, passive conformity over fiery engagement, and rural laxness/suburban complacency over urban energy and activism. Also, American Conservatism thought it could fight Big Government by giving full support to the Super-rich class that would presumably be grateful to the GOP for opposing the tax-and-spend policies of Big Government. So, the Democrats would have the government bureaucrats, but Republicans would have the super-rich on their side. And as GOP defended inequality and privilege of the rich, it thought that the urban yuppies would come around to supporting the GOP. But, the GOP not only gave up power in government but was dumped by the super-rich and the boomer yuppie class that went over to the Democrats once Clinton came along and remade the Democratic Party to be privilege-friendly. If you don’t have power in privilege, you need power in government; if you don’t have power in government, you need power in privilege. Today, Democrats got both government and privilege whereas Republicans are just holding their limp dicks. GOP could still rely on the white vote, but as white demographics is shrinking, that advantage is gone too. Also, well-to-do whites with fancier education were more exposed to PC in elite colleges, and as many of them live in whitopias, they don’t have much understanding of non-white problems, which is why some of the whitest states vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats and produce so many mudsharks who wanna have mulatto babies. It’s like white Minnesota is a haven of interracism. Also, beginning with Clinton, so many black males have been locked up that there are many parts of big cities that are pretty safe and don’t suffer from the kind of social mayhem in the 1970s that drove even lifelong Democrats to the law-and-order Republicans. GOP really has nothing left, especially as its last great gamble to win over Jews and Hispanics crashed-and-burned with the dumb George W. Bush presidency that made a mess of the Iraq War and the Housing Bubble. What’s left of American Conservatism is a bunch of whore politicians sucking up to the likes of Sheldon Adelson. The New Conservatism is about people like Ross Douthat offering the terms of surrender to a bunch of fecal-penetrator homos(presumably because they’ll improve their chances of being invited to cocktail parties of rich Jews and their mini-me allies the homos).
But, that doesn’t mean it’s all over. As Democrats and Liberals amass all the power and as US faces a very uncertain future, most of the blame will fall to the Democrats and Liberals. Things are not looking good for US as a whole. And when that time comes, when the tide of color attacks the Jews and the white Liberal elites, the Right must not come to their rescue since they spat on white conservatives and promoted themselves as the defenders of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ against ‘evil racists’. If I were to witness a bunch of underprivileged blacks beat up and murder a Jew, I wouldn’t give a shit. Why should any decent American try to help the Jew when the Jew spat on America? When NY and DC, both bastions of Jew-dominated Liberalism, were attacked on 9/11, the entire White Right stood up for them and with them. So, what did the Jews do for White America in return? They’ve brainwashed white children to worship homos and degraded the meaning of marriage by associating it with male fecal penetrators and people who have perfectly healthy body parts mutilated and amputated to become members of the opposite sex. These damn Liberal Jews are trying to take away all our guns. They pushed interracism and racial suicide of the white race with the mindless promotion of mulatto Obama as the messiah. They urged Obama to encourage massive illegal immigration into America in order to hasten the destruction of white power in America.
In retrospect, we should look back to 9/11 and grieve not for the Twin Towers and Pentagon. Muslim radicals are shit but they are far away. And Osama and his cohorts planned the attack(if indeed they did) on the US only because US had over-stepped its boundaries in the Middle East at the behest of the dirty Zionists who continue to occupy Palestinian land and terrorize Palestinian women and children. The real enemy is here, and it is the Jew. As Vito Corleone said in THE GODFATHER, "It was Barzini all along." Well, we need to know that it was the Jew all along. Jews use many fronts and buffers, but they are the ones with the real power. Sure, the NSA is after people like you and me, but the truth must be spoken. US power today is all about Jewish power and the service to the Jews by the craven and worthless gentile minions who put Jews and homos before their own interests.
ZARDOZ - Sean Connery in the Vortex
To better understand what is going on, consider the film ZARDOZ by John Boorman. Just like the elites in ZARDOZ built an oasis for themselves but kept everyone else out, the global elites are remaking the cities to be their paradisiacal centers of power. Sure, diversity will remain, but the undesirables will continue to be pushed out to small towns or to the suburbs, thus hastening the downfall of white suburbia. All the power and wealth will be concentrated in a few big cities, and the smartest people will head there to become one of the chosen and privileged. Since such people really don’t have much in common with the masses, they will promote the homo cult. Some will argue that the homo-cult is now part of mass culture since the majority is being won over to it. After all, if 80% of the people are for the homo-cult, doesn’t it amount to a form of majority power since the overwhelming majority are for it? But in truth, it’s the great majority bowing down to an identity and interests that have NOTHING to do with them. If US were only 2% Chinese, but 98% of the people who aren’t Chinese spend an inordinate amount of energy and time praising and celebrating Chinese-ness, is that majority power or elite Chinese power? (If 100% of people of a nation are supportive of a tyrant, are they empowered simply because they are all for tyranny? Or have they disempowered themselves by handing over all the power to a tyrant?) It doesn’t matter ‘how many people are for it?’ What really matters is ‘what is it about and what does it serve?’ If 99% are crazy about something that favors and serves the 1%, is it a case of ‘power to the people’ since the 99% are for it? No, it’s people surrendering their own power and interests to the 1%. It should be enough for the majority of straight people to acknowledge that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon and that homos should be free to be homo. But to have endless celebrations of homosexuality in education, media, and government? What the hell is that? To associate or ass-ociate the gross stuff of homosexuality with marriage, a sacred institution that has bound together the truths of biology and morality through customs and laws? To turn the rainbow into the symbol of men doing fecal penetration on one another and people who have their healthy organs cut off to turn into another ‘sex’? This is total pukeville. 98% of the people being ecstatically crazy about homos is like the vast majority of people toiling as serfs spending most of their time and energy at work and at home singing praises to the aristocracy that exploits them. If you’re going to be passionate about something, make sure that it’s something that serves the interests and power of your people, your group, and your values. If trends in America keep continuing as they are, US will be rather like Zimbabwe or North Korea. Zimbabwe is a basket-case nation where most people have nothing, but they still worship the worthless Mugabe as the ‘father-liberator of the nation’. In North Korea, the Kim dynasty lives like gluttonous pigs while most people just barely scrape by, but everyone has been brainwashed to believe that their main concern should be singing praises to Kim the swine. Imelda Marcos once said that she spent a lot of money on herself because the poor Filipinos needed to look up to someone like her and fantasy-share in her power and privilege. The same kind of mind-set seems to have come upon the US. Whether it’s Obama, Oprah, homo elites, or rich Jews, the rest of us saps who make up the ‘99%’ are supposed to forget our own identity and interests and live for the glory of those who constitute the glamorous globalist elites. The morons on the Jerry Springer Show chant "JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!", and other morons get hysterical over Oprah, foam at the mouth over Obama, wet their pants over some celebrity, or excitedly wave the ‘gay flag’ at ‘gay pride’ parades like stupid children. The human mind cannot think as a mass. Thinking is always an individual endeavor. Needless to say, the globalist Zionist elites don’t want us to think as individuals since independent thought might lead to more people like Kevin MacDonald who identifies and sees Jewish power for what it is. When mass mentality was associated with the populist Right in America, many Jews played an important role in promoting the so-called Culture of Critique and independent intellectualism that required individuals to think freely and hard about all sorts of things. Consider Theodore Adorno’s critique of the ‘commoditization’ of humans under consumer capitalism. Thinking often leads one down the wrong path, but only through independent thought do people have the chance of breaking free of the powers-that-be that seek to control the masses through manipulation, hysteria, and indoctrination — as Hitler did in Nazi Germany. But as with everything else, Jews are pro- or anti-thinking(for the masses) depending on the situation of ‘Is it good for the Jews?’ When Wasps and Conservatives wielded dominant power, Jews promoted independent thinking as essential for speaking truth to white gentile power. But as Jews amassed more and more power, they decided thinking isn’t really good for the people. Some Jews and their gentile minions even say even the factual truth about race should be suppressed and forbidden since it might lead to ‘bad thoughts’, i.e. thoughts that might illuminate the true nature of Jewish power and might lead to gentiles organizing for their own common interests against the Jews. This is why Jews promote so much mass hysteria and mindlessness via stuff like the Oprah cult and ‘gay pride’ parades. Jews want us to be revamped-Nazis-yelling-Heil-Jew-and-Heil-Homo. When swept up into such mindless frenzy, people just become a part of the screaming crowd without the independence of mind. Of course, Jews didn’t need to do much persuading to convince gentiles on both the ‘left’ and ‘right’ to surrender their power of thought to become one of the mindless minions. Ironically, though Jews keep bashing Martin Heidegger for his ideas on the unity of being one with the masses over the independence of individual/rational thought — this aspect of his philosophy is said to be specifically Nazi — , what Jews are pushing today is no different. They want the masses of goyim to surrender their individual independence of thought and freedom and surrender to the mass state of ‘being’ as defined and determined by the Jews. So, at ‘gay pride’ parades, there is no thought but the mindless and infantilized hysteria to attain the ‘being’ of unity with the homo neo-aristocrats who are worshiped as if they are the new fuhrers and even gods. When it comes to issue of Israel and Jewish power, critical and independent thought is not allowed — as Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas discovered — , and instead, everyone must surrender to the mindless ‘being’ of existing only for the sake of Jewish greatness and holiness. Jews have an easy time persuading most people into such state-of-mind. After all, American churches have been encouraging people to mindlessly lose themselves in rapture. Liberals, for all their conceit of rationalism, love the mythology of grand redemptive events like MLK’s speech at the Mall and all that willfully naive "We Shall Overcome" crap. And young people since the 60s have been raised on Rock Concert culture and Blockbuster movie culture where the mode of cultural consumption is to scream your head off and become ONE with everyone else. Of course, there’s a kind of happy feeling that accompanies such feelings of unity and shared passions, and there are times when such emotions are appropriate. One would have to churlish to deny the grand spectacle of military parades, the ‘groovy’ feelings at a Grateful Dead Concert, or the thrill one feels upon being one of the people at a political rally where someone makes a great speech. But the real/deeper truth is never that simple. Truth is not about a feeling of ‘being’.

The issue of homosexuality difficult and thorny because the very rise of high civilization owed something essential to homosexual input. Though homosexuality may exist among animal-kind — though animals could just be sticking their things into anything as horny dogs will hump just about anything — and exists in all human communities, the primitive and/or barbaric world really prizes only one kind of man: the burly, the brutal, and/or the rough-and-tough. Among savage tribes and barbarian clans, the rule of the game is ‘we bash you or you bash us’. It’s about who can carry the biggest club to crack skulls and who can hurl spears the farthest. It’s not about fineness but about fist-ness. If all men acted like that, high civilization would be impossible since men would look primarily to head-bashing or overt-intimidation to get their way. And whoever holds the power would soon be toppled by younger guys with bigger muscles and stronger fists. Thus, social order is likely to be far more unstable and tumultuous. For civilization to develop, there has to be stability or social and political order passed down from generation to generation. If the current order can easily be upset and overturned by the new strongman in the tribe, then it cannot build into a civilization. Among monkeys, chimps, and gorillas, the alpha male is alpha only to the point when he’s toppled by a younger male who is stronger and meaner. When mankind were ruled by barbarian warlords, it was all about head-bashing among one another. And even within the tribe, despite attempt at hereditary rule, the real rulers were usually those who could bash head the best. So, for civilization to develop, men had to become somewhat tamed and less like Hulk Hogan, Big Boss Man, and Randy the Macho Man Savage. But this was difficult since the barbarian order obviously favored the strongest and toughest. Still, over time, some barbarian clans prevailed over others, and there was relative peace on the land. It was during this time when a kind of subtle but profound socio-cultural revolution took place. During the brutal barbarian era, it was the Big Boss Mans of the world who dominated. But in times of relative peace, the barbarian warriors were fighting less and having more time for leisure and funning around and stuff. Since the tutti-fruity homos couldn’t take on the tough barbarian he-men straight on, they slowly gained power by making stuff of great appeal to the dominant rulers. Once the rulers got a taste of the finer life, they began to put on manners and show themselves to be above the rabble in style and refinement. And since the economy went from head-bashing and pillaging to farming, the rulers had to make a class distinction between themselves as the privileged few and the masses as the toiling and dirty peasants. Thus, power became stylized and refined than just brutish and rowdy. In some Greek societies, homos gained tremendous power and privilege. Sparta was a strange case since the straight population appropriated homosexuality into a kind of prison-rape rite-of-passage militarism. Thus, if homosexuality in many cultures was associated with refinement, elegance, tutti-fruitishness, and pretty stuff, homosexuality in Sparta became grim, severe, and hardy. Though there has always been the macho-homo element among certain segments of homos, Spartan homo cult became un-homo-ish mainly because straight militarists appropriated it. But in cultures where only genuine homos practiced homo sensibility, homosexuality came to be associated with the flowering of arts, designs, and styles. It’s like straight guys who ram each other in the ass in prisons are not exactly Da Vinci’s or Botticelli’s of the world. They are merely heteros practicing homo-sex in a prison culture that uses male-ass-rape as a gauge of who is whose ‘bitch’. In ancient Sparta, young boys were trained into men by being forced to accept that they were the ‘bitches’ of tough warriors; one day, they would become ‘real men’ and force other young boys to become their ‘bitches’. So, Sparta was less a homosexual society than a ‘prison-rape’ society, and that explains why it produced so little in terms of artistic and cultural value. But in a place like Athens, where most people were happy to be heterosexual, genuine homos could be free to be specially homo in their own manner, and they produced lots of things of artistic and cultural value.

Anyway, with growing social stability, the ruling elites relied on and appreciated more refined ways to maintain their own privilege and enforce order over the larger community of toiling masses. Ruling by threatening everyone with a crushing-club-blow-to-his-head wasn’t very efficient or efficacious for those with the vanity of finer breeding. And as the ruling elites became more vain, they wanted to seem superior in a manner more elegant than swinging the club and cracking skulls like some wild savage. The aristocrats in BARRY LYNDON don’t want to act like the apes in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and indeed when Lyndon(Ryan O’Neal) loses it and savagely beats his step son, he becomes persona-non-grata in high circles.
The civilized ruling elites wanted to put on superior airs, have finer manners, wear fancy clothes, and adorn themselves with glimmering jewelry. That way, their right to rule would seem natural, divine, or dignified than just brutish and bullying. (Of course, in the modern era of mass politics, too much of that stuff can actually have a counterproductive effect, especially in nations with more puritanical mores. The Russian masses eventually tired of the pomp of the Czar Nicholas who seemed to be disconnected from the suffering of the masses. The Shah of Iran’s ostentatiousness was seen as sinful by hardline Muslims and as pandering-to-western-elites-at-the-expense-of-Iranian-interests by the people of Iran.) In the rough barbarian days, a ruffian-ruler might ride on his horse around his minions to show that he was the toughest guy around, so no one better mess with him. He’d act like Uther in EXCALIBUR. But a barbarian-evolved-into-proto-aristocrat might ride around with finer manners and clothes — and smelling better than everyone else — to show that his privilege rested on the simple fact that he happened to be wrapped in finer and prettier stuff. Of course, there was still the threat of immediate violence to anyone who got out of line, but the new culture predicated one’s right-to-rule as much as much on style and manners as on the raw power to crush anyone. Also, with social stability, there was more time to craft more useful tools and deadlier weapons. With homos being so design-centric, they surely contributed to the making of ever finer and more precise tools of war and construction. Since such people were being favored, elevated, and rewarded for their contribution to elite power, they were bound to exert more influence on the elites. Even though homos in both pagan and Christian — or any other — cultures couldn’t be openly or brazenly homo, their fine homo-ish manners and elegant styles probably infected the straight elites. Such profusion of style and elegance added ‘sugar and spice’ to the world of straight rulers with barbarian background. And of course, some of the sons of kings and aristocrats were themselves homosexual — even if closet-homosexual — , and they spent lavish sums to promote more style, elegance, and etc. Indeed, consider Bavaria under the rule of King Ludwig II, the great builder of fantasy castles and a key patron of Richard Wagner. If not for the obsessions of that homo king, Wagner might have never gotten the chance to fulfill his true potential. For barbarians to turn into civilized folks, the rough-and-tough barbarian chieftains had to be turned into refined-and-privileged aristocrats. Since this required the suppression of overt male-hood and the development of regal attitudes — that might seem effete in a crude barbarian setting — , the rise of homosexual influence had something to do with the rise of civilization. Indeed, there’s something fruitish about all aristocratic orders. Because the aristocratic class ruled for so long as they did, everything evil and oppressive became associated with its privilege and hierarchy, as in the movies ROB ROY where the barbarian-like Scottish kinfolks are ruled by the effete and/or gayish British elites with their fluffy-duff style — there’s something similar in BRAVEHEART too, even though the English elites there are anything but fluffy-duff.
But in fact, life was much tougher and dangerous for most people during the pre-aristocratic barbarian age when Hulk-Hogan-and-Randy-Savage-like barbarian thugs rampaged around like the lunatics in THE ROAD WARRIOR. During the French Revolution, it might have been refreshing to see the fall of the refined-and-snobby aristocrats and the rise of the angry masses, but mob violence is usually horrendous, and it wasn’t long before a new elite class arose to control, channel, and handle the unleashed barbaric mob violence. And even though the Founding Fathers led the American Revolution in the name of the People, they insisted on neo-aristocratic rule and had a profound distrust of the unwashed masses as barbaric mobs who, if empowered, would set about acting like unmannered loons. When Andrew Jackson became president and the mob ransacked the White House for free ice cream, it seemed as though the fears of the Founders had finally been realized, and so, Jackson, though a populist, was careful to maintain many of the old structures of power and restore order. Indeed, every rebel-leader faces the same challenges. To overthrown the existing order, he calls upon the barbarian energies of the masses against the snobby elites. But once he comes into power, he goes about shutting down the mass energies since they could bring him down too and spread social chaos all around. Just look at Iraq and Libya after the downfalls of their ruling elites. The Bolsheviks fanned the flames of mass passion to topple the existing order but, once in power, did everything to repress the energies of the people except to harness and shape them for communist mass campaigns. Fidel Castro rode to power on mass passions but had no use for unruly mobs once he became the leader. If mass passions are, on occasion, aroused in Cuba, they are only to serve the state agenda. So, the Cuban masses are sometimes roused up to hate the Yanqui but must remain obedient to the Castro regime at all times. Mao experimented with letting mass energies run wild during the Cultural Revolution, and it was like the sacking of Rome by the Germanic Barbarians. It was horrendous. So, when the elites and would-be-elites talk about the People, they don’t mean they really want the People to have the power. They simply mean they want to use the energies of the masses to support & sustain the current order or to overthrow the current order & support a new one. Consider how Obama ran as a candidate of the People but has really done little more than serve the Jewish and homo elites who are working overtime to control the masses through the cult of homomania. Jewish and homo elites figure that if the new ‘progressivism’ is all about glorifying homos, then leftism will be far less about class and race. Such defanging of leftism of class and race issues is beneficial to the Jewish and homo elites since they are overwhelmingly white/Jewish and privileged — and richer getting richer. If the dumb masses are too busy getting all worked up about homo privilege, they are far less likely to pay attention to the fact that the people who have benefitted the most in the past 30 yrs are Jewish, homo, and Liberal Wasp elites of the Democratic Party.
Indeed, we can see the use of homo-ization even today to ‘civilize’, control, suppress, and pacify overt male aggression, not least among the Negroes, and this is why a lot of white folks — even Conservatives — see the rise of homo cult as a positive force in society. They see it as maybe the most potent way to control the wild and crazy Negroes. Negro male savagery is the most dangerous and out-of-control, but whites have been reluctant to call foul on it due to ‘white guilt’. But if whites must morally bow down to blacks and apologize for the history of slavery and racial discrimination, blacks are told that they must bend over and apologize for their wild and out-of-control ‘homophobia’. This is rather ironic since the Jewish-controlled music industry promoted and disseminated black rap music that is often anti-homo as the ‘authentic’ voice of Black America. Indeed, Jewish media elites have been telling us that we shouldn’t be judgmental and instead appreciate rap music as the real voice of the black underclass, i.e. we must not ‘kill the messengers’ who are merely conveying the reality of the black community pocked with poverty, police brutality, gang warfare, and etc. (Funny that Jews don’t make the same excuse for the likes of Hitler as the ‘authentic’ voices of the downtrodden and desperate Germans following World War I.) As black family culture broke down, and young black males ran wild, a kind of ultra-wild savagery came to prevail in the black community, and the main mode of ‘survival’ and power was to be ultra-macho, and therefore, the worst thing a guy could be was to be ‘faggoty’. And so, black dysfunction, violence, and lunacy came to be associated with ‘homophobia’. Of course, there was also black hatred against whites, browns, yellows, Jews, and etc. but black racial animus was more problematic for the agenda of the Jewish elites. Condemning the black community for its violence against whites might make white folks the victims, and that would undermine ‘white guilt’ that is so instrumental to Jews in psychologically controlling the white race. Also, condemning the black community for its violence against other non-whites would undermine the unity of people-of-color as the collective victims of ‘evil white racists’. But using the issue of ‘homophobia’ would be like killing two birds with one stone for the Jews. It would bring the Jewish and homo communities closer together, and it would control the black community by making it subservient and deferential to the Jewish-homo or Jomo elites. So, blacks can still hate whites and other non-whites(as long as they’re not Jewish), but when it comes to Jews and their main allies the homos, blacks better learn to ho-de-do because they will be fined, attacked, and destroyed like certain black athletes, comedians, and celebrities who said negative stuff about ‘faggots’. Though Jews and homos push this new policy mainly for their own benefit, even Conservative whites take some delight in seeing Negroes shamed, silenced, and browbeaten for a change. Of course, most Negroes on the street don’t give a shit about all this ‘faggoty-ass shit’, but Jews and homos are banking on the prospect that if the black elites are ‘shame-tamed’ toward being made more sensitive to the elegant and fruity homos, the masses of blacks may gradually do likewise. Even white Conservatives hope that if the black community is made more sensitive toward homos, this new attitude might rub off on black attitude toward other folks as well. After all, blacks hold homos in contempt because the latter are seen as ‘pussy-ass’, ‘faggoty’, wimpy, wussy, pansy, and weak. But if blacks are made to be more sensitive to such ‘pussy-wussy’ people, maybe they will also be nicer to other races who the blacks deem to be weaker, wimpier, and wussier. It’s partly a neo-aristocratic means to ‘civilize’ the Negroes in sports and in the US military. Think of a school bully who considers himself to be so tough and rough and loves to push weaker fellas around. Suppose he goes around calling everyone weaker than him a ‘faggot’. If he were to be pressured to be nicer to homos, would he also be nicer to weaker straight guys? Who knows? This strategy might not work with blacks since black homos are just as crazy and wild as the straight ones. Thus, promoting homosexuality in the black community might only end up encouraging bitchiness, narcissism, and self-centeredness, all of which are characteristics blacks have in abundance and don’t need more of. Still, it’s amusing to note the paradox of white Liberals who, while claiming to be pro-black, tend to elevate the kind of black who is so atypical of the black community. White Liberals really prefer the Negro-of-their-imagination than the Negro-of-reality — especially since their Magic Negro is so much nicer and less threatening than the Actual Negro — , therefore the kind of Negro that white Liberals love the most tend to be outliers in the black community, like the ‘black prom queen’(as the object of adoration at a white high school)who would most certainly not have been much adored, let alone admired, at a black-dominated high school. It also explains the wild success of Obama, who was sold as the black guy who isn’t like most black guys — unrepresentative than representative of the black community in general.
Fruitkin as Prom Queen
Because of the natural resentments and envy of the masses toward the rich-privileged-and-powerful, there is something in us that wants to root for barbarian mob energies. And such feelings depend on who’s on top. So, when Liberals feared that Bush II was forming some kind of Chriso-fascist system to rule America indefinitely, they took to the streets in huge numbers and acted like angry mobs. But since the rise of Obama, many on the American Right feel that the super-rich in big cities are a bunch of neo-aristocratic Liberal elites using Big Government as Big Brother. And so, some on the Right might want to see the Chechenization of American conservatives so that they can use ‘any means necessary’ to bring down the NWO elites dominated by Liberal Zionists and decadently moral homos — homos today are decadently moralistic than morally decadent since, instead of taking pride in homo culture as a form of creative-subversive deviance/defiance, they promote a new kind of homo culture that seeks to promote homosexuality as the ‘new normal’ that has much in common with the ‘father knows best’ ideals of the ‘white-bread’ 50s. When the ‘left’ is on top, they rebuke mob passions as reactionary, vulgar, and dangerous. When the ‘right’ is on top, they rebuke mob passions as subversive, radical, and crazed. But when either side is on the bottom, they romanticize the rage of the masses. This was why the broad middle class was necessary in order to forestall any kind of broad-based revolution from the right or left. The middle class may not have much, but they have enough and feel they have a stake in the existing order and would have much to lose if the order were to crumble. Also, they are too busy working to remain above the lower classes to bother too much about the upper classes. Of course, the dynamics of mob passions change according to identity and diversity. In a homogeneous nation, class becomes a bigger issue since everyone takes it for granted that they are all of the same race/nationality. In a white nation, whites are in control whether the right wins or the left wins. But in a nation of whites and non-whites, class comes to matter less than race since racial identification is often stronger and more deeply rooted than class identification. So, in a diverse order, a poor black is more likely to identify with a rich black, and a poor white is more likely to identify with a rich white. (If rich blacks at least feel racially united with poor blacks, rich whites feel no racial unity with less fortunate whites, not least because the Jewish elites will ruthlessly punish any rich white who tries to promote white racial consciousness. Even Koch Brothers are for ‘gay marriage’ and ‘open borders’; their brand of ‘conservatism’ is ultra-globalist-libertarianism. But less fortunate whites still support rich whites in the hope that rich white power will translate into white power when, if anything, rich whites, in cahoots with Jews, are working to erode white racial power. Rich whites are into globalist privilege for themselves — they’d rather rub shoulders with rich folks of any race and color all over the world — than for unity with all whites.) Indeed, consider a boxing match between a Negro and a white. If one boxer beats up another boxer of another race, why don’t we see it just one individual beating up another individual — which would be the case if both boxers were of the same race? Of course, we can apply PC to our hearts and try to convince ourselves that we should look beyond race and just see people as individuals, but no matter how we try, we cannot entirely suppress the racial aspect of these things. If a Jew sees a Jewish athlete battered into a pulp by an Arab athlete, there’s going to be something within him that feels angry as a Jew. The human mind simply evolved to work in that manner. As humans evolved essentially to depend on sight, we cannot ignore the way our brains process visual signals and cues. The looks of people and things do matter, and if you don’t like it, blame how human evolution centralized the connection between the eyes and brains and hormones. We can control such tribalism, but we cannot eradicate it from our hearts, and it would be foolish to try to create a social order premised on the notion that people could live without any such emotions at all. A good society is one where people are pressured to control and suppress their natural urges BUT also one where those urges are allowed some space to grow and express themselves. It’s like people must repress their sexual urges and not act like Negroes — because if people acted like black apes, they would turn their social order into Detroit or rape-centric South Africa — , but a social order that pretends that people can be expunged of sexual feelings at all times(except for the needs of procreation) is delusional and its efforts will eventually fail miserably. So, something like race-ism needs to be controlled, but its emotions are too natural and too normal to be expunged from our hearts entirely. Indeed, the ongoing politically correct efforts to eradicate and purge all healthy race-ist feelings from Europeans is leading to massive problems in that country with the great influx of Africans and Muslims.

Anyway, it’s usually been the case that people who feel powerless or at least ‘out of power’ are the ones who want to pour out into the streets and raise a ruckus about things. And if the masses find some inspired figure to lead them, they can organize into a potent force. This is why the ruling classes and elites came up with mass pageantry so that they could control the energies of the masses. Thus, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Mao held massive rallies where many thousands, even millions, of people would gather to support the regime with hysterical show of solidarity. That way, the elites could continue to own mass passions and preempt the possibility of counter-mass passions being aroused and led. The possible enemies of the regime would be intimidated with a constant show of solidarity between the leaders and the led. And the masses would be so swept up into praising the existing regime that they would have less opportunity to ponder alternative possibilities. Of course, this sort of thing didn’t begin with 20th century totalitarianism, but it was the Communist and Nazi elites who really perfected it to extreme ends. The Ancient Romans certainly understood the value of periodic rallies to impress and involve masses in passions of glory and victory. Of course, prior to the rise of late modernity, politics was less about ‘right’ and ‘left’ but simply about the rich-and-powerful and the masses. The masses had little schooling and little in the way of ideological consciousness. Most of them only knew of their local communities, and their sense of rightness had to do with traditional customs, family, church, and community. They knew they were poor and had little power, and they knew that the elites had lots of money and lots of power. But with the rise of mass education and mass information, even the masses came to be filled with ideas and ideologies, and so, the political struggle went from the simple dichotomy of rich elites vs poor masses to the ‘right’ vs the ‘left’. So, poor ‘right’ masses would side with rich ‘right’ elites, and poor ‘left’ masses would side with rich ‘left’ elites. This is, of course, what Marx and his cohorts found most frustrating. They saw most ideologies as mere illusions that fooled the masses into thinking that ‘ideas’ and ‘values’ really made the world. Marx thought the masses should consider their material reality — which was working long hours for a pittance — and unite against the capitalist elites. Masses who were ‘right-wing’ were stupid since they were only serving the interests of the conservative elites, and masses who were ‘left-wing’ in ideology than in material consciousness were dupes of liberal bourgeoisie who sought only the kinds of gradual reforms that, in effect, were meant to preempt the Real Revolutions of the Workers of the World. Ideology was smoke-and-mirrors to mask the truth of materiality that really governed history and the world that was divided between the rich and poor. So, the poor masses should put aside ideological differences and unite to overthrow the rich. And for this to happen, the masses must be led by Marxist radicals who oppose right-wing ideology and aren’t fooled by the faux-leftism of the bourgeois liberals who always yammer about ‘liberty’(when the only kinds of people who can afford real liberty under capitalism are the privileged elites). But as things worked out, ideology and identity did win out over materiality, and so, we have even poor whites in American divided along ideological lines instead of uniting to face the real common enemy that is the Jewish elites. It’s like people on the Jerry Springer Show attack one another instead of uniting to attack Jerry Springer who is the real exploiter in their lives. Even so, it would be wrong to pretend that the People are noble, and all their problems are due to the elites. Surely, even white Liberals have begun to sense that it makes no sense to blame white people or the rich elites for black problems forever. It’s long been the habit of American Liberalism — and even American Conservatism who say it’s all the fault of ‘big government’ and ‘socialism’ — to blame the problems of the black community on uncaring elites, corrupt politicians, incompetent bureaucrats, and/or non-investing businesses. But why do the people of a place like Detroit scare away so many business enterprises? What business wants to be looted and burned to the ground over some ball game celebration? And why do blacks in Detroit keep electing rotten politicians and do nothing about lazy and incompetent government officials and bureaucrats who rob that city blind? And why do so many people in Detroit rob, rape, beat up, and/or murder one another? Suppose we get rid of all the bad politicians and crooked bureaucrats from Detroit and allow the people of Detroit to fill up the ranks with new people. Will things get any better when, in fact, too many ordinary blacks will continue to act like louts? Indeed, the best thing that could probably happen to a place like Detroit is to be ruled by someone like the Castro-regime in Cuba. Indeed, when a social order breaks down and idiot mobs are free to act like total shit — and scoff at any appeal to sense, morality, and responsibility — , then the only effective solution is the Force of Fear. Consider the film KILLER JOE — written by Tracey Letts and directed by William Friedkin — where the ‘white trash’ family is made to act ‘half-decent’ by the sheer force of the Matthew McConaughey character.
Ideally, social order should be based on individuals acting with good sense and sound values, but for such an ideal to become reality, order first has to established and enforced through brute Hobbesian means. Only after most people are willing to submit to the order could finer ideals and values become the norm that will be accepted by most people. With the rise of democracy, we like to believe that we don’t need no tyrannical state or elites to force us to be good since we, as free people, choose to be good on the basis of our free will. But what if more and more people choose to be bad, especially in ape-ish imitation of blacks whose behavior is anti-civilizational? And since the government and elites are restrained by law from using violent force to teach the unruly mob a lesson, the unruly idiots can act with ever increasing impunity — and their right to be unruly, trashy, and ugly would be protected by the law. If such people remain a decisive minority of the whole, democracy can cope and survive. But what if more and more people act like British yobs, ass-tattooed ‘white trash’, thug-like Mexican gangs, or wild-ass Negroes in America? Then, democracy will fail, and we’ll need Killer Joes to reset the social order through the most brutal means — as unruly morons only understand, fear, and submit to force. Because the elites are alarmed by the rise of unruly mobs and clowns in Europe and America, they’ve been using Political Correctness to remind people — especially young males — that their bad behavior will not be tolerated and indeed ‘zero tolerance’ measures will be used to teach them a lesson. (The great contradiction of our times is that consumer-capitalist-globalism feeds on the animal drives, passions, and thrills of the masses. By encouraging animalistic hedonism, global industries encourage the masses to eat more, buy more, drink more, dance more, and etc. What happens at dance clubs, spring breaks, and etc. are racier than ever. But unleashing such savage/barbarian energies is dangerous and leads to loutish behavior that was all-too-common in the late 60s and 1970s; it can lead to breakdown of social order, and that will threaten capitalism itself. So, even as consumer-capitalism encourages wild-and-crazy animal drives, it has also instituted all sorts of controls at concerts, clubs, and public places to channel and restrict mob behavior. In a way, there’s something FULL-METAL-JACKET-ish about consumerism. In Kubrick’s film, soldiers are encouraged to act like savage animals with their killer instincts aroused to attack, destroy, and conquer. But they’re also drilled and trained so that their killer-animal-instinct will be useful to the American War Machine. After all, what good is a soldier who shoots his own commander, as ‘Gomer Pyle’ ends up doing? Likewise, our consumer-capitalism brings out the animal in each of us but also uses all sorts of means, subtle and not-so-subtle, to ensure that our animal behavior knows its perimeters and serves the profits of capitalist industries than threatens their well-being. But when we see the kind of mob behavior that breaks out every year on Black Friday at places like Walmart, we wonder where this is heading.) But PC is most certainly useless as a form of social control in the long run since its idea of the worst evil is ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘homophobia’. Making ‘racism’ out to be the main culprit is destructive since the greatest danger to sustaining democratic order comes from Negroes who are stronger, more aggressive, and more psychopathic. If anything, it should be blacks who should pressured most to act properly. But with ‘racism’ acting to shield bad black behavior from criticism while targeting legitimate expressions of white fears about bad black behavior — also keep in mind the increased immigration from black African nations — , PC attempts at social control will make things worse in times to come. PC is like chemotherapy that spares the cancer cells while attacking healthy defensive cells. Also, attacking ‘antisemitism’ is counterproductive for the health of democracy since a valid democratic order needs good, responsive, and representative elites. Jews, as all honest people know, have become a corrupt, nasty, venal, hideous, and exploitative elites in the West, and their foulness must be called out by honest and conscientious people. Sure, antisemitism can be evil and nasty when it becomes like Nazism, but we need rational counter-semitism more than ever because no democracy can remain healthy without the people speaking truth to power. As for ‘homophobia’, it has absolutely nothing to do with most people. Sure, homosexuals should be left alone and shouldn’t be persecuted, but all this homomania and homo-promotion not only has no meaning to most people but it undermines the notion of the true meaning of family. It is the familial bond between father and child(especially son)that is so essential to a good society.
JOE - Nicholas Cage
Take the film JOE — from novel of Larry Brown, written by Gary Hawkins, directed by David Gordon Green, and starring Nicolas Cage — that is about the crucial importance of the father-son relationship. For all I know, everyone involved in the film may be some stupid ‘gay marriage’ pushing Liberal, but the work itself suggests at something profoundly conservative(and liberal in the true and best sense than in dogmatic intolerant PC sense). Though all men are different, too many guys — especially in America since the advent of youth culture — seem to be perpetually wrapped up in their hormone-drenched self-centeredness of youth. They fail to keep maturing after some point and act like their own emotions are all that matters and the central force of the universe. It fills them with rage, righteousness, and rough abandonment to the moment. The world in JOE may be ‘white trash’, but as Charles Murray documented, a lot of white folks — especially males — are slipping into a kind of degeneracy. And even though the better-educated and more self-restrained hipster urban types may be less destructive, they also fail to mature to full adulthood, manhood, and fatherhood. Because many males are wrapped up so tightly in their own egos and manias, they fail to see the bigger picture. This is where the value of fatherhood comes in. A man, in seeing the child, comes to gain an added perspective of how he’s not the center of the universe, how his actions may affect the life of another person, a boy who needs to grow into proper manhood. Gary, the kid in the movie, seems to have a wizened father who spent his entire life caring about nothing but himself, which is whatever catches his fancy at any given moment. It is the nature of every son to look up to a worthy father or father figure. Gary doesn’t find it in his own father, and so, he grows attached to Joe who, in contrast, seems so responsible, sensible, and accountable. But Joe has his own demons, and in the midpoint of the film, we see his demons driving him to the edge. He becomes so wrapped up in his emotions/drives that he could easily go to extremes to be the baddest top dog mofo in town. When he gets worked up like this, it’s like there’s a rock concert playing inside his head, heart, stomach, and balls that he cannot rein in. And the film gets mighty frightening when this side of him kicks into gear(and seems ready to drive off the cliff)... but what brings him back to reality? What snaps him out of his delirium of self-centered obsessiveness? It is when he sees the kid again. He realizes that the kid has come to depend on him, look up to him, and respect him. He can’t let the kid down. He’s now living not only for himself but for the kid, a kind of surrogate son. So, if he decides to go crazy and follow his crazy whims, what will happen to the kid? Also, in seeing the kid, he comes to the realization that he doesn’t want the kid to grow up to be haunted by the same demons. To prevent this, he has to play the role of responsible father-figure. He goes from a tightly-wound subjective mania to a more objective view of reality where people are interdependent on one another and must be accountable with one another. Though the kid’s real father is one of the most loathsome creeps I’ve seen in a long time, there are glimmers of redemptive-ness in him as well when he take his own life with the realization that Joe, though a rival who ‘stole’ his son from him, is ‘his friend’. To a bad man who harms his own family, the rival who pushes him to his own demise is a friend to the trace of goodness left inside of him. Like Father Karras leaps to his death at the moment he realizes he has regained his soul from the clutches of the Devil, the kid’s father jumps to his death when he has a faint glimmer of what a terrible father he has been. If he hadn’t killed himself then with that little ounce of gold, he would likely have reverted to numbing rottenness. JOE is not a great film and maybe not even a very good one, but it is not without insight about the tortured nature of man. When the problem of family and fatherhood afflicts so many communities — white, black, brown, and etc. — all across America, what does it say about our nation that the biggest family-themed issue today is ‘gay marriage’ and having homos adopt kids? Anyway, even though JOE isn’t a work of art, it comes close to being one in moments that ponder the distance between subjectivity and objectivity, a distance that is, at once, infinitesimal and vast as the gulf between stars. When Joe fumes with one of his smoldering rages, he’s like a hot sun about to reduce to cinders anything and anyone that comes near him. He can just barely control himself from exploding. He’s ready to hit, grapple, and even shoot anyone who dares to cross him or just his path. But when he stumbles upon the kid again, the smoldering sun cools to a blue planet. He’s a human among other humans again. And only the kid could have ‘saved’ him at that moment. The kid to him is not a competitor, a rival, an enemy, or a tormentor. He’s someone with a life ahead of him, someone with so little who has come to rely on Joe as a man. And the kid’s presence restores the human side of Joe’s character. The theme itself isn’t original but its dramatization is unusually compelling when Joe comes to an abrupt yet graceful halt just when he was on the verge of crashing into the abyss. Of course, the kid doesn’t even realize the impact he had on Joe — that, just by being there at the right moment, he saved Joe from destroying himself. In the end, Joe does die, but there’s all the difference between a meaningful death and a meaningless one. The purpose of fatherhood is the arduous process of replacing the old ailing trees with young healthy ones. As Vito Corleone said, "A man cannot be a real man without spending time with his family." Though Joe didn’t have a family of his own, he comes to realize the importance of fatherhood. Though he gets along with others in the community — even Negro laborers — , there’s something especially powerful about the bond between father and son. Though politicians, activists, and intellectuals discuss in abstract language the problems of the people — through economic and social theories — , the problem of humanity is a lot thornier because the human mind is unstable and often deviates from any set of ideals upheld by others or even by ourselves. In this sense, art in literature-drama-cinema powerfully reminds us about the problems of the human condition that simply won’t conform to neat theories and remedies that have to do with race, class, ‘social injustice’, or whatever. We can fix social policy and we can change social behavior to some extent, but the human soul is what it is and often fumbles whiile trying to ideally situate itself between subjectivity and objectivity.
Consider ending of the film C.O.G. where the Christian war veteran rips into the main character, accusing him of unforgivable sins. On the one hand, there’s no doubt that what the man says is unfair and terrible. He comes across as petty, vile, and venomous. And indeed he is a wretched cretin whom we and the character have every right to loathe. He just seems to be ripping into the kid because he’s envious of the fact that the kid sold something at the art fair whereas he didn’t sell anything. And yet, as awful as he is, we can’t help feeling some pity when we consider the larger context of their relationship. Though the guy is a self-centered prick, he’s a broken-down war veteran with no one and nowhere to go. A jerk, yes, but also a prisoner and victim of circumstances beyond his control and of his own personality with which he was born. Just about the only thing that supplies him with self-worth and pride is that he’s a good Christian who cares about others and a creative person who makes special clocks that he thinks will be a big hit at an art fair. It’s not much to hope for, but it lends meaning to a fallen, sullen, and wretched creature like him. Though he doesn’t help the main character much, he does offer him shelter and a chance to make some money. So, he feels as a good Christian showing some charity to a fellow man. In contrast, the main character — a young man fresh out of college and from a family of means — doesn’t have to be doing what he’s doing. It’s all just some kind of rite-of-passage shtick and game. If he really wants to, he could just pack up things and go back home, get money from his parents, and have a pretty good career. Of course, he didn’t mean any harm to the war-veteran-Christian guy, but by selling his trinkets at the fair, he unwittingly robs his benefactor of the only precious thing he has: the pride of being a good Samaritan and even something of an ‘artist’ and ‘businessman’. As they ride away from the fair, the war-veteran-Christian guy feels cheated by fate. The young man whom he took under his wing bested him and took from what little pride and hope he had left in life. As unfair as his assessment is in the objective sense, every person is wrapped up in his subjectivity, and certain subjectivities are fragile and vulnerable since they have so little to rely on for self worth. And so, as the young man walks away at the end of C.O.G., we can see in his face both a sense of having been gravely wronged(and falsely accused) and a sense of guilt in having been so glibly blind to the impact his little success at the art fair would have on the man who helped him. It is art that can capture these contradictory, unstable, and unresolvable aspects of life with more richness and power than any non-fiction work that must stick to objective facts and detached observations. It is for this reason that genuine art often cannot be pigeonholed ideologically one way or another. For an artist to be an artist, he must perceive and understand than just point fingers of accusal and blame. And all said and done, in varying degrees, wretchedness is part of everyone under the sun and not limited to any one political, religious, national, or cultural side. JOE and C.O.G both grapple with the issue of individuality and sociability. Especially in America with its deep-rooted faith in — or myth of — individual freedom, a person simply isn’t a person unless he or she develops and guards his or her strong sense of individuality and independence. But how much of this ‘individuality’ really belongs to each person? How unique is the cult of individuality if it’s collectively shared and bandied about by everyone? And how many people have the vision, talent, and/or understanding to be genuinely individualistic and independent in any meaningful way?
Most people can only imitate the ‘individuality’ of others. Today, most Art School students do ‘weird’ stuff, but it’s mostly imitations of the ‘originalities’ and ‘eccentricities’ of others. Consider the profusion of Abstract Art works that are so commonplace in schools, galleries, and museums. Each art student may see himself or herself as ‘different’, but when being ‘different’ is the ‘new norm’, isn’t it all just a new kind of conformity, especially as very few people have the means to be someone like Van Gogh? Besides, it’s easy enough to be just wild and crazy. Anyone can beat pots & pans and make shrieky sounds and call it ‘avant-garde music’. Anyone can throw trash on the canvas and call it a new kind of painting. Anyone can garble words together and call it new literature. But art is neither just about sameness nor difference. Many decent songs sound more or less like other songs, and the similarity makes them ordinary instead of great. So, a great song needs an element of difference. And yet, this element of difference must still work within the range of what is pleasing to the viewer or audience. It’s like Van Gogh was different yet pleasing. They risk bordering on crazy, ugly, and disturbed, but there’s also beauty, vision, and order. Carole King’s "It’s Too Late" sounds familiar(and similar to many other love ballads) but is also surprisingly different in its melodic twists and tonalities. At any rate, most people are either untalented in arts/science or uninterested in pursuing singular greatness in any endeavor(even if they might have the talent). So, what does it mean for them to be individualistic, personal, or subjective? If they are part of the ‘ordinary’ people, then even their individuality is just a variation of standardized behavior as the range of ordinariness is pretty narrow. Then, does individuality have any real value except that you may eventually realize what others have realized before you but in your own ‘existential’ way? When most of us fill up our individuality, it only means that we are isolated streams flowing to the same ocean to learn the same lessons about life and arrive at the same conclusions. The scenario in C.O.G. is somewhat strange since a rather bright and eccentric young man embarks to find his individuality among people in environments where individuality hardly amounts to much. Blue collar workers in a factory and farm laborers don’t have much on their minds. They’ve mostly given up on life and expect to earn just enough to get on with life. So, if the guy is looking to find himself, why among such ordinary people who’ve given up on themselves and just trudge on through life doing menial labor? But then, given that the norm among his privileged peers(prior to his dropping out) is to embark on promising career paths in ‘elite’ fields, one could argue that his decision to move around the lower orders is ‘different’ within the social context from which he sprung. He’s doing what most of his peers would never choose to do. It’s like Albert Brooks’ character in LOST IN AMERICA who goes to ‘find himself’ among real Americans away from the urban/suburban world of yuppies obsessed with successful careers. But in the end, what special thing can be found among ordinary people of small towns and places for whom the very mode of existence is to just make enough to get by in their humdrum communities? But then, this raises another question. The cult of individuality has us thinking of the special individual who is ‘different’ and at odds with or rebelling against a social order that is overwhelmingly conservative, stable, staid, and/or conformist. Because the social order is considered to be to stifling or even repressive, we are led to sympathize with and root for the individual EVEN IF he’s unstable, borderline dangerous, and reckless. Think of COOL HAND LUKE where the lead character played by Paul Newman is a disturbed figure instead of a shining hero. Even though he acts like he doesn’t care about anything and anyone, his cat-and-mouse game with authority is largely ego-driven; he has become addicted to the adulation of his prison-mates who regard him as cool and hip. And consider James Dean in THE REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. In some ways, he’s a dark and even unpleasant young character, but he seemed fresh and daring in the 1950s when young people felt hemmed in by the social order of older people — or were made to feel that way by the power of popular culture that fed them with the thrills of Rock n Roll and narcissistic consumer culture. (The problem of 1950s conformism was the father-as-patriarch no longer had effective control over his domain. He was a bread-winner whose productive activity took place at work. At home, he was a nobody. On the farm or a ranch, the man is the master of the property right under his feet. Therefore, his insistence on authority and conformism seems natural to his children. After all, only by learning from the father and doing as he orders can the family produce food from the fields around them or herd the cattle. So, when a farmer-father or rancher-father demands respect from his children, children listen and appreciate the ideal of the family uniting in agreement of certain principles. It’s like Montgomery Clift’s character respects John Wayne’s character in RED RIVER because their very dwelling place is surrounded by work and more work. They must work as a team. The patriarch’s authority has meaning in relation to productive work and getting things done. In contrast, in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, the father has no productive activity at home. Whatever he does at work has no bearing on what he does at home. His home is just a place where he eats, relaxes, and goes to sleep. Therefore, there is little connection between father and son in such kind of social arrangement. And if a father in such an environment were to press his authority on his kids, they will see it as arbitrary than necessary.) Such stories fit into the once-conventional paradigm of the maverick individual struggling against the conformist system or stifling social order. The system and order may be stable and productive — and even morally justifiable in many ways — , but it’s ‘boring’ and restraining of the wild expressive energies of individuality. It’s like the guy in THE AGE OF INNOCENCE becomes so enthralled with the woman played by Michelle Pfeiffer because she embodies something ‘different’. But the world we live in today is something very different from the world of the 1950s. Today, degeneracy has become the norm in many communities. In the 1950s, a divorced woman with tattoos all over her body, funny haircut, and a nose ring — and children with different men — would have been looked upon as worthless, trashy, and even nuts in a small town setting(indeed even in a big city setting). Today, even small towns are filled with guys like Cody in COUNTRY BOYS who get a kick out of being a ‘freak’.
Cody the Beavis-lookalike freak of COUNTRY BOYS
Of course, American communities — indeed all human communities — of the past had their share of degenerates, outcasts, freaks, crazies, lunatics, perverts, and etc. And if we scratch the surface of even most ‘normal’ and ‘ordinary’ families, there’s much weirdness to be found, as Todd Solondz has detailed with grisly morbidity in his films. Even so, something called ‘community standards’ were more strictly enforced in the past through social, cultural, and even legal pressures. Today, much of that is gone, especially as traditional Wasp moral culture and community have been so utterly attacked and demolished by Negro, Jewish, and homo culture. Negro assaulted white moral culture with their raw sexuality and aggressiveness. Jews assaulted white moral culture with their biting wit, mockery, and subversiveness. And homos assaulted white moral culture with their open perversion and shameless narcissism & flamboyance. Also, the rise of youth culture and hedonism meant that generations of young whites grew up primarily obsessed with what gave them the biggest laughter, sexual pleasure, and thrills than with the things that connected them to the past or the larger community.
Indeed, the traditional-conventional white community has been so subverted by the assault of the New — disseminated all across America via TV, movies, and now the internet — that the Jewish elites are now worried about the rise of populist barbarism. If indeed all the old social controls are gone, does it mean new generations of unfettered freaks will run wild and go nuts? And of course, there are signs of such dangers in places like UK with its yob underclass and in America with burnt-out black communities and ‘coming-apart’ working class and underclass white communities that increasingly have less and less in common with better-off whites. Since the Culture War has been won against the moral norms of Old White America, Jews are now trying to moralize what had been expressions of amorality. When Negroes were toting guns & looting cities, when homos were running wild, and when Jewish comics and personalities were making nasty jokes, all such antics were more about freedom than morality. To be sure, such things were sometimes associated with the Civil Rights Movement and ‘social justice’, but the prevailing notion was that the white conservative(and white traditional liberal)moralists were a bunch of boring squares who were too anal to have any fun. So, the main thing was to just stick it to the old order — as in films like M*A*S*H and ANIMAL HOUSE. But once the Old Moral Order was smashed, the new order simply couldn’t thrive on people running around wildly and acting crazy and stupid. So, Jews have promoted Oprah and Obama as the new kind of black that is nice, sunny, warm, and not-angry-all-the-time. And homo culture today is as much associated with ‘white bread homo-father-knows-best’ values than the wild queers of the past who went out of their way to act like freaks in the ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW manner. Today, yuppie homos prefer stuff like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and SIX FEET UNDER. They prefer the NPR-style than the S&M-style — though who knows what really happens behind the bedroom doors? It could be homos are still very perverted in their behavior but just hide it better. After all, Andrew Sullivan sold himself as a ‘Conservative homo’ but then contracted HIV from having too many guys do fecal-penetration on him. Indeed, go to Google Video and type in stuff like ‘gay boy fuc* in ass’ or ‘faggot fuc* in ass cum’, and just look at the number of entries you get. So, while the Jewish-and-homo or Jomo elites that control the academia, media, and government fume whenever we use words like ‘faggot’ or ‘homos fuc*ing each other in the ass’, the truth is that homos who watch ‘gay porn’ go for that kind of raunchy, perverted, and crazy stuff with wild abandon. They don’t want us to characterize what they do as ‘fuc*ing some guy in the ass’, but they gleefully trade porn videos where homosexuality is indulged and described in such manner. It’s like blacks get all upset when white people talk about blacks in any ‘impolite’ way, but in their own rap culture, they endlessly describe, degrade, and threaten one another as ‘niggers’ and ‘bitchass hos’.

Anyway, we now live in a world where even small-town communities have been degraded to the point where people openly dress and act like trash. In the past, people might have dressed like trash because they were poor or homeless. When Loretta Lynn was singing about not having proper clothes and shoes to wear, she wasn’t make a ‘fashion’ statement.

But if they could afford it, they tried to look nice and respectable. Today, people go out of their way to get tattoos all over, to get body piercing, to get the stupidest kinds of haircuts. And there’s no shame in divorce, drugs, bankruptcy, and etc. Such behavior, though destructive, at least had a thrill element in the past when society was more uptight and judgmental. Though Randall McMurphy in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST is disruptive, dangerous, and unbalanced, we root for him because Nurse Ratched’s regimen seems overly strict and repressive. But what happens when McMurphism becomes the norm, the new banality? Things are going to get out of hand, and restorative measures will be necessary. So, the boomer elites and their obedient successor generations promoted Political Correctness and ultra-legalisms to prevent things from getting too out-of-hand. Political Correctness says you can be as wild as you wanna be AS LONG AS you don’t indulge in ‘hate’. So, you can act like a crazy savage or barbarian as long as you don’t badmouth the Jewish elites that rule this country. So, Steven Pinker notes in THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE that lots of young people who dress like barbarians and have trashy-vulgar tastes nevertheless have been castrated to be properly ‘sensitive’. It’s like the vice of gambling has been reinvented and expanded all across America as ‘family entertainment’. And there is also the New Legalism — along with the surveillance state via high-tech — that fines or imprisons people for all kinds of infractions. So, you have to wear seatbelts, you have to auto insurance to drive, you have to put your child in special seats, you can’t smoke in most public places, and etc and etc. Despite the incredible moral/aesthetic degradation of our culture(though, to be sure, even ultra-savagery is slickly packaged with high-tech effects), there are many more rules today requiring all of us to follow the laws, and there are many more laws governing the minute details of our lives. So, we can be barbarian, monstrous, and trashy as long as we don’t badmouth or harshly criticize certain groups AND as long as we’re mindful of the countless laws of do’s and don’ts at all times and all places. A barbarian with seat-belts on and doesn’t use the cell-phone while driving. A barbarian who doesn’t smoke within ten foot of the entrance of an office building. Indeed, this contradiction is one of the themes in JOE. Joe lives in a world where barbarianism is the New Normal. Though something of a hard-working man, he has some very bad and low habits. But he’s part of a new libertine and shameless America. And yet, there are also many more laws that can send him to jail. And in the world of these mixed messages and signals, Joe feels frustrated and disoriented. It’s hard to discern the line between the law and outlawry. In the old social order, an outcast/rebel/eccentric might find a degree of normalcy and stability by finally submitting to the social norms of community and family. The normalcy could be stifling, but it would provide a person with some measure of shared values and continuity. But in the world of JOE, there is no normalcy for Joe to conform to. There are too many lunatics, perverts, psychopaths, and losers about the community, and such trashiness has become the ‘new norm’. So, Joe is sometimes trapped in his solitary madness and sometimes roiling in the social madness of the community where too many freaks roam and drift about freely. In such a world, for a man to be a moral creature, there’s only the existential obligation of taking control of one’s own freedom and charting one’s own destiny, which is no easy feat.
Though conformity has long been a dirty word in America, every people crave some of it. It’s like individuals who drift off on their own eventually want to return home or settle down to a community with familiar faces and people. (Consider how the young man ended up in INTO THE WILD.) Of course, one can hold onto one’s own individuality within a community, but there’s still the desire to draw closer to others. This is obvious enough in sexual feeling where the man and woman embrace one another closely as if to merge into one, and it is through such merging that new life is created. Though the man and woman cannot physically merge into one, their fluids do come together to form a child. But apart from sexual feelings, there is a desire of many to become as one with others to form a wholeness, within which everyone shares in the same truth. This longing exists in religions such as Buddhism that promises all the souls the access to Nirvana. In Christianity, there’s the notion that all the good souls shall be united as one in the realm of God. In the real world, all souls are divided from one another by countless separate bodies. But according to some religions, once souls depart from the individual prisons of the flesh, they may converge with all the other souls in harmony. When people go to political rallies, Rock concerts, rave dance parties, attend church services(especially the musical ones), or the movies, they surrender their individualities to the totality of being. Such an experience is both humble/passive and megalomaniacal/assertive. On the one hand, an individual is recognizing a greater or grander whole unto which he or she is subordinating his or her individuality to. And yet, as each soul identifies with the grand totality, its sense of worth is greatly magnified. This is why some of the biggest megalomaniacs — Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Marx, etc. — arrived at their conclusions by the way of humility. Siddhartha came to realize that he is nothing but an illusion and that the real truth awaits him in Nirvana, but as the first discoverer of the correct path, he became identified with that truth. Jesus formulated a way by which the soul could enter Heaven, the realm of God, but it also led Him — at least the mythical Jesus — to think that He is God. (Though some Jewish thinkers before and after Jesus did entertain thoughts of Heaven and Hell, Judaism couldn’t have been comfortable with the notion of Afterlife — at least the kind described by Christianity and Islam — because, just as it’s blasphemous to say God could take on the form of a fleshly being, it’d be presumptuous to suppose that a human soul could enter into the very firmament of God. After all, if man’s soul could enter God’s realm, doesn’t it suggest that man’s soul could be equal with that of God, at least in a small way?) Even many secular people long for a kind of ‘Heavenization’. Despite all their yammering about individual self-realization, self-actualization, self-esteem, success in career, and being eccentric-different-unique, they come to realize that any genuine-honest-courageous search for one’s individual truth is harrowing, discomfiting, dangerous, inconvenient, and often leads to social shunning or ostracism. Indeed, how many successful yuppie types today in blue cities dare to think honestly about ‘gay marriage’? They know that any deviance from PC orthodoxy(imposed by the Jewish-and-homo or Jomo cabal) will not only result in loss of hip-and-cool friends who graduated from elite colleges but may even put their careers into jeopardy. So, even if they had doubts about ‘gay marriage’, they dare not think about it since doing so may make them ostracized and shunned by their peers OR all too aware of the sneaking suspicion that they’re cowards who are afraid to speak their minds. So, it’s better not to think about the issue at all, pretend that the ‘debate is over’, and assent to the decrees of the elite controllers who decide what is permissible and impermissible as subjects of discourse. If the elite order says, "the debate is over", it’s better not to ask or raise any more questions about the subject since it’s all been decided for you by the elite powers-that-be, and that’s that. Jewish elites may speak softly sometimes, but they carry a big stick. They "make an offer you can’t refuse." Since the New Truth is imposed as the Absolute Truth — if you want any kind of approval and success in the ‘rich and cool side of town’ — , it’s much safer not to think than to think because thinking will never be satisfied with the official truth. (Thinking is the last bastion of RESISTANCE against the powers-that-be. In George Orwell’s 1984, Winston Smith is just a low-level bureaucrat with no power, but he still manages to resist in the realm of his mind. He actively thinks about how the system tries to manipulate his senses, emotions, and mind. His private mind is one thing that Big Brother doesn’t own.
Nevertheless, the freedom of his mind brings pain as well as comfort because a free mind wants to rebel and push beyond the perimeters of the possible but isn’t allowed to in the world of Big Brother. And yet, he still effectively resists Big Brother at least within the confines of his soul, and he retains the hope that there may be others like him. Smith’s soul would be less troubled if he gave up his personal resistance and agreed 100% with Big Brother. But then, he would just be another drone, another cog in the machine. His tragedy is that Big Brother does eventually rob him even of his last line of resistance. Though we don’t live in a totalitarian state, many Americans are actually less free than Winston Smith. At the very least, Smith retained his independent self. He was afraid of speaking freely but not afraid of thinking freely. In contrast, many Americans are afraid even to think freely as their minds have become so infected with PC virus that fills them with shame over the slightest thought that questions the sanctity of MLK, Jews, and homos. In a way, many Americans are less free than Smith because, paradoxically, American society sustains the cult of freedom that has duped the unfree into thinking they are so free. In the world of 1984, it’s obvious that Big Brother can crush anyone, and you better watch out. It’s obvious there is no freedom. But as Americanism is defined by libertine pop culture, hedonistic debauchery, and loud political debates[in which the sheer volume is mistaken for genuine freedom in speech], it creates the effect that we are all so freely and brazenly expressing ourselves when, in fact, most people are terrified of uttering any view that runs counter to PC dogma. We’re living in the Craven Jew World.) And yet, there’s great comfort to be found in the official truth. There’s great simplicity to be found in letting go of one’s true individuality and independence that raises too many ‘dangerous’ and ‘inconvenient’ questions. So, better to merge or ‘heavenize’ one’s mind with all the other minds that have submitted to the official orthodoxy. But what of the cult of individuality at the core of the cult of ‘progressivism’? It is sustained through tattoos, body piercing, or using ‘vagina’ a lot in conversations, though to be sure, even THE VAGINA MONOLOGUE may now be considered too ‘reactionary’ and ‘exclusionary’ for some ‘progressive’ tastes. That way, you can tell yourself that you are indeed ‘different’, ‘special’, and ‘non-conformist’ — never mind that tattoos, body piercing, and ‘vagina’ talk — have been promoted by the Jewish powers-that-be — even if you’re incapable or unwilling to form a single thought that might actually go up against the PC orthodoxy that dominates the Jewish-and-homo-dominated political and socio-economic order. Thus, among young people today, individuality is of a very shallow quality. Though most of them mindlessly submit to the PC order, they think themselves to be special because they imitate rappers, parrot their insipid college professors, smoke a lot of weed, and talk like ill-mannered tards. Young women think they are ‘liberated’ because they took part in ‘slut pride marches’ organized by their insular and privileged colleges. In some ways, individuality — at least genuine individuality — took a nose-dive with the 60s counterculture. Prior to the 60s, one had to be genuinely individualistic as most of society — on both left and right — tended to be conformist. Classic forms of leftism and rightism imposed their own norms. There wasn’t much room for individualism in Marxism nor in Catholic conservatism. Indeed, consider Bob Dylan’s problems with the conformist leftist Folk Music movement. Though it had association with Bohemian culture, the Folk Music Culture was steeped in the Popular Front mentality of the Old Left, and it took Dylan some daring to come on stage with an electric guitar and do his own thing. A whole bunch of leftists booed him as a sell-out, traitor, or a Judas. People like Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer, Pauline Kael, Susan Sontag, Mike Royko(though part of his shtick was ‘voice of the ordinary Chicagoan against all those snobby elites, but then Pauline Kael also partly played on that populist tone), and Dwight MacDonald were real iconoclasts, individuals, and mavericks. To be different back then was to be really different in the substance of thought(than in mere matters of style; Kael didn’t gain fame/notoriety with tattoos and tongue-piercing). Also, since the culture was mostly conformist, one didn’t have to go out of his way to be crazy-different to make his mark. Today, craziness is such a norm that it takes someone like Slavoj Zizek to garner attention as the Charles Manson/Rasputin of intellectualism. But before the 60s, one needed only to think differently to be different and be noticed as someone unique. By the late 60s among the young boomers, mainstream conformism came under assault, and being ‘different’ became rather banal — consider all the long-haired ‘freak’ types in DAZED AND CONFUSED, a film that takes place in some town in Texas in the mid 1970s. One no longer needed to think differently to be different since being ‘different’ had become so easy for just about any ‘young dude’. Being ‘different’ had become banal, indeed even institutionalized and reinforced thanks to entertainment corporations looking for the latest ‘new’ or ‘hot’ fashion to promote for the masses. Also, in the more permissive culture where it was ever harder to shock anyone, the strain to be ‘different’ in more outlandish ways became gimmicky and pointless. Besides, why bother to think at all when being ‘different’ comes easily by waving the ‘rainbow’ flag at homo rallies? Of course, this new permissive culture is hardly entirely permissive. In some ways, it became more controlling, restrictive, and repressive of the freedom to think than previous orders were. What had once been considered obscene and controversial were no longer so, but what had once been open-for-debate on race, sex, and whatnot were now heresy. Oddly enough, the triumph of Political Correctness piggybacked on the Conservative cultural backlash against the 60s and 70s. The so-called Reagan Era sought to restore the social controls and restraints that had barbarized America from the mid 60s to the early 80s, but the people in positions of power who finalized this restoration of order were members of the boomer generation. They cleverly accepted the Reaganite attempts at re-order-ization but instead of reviving old conservative values, they used the instrument of PC and ultra-legalism(of the nanny state kind) to effect changes. In the current ‘intellectual’ and cultural orthodoxy, there’s a push for ‘heavenization’ since the powers-that-be believe either that they are right or possess just the formula that is ideal for all of us. PC logic goes, if indeed the new formula is so wonderful and irrefutable, what need for any kind of real individuality that might be ‘hateful’, ‘divisive’, ‘noxious’, or ‘odious’. Why, if we don’t agree with the heavenization program, we might be waging a ‘war on women’ or something like that. If we don’t embrace illegal immigration and refer to illegal aliens as ‘undocumented immigrants’, we might be indulging in ‘xenophobia’. There are so many trite labels for all sorts of ‘bad thoughts’, and impressionable young ones(the so-called millennials) are incapable of thinking outside the box. Of course, conservatives are at a disadvantage because the notion of ‘conservatism’ suggest sticking with old prejudices whereas ‘liberalism’ and ‘progressivism’ imply fresh thoughts and ideas. And it’s true enough that most Conservatives have no use for thought either and just mindlessly stick with the traditional or conventional. But then, ‘traditionality’ and ‘conventionality’ are all matters related to time. If ‘gay marriage’ becomes law of the land, 100 yrs from now, it too will be seen as ‘traditional’ and ‘conventional’. True conservatism must hold onto timeless truths, and in this sense, conservatism is as universal as it is particularist. While one part of conservatism is about ‘our race, our culture, our land, and our values’, there are certain core values that serve all of mankind well in all times and all places, and these truths arise from the facts of nature, humanity, and history. It’s not a simply a matter of opinion when it comes to how life is created, sustained, and cultivated. There are essential truths, and there is a hierarchy of needs that mustn’t be forgotten if a social order is to stave off the forces of decadence and degeneration. Though different races, nations, and people have their own unique histories, traditions, and values, there are underlying commonalities in all of them in regards to what works and what doesn’t work. Consider the Chinese practice of foot-binding. We can say with confidence that it was wicked and wrong because forced-deformations of the foot goes against nature. Of course, one could argue that foot-binding became a conservative custom in China, but it was a form of decadence that became disconnected from the way of nature. Nature created the foot to be used for mobility, and mobility is one of the absolutely necessary attributes of mankind. So, something went terribly wrong when China’s elite culture came up with a practice where women were deemed to be culturally superior for having crippled feet. A corrupted and craven form of conservatism preserves and safeguards all the foul and disgusting customs that have accumulated over the many years. Though Hinduism has a rich history and heritage, it is also a corrupted form of conservatism that kept too many crazy customs and beliefs — often of decadent or deranged seers, prophets, and poets — instead of dispensing with them as ugly, cruel, stupid, unnatural, and demented. True conservatism needs to revive itself through selective revising or purging of what is deemed to be wicked, out-of-sync with nature or the truth, or useless/harmful to the community. Some customs and conventions need to be revised and improved while others must be abandoned entirely. And these decisions must be made by genuine conservatives who are in harmony with nature and truth. If conservatives fail to clean their own house, it will fall to their enemies to do the cleaning to suit their own agenda. It was because the Catholic Church failed to deal with its ‘pedophile priest’ issue that other groups hostile to Catholicism took the lead in shaming and defaming the entire Church in their push for ‘reforms’. Because American Conservatism became so dull, inactive, and passive, it handed over the process of revising and purging itself to cunning Neocon Jews and even to so-called ‘conservative homos’ like Andrew Sullivan who work in cahoots with radical elements of the homo community. Secular heavenization is upon us.
Though the movie THE HOST — written by Stephanie Meyers of TWILIGHT FAME — is pretty dreadful(the satire THE WORLD’S END is much more successful riff on the same idea), it does revive the interesting question raised by THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. In a way, one could argue that the ‘invasion’ is leading to the heavenization of the human species that, instilled with a new consciousness, will all be part of the Harmonious One without divisions caused by individual ego, tribal distrust, national interest, religious differences, and etc. So, why not submit to the new order, to the new way of being? Why insist on being different if indeed it prevents too many of us from attaining unity with the Great Harmonious Truth? This issue is interesting from Stephanie Meyers’ viewpoint because she’s a Mormon. If any group has an ‘Invasion of the Body Snatches’-like(at least the popular imagination) mind-set, it is the ‘lily-white Mormons’ who seem to be so earnestly committed to living the ‘good clean life’ that hearkens back to the father-knows-best ideal of the 1950s. So, in a way, the beings in THE HOST that try to ‘heavenize’ all of humanity are like a totalitarian version of the Mormons trying to impose their values on all the world. Yet, at the same time, because Mormons have been culturally mocked and ostracized through American history as a bunch of freaks, weirdos, and outsiders — and because the New World Order dominated by Jews and Homos seek to wipe out the uniqueness and unity of any ‘tribal’ white community — , Mormonism has also come to stand for a kind of uniqueness and particularity that refuse to surrender to the globalizing agenda of places like New York, London, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. This duality is strongly felt by Mormons since Mormonism is still so deeply associated with traditional American conservatism — abandoned even by most white Conservatives — and even 19th century mores, and yet, Mormons are also at the cutting edge of the modern economy in finance and even making inroads into popular culture. Mormons are like a people of the past and the future without a clear sense of the present, especially as they tend to be adept in preserving their old ways by paradoxically taking a leading-edge position in the new ways. In this, they’re somewhat like Jews except that their IQ is considerably lower and they’re emotionally and culturally more earnest. With the growing internationalization and interracialization of Mormonism — a fateful mistake made by Mormons who seems to think quality necessarily increases with quantity — , Mormonism will probably meet a slow demise. What may initially be greeted as success may well end in failure when the so-called victory ends up swallowing huge new demographics that cannot be properly digested and, in the end, only serves to bust out the gut. If Catholicism is having problems with diversity, how will Mormonism manage when its core values, habits, and manners are so ‘lily white’?

Anyway, despite the blood-and-guts appeal of barbarian energies of populism(on both the ‘left’ and ‘right’), people soon come to regret the triumph of mass uprising. Look what became of the so-called Arab Spring. Egypt slipped back into military rule. Also, it’s often not the case that the masses are united as one, especially in the modern world when even many of the masses are educated(or indoctrinated) enough to have ideas of ‘their own’. It’s not just a case of masses of ignorant poor overthrowing the rich and privileged(and possibly alien)elites but of the masses divided along ideological and cultural(and even racial and ethnic)lines. If the Egyptian mass rebellion had happened long ago, the elites might have been overthrown by Muslim masses, but today, Egypt is a far more complex place. There are many poor and ignorant Muslims but also the secular middle class, the liberals, the leftists, and pro-Westernizers. As long as the Mubarak’s military regime was seen as The Enemy, all such groups united to overthrow him, but the minute he was gone, the various groups began to bicker and fight among themselves for the reins of power. In the case of Iran in 1979, the Muslim nationalists who had allied with secular opponents of the Shah quickly began to clamp down on the secularists and took total power. The Muslim Brotherhood was hoping to do much the same, but it was tripped up by new mass protests and a military coup — like what happened to Salvador Allende in Chile with US backing — , and now, Egypt is back to being ruled by a military regime.
This is why, despite all the euphoria that accompanies the fall of the ‘tyrannical’ elites, the real danger arises in its aftermath, especially if the masses that had been united in overthrowing the old order find themselves at odds with one another. Fidel Castro didn’t have this problem since his revolution had widespread support — indeed even among the Cuban middle classes that initially welcomed him — , but some societies are far more divided along sectarian or ideological lines, and the fall of the old order soon leads to new struggles of power that could be even more deadlier and bloody than the toppling of the previous regime. The events that followed the overthrow of Mubarak turned out to be messier and bloodier than the overthrow itself. And even though Americans thought that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would be the main challenge of the Iraq War, it turned out to be the easiest part. The toughest crises soon came afterwards — and they reverberate to this day — as the masses of ‘liberated’ Iraqis began to bicker and fight amongst themselves along sectarian and ethnic lines. Consider what became of the Iraqi Christian community. Consider the ongoing war between the Sunnis and Shias. Perhaps, one silver lining in all this is the eventual breakup of Iraq — and even Syria — as it was nothing but a Western-created fantasy from day one. Though Westerners look down all those ‘crazy Muslims’ who are acting ‘barbaric’, would things be any different in Europe if it had been invaded by foreign powers that eventually departed after drawing crazy national boundaries? Suppose a third of Poland, a third of Hungary, and a third of Austria were made into one nation. Wouldn’t they eventually end up with problems that plagued Yugoslavia in the 1990s? Why is Yugoslavia relatively far more peaceful today? Because of wars and ethnic cleansing that created more homogenous ethnic entities. And what became of the Warsaw Pact nations and the Soviet Union itself? Why did they all break up? Because empires are unstable. Many Middle Eastern nations are the creations of European imperialism that brought together very different or diametrically opposed peoples on cultural or religious grounds. Just like the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire had to happen, the breakup of Syria and Iraq may be inevitable. Of course, the crisis isn’t a simple case of masses vs the elites since the masses themselves are divided. So, in Syria, some masses fervently support the Assad regime while other masses — especially the Sunnis — fight against it. And in Iraq, the Sunni masses now support the war against the Shiite regime, but many Shias are willing to lay down their lives for the current government. In the long run, the civil war and possible division of Iraq into separate nations might be better for the Shia regime in Baghdad since it will only have be to be accountable to the Shia population. It’s more tougher to trust and rule over other groups, especially if they’re filled with hostility and resentment. Anyway, instead of blaming the Arabs/Muslims for all the problems in the region, we need to ask how European history was any different in its sectarian, ethnic, religious, and national strife and struggles? It took many wars and revolutions for Europe to finally emerge from its long growing pains — WWI and WWII weren’t so long ago, and the Yugoslavian War raged in the 1990s — , and the Middle East is going through the same problems. Besides, Jews aren’t handling the Palestinian problem any better or any more justly than Arab regimes have dealt with their own minority problems. Indeed, if the major powers were to force sanctions against Israel while supplying the Palestinian resistance with lots of cash, guns, food, and medicine, Israel and West Bank would be burning too. Glib Western commentators — especially cowardly lions like Walter Russell Mead, John Bolton, and John McCain roar loudly at the behest of their Jewish masters but purr like a pussy cat to the AIPAC crowd.
Too often mass euphoria is like fireworks. It feels good at the moment, but then comes the tough business of actually replacing the old order with the new one. And that usually means trading the old boss with the new boss as the people simply cannot rule themselves — this is especially the case in urban setting. In rural settings with agreed-upon boundaries, a more decentralizedl form of power-sharing is possible since individual families own their own farms or little shops. Farmer A has his own plot of land, farmer B has his, farmer C has his, and etc. While serfs or field slaves might overthrow the master class, independent farmers with their own plots mostly want to be left alone — and they can produce enough food to take care of themselves. Such people practice a conservative form of family-centered individualism that is different from urban cosmopolitan individualism. The independent farmer is mainly interested in his individuality as a defender of his territory and a duty-bound property-owner who must work his land from sunrise to sunset to feed his family. It’s a sense of individuality that is tightly bound with a certain task and responsibility. He has his own land and works with his own lands for himself. On the other hand, there’s a narrow range of freedom since his primary is task to work to make ends meet. In contrast, a urban bohemian individual is often obsessed with individual freedoms that have more to do with imagination, style, and fashions that have little do with the basic necessities of life. He uses his freedom to imagine, ponder, and create things that fill modern lives with thrills, excitement, pleasure, and provocation to stave off the boredom of existence and alienation.
Indeed, his expressions/services are appealing to affluent urbanites seeking some kind of leisurely escape. It is a freedom of opposing, moving away from, or suspending basic responsibilities as basic responsibilities are often dreary and because the modern economy doesn’t need a lot of people to produce the basic goods that most of us need. With so much food produced by so few people engaged in agriculture, we have no choice but to broaden the meaning of freedom and individuality and create entire new jobs that make us work at trivial enterprises and spend and spend in order to keep the economy humming along. It is no wonder that something as trivial as homomania has become so central to 21st postmodern America since so many people are engaged in industries of triviality — fashion, narcissism, celebrity, style, entertainment, hedonism, etc. Leftism of yesterday used to be about finding ways to provide more food for the masses, but the so-called ‘leftism’ of today is about how to prevent Negroes, ‘white trash’, and Mexicans from drinking too much Big Gulp and getting their minds off class/racial resentment by making them wave the ‘gay flag’. But this ‘leftism’ is really more the product of late capitalism than Marxism. Indeed, the term ‘cultural Marxism’ rather misses the point since the roots of such triviality have more to do with Hollywood and Coca-Cola than with Karl Marx or even the priggish Frankfurt School that was, more often than not, a hard critic of the ‘culture of triviality’.

It’s easier for the masses to lay waste an order than come up with new solutions to make a new order work. So, once the order falls, humanity either reverts to barbarism — as in places like Haiti or Detroit — or awaits the rise of the New Boss who usually doesn’t turn out to be all that much better than the old one.
The problem for the elites is that barbarism becomes appealing to them too, especially to the women and the homos. Andrew Sullivan’s sexual fascination with tough muscular black homos is like the fascination that the Eternals have for Zed — Sean Connery — in ZARDOZ. When elites accumulate immense power, they can take their power for granted and become complacent. Also, as elite power is essentially intellectual and institutional, it’s lacks the raw excitement of brute power. It’s like the Eternals in ZARDOZ are much more powerful than Zed. Though in physical terms, Zed could kick anyone’s ass in the Vortex, the Eternals have power of telepathy that allow them to control Zed like Jane Volturi can paralyze with excruciating pain in TWILIGHT. The Eternals don’t need muscle power since they got mind-power. Similarly, the elites today have immense mind-power over us. They don’t have power of telepathy, but their control of media, academia, government, courts, finance, and high-tech can manipulate us and make or break us in so many ways. But such power, as immense as it is, isn’t exciting since it’s not athletic and wild. What is exciting is something like athletic power and rap music thuggery of Negroes. So, even as the elites have great mind-power, they are also kind of bored — like the Eternals have grown tired of their own mind-power in ZARDOZ — and lust after the barbarian muscle power, and the most powerful and virile muscle power is possessed by Negroes today. So, Andrew Sullivan, though hanging around the elite corridors of culture, lusts for big black homo guys to ram him in the ass. So, the successful and attractive white authoress in Todd Solondz hires a big muscular Negro to pump her real good. So, Jewish girls, before settling down, have wild sex with big Negroes. So, many elite homos and elite white women are hankering for the raw barbaric power of the Negroes. And they can fantasize or go after it without fear since they have elite privilege. They can pick and choose the Negro stud-slaves to do them. (Just as the Rock concert scene encourages barbarian energies but tightly controls them through all sorts of security measures, rich white homos and women have perfected safe-and-risk-free ways of getting it on with Negroes. Their social advantages screen for the wild Negro who doesn’t act so wild beyond what he’s been recruited to do.) Since Negroes know they are dealing with people with power and privilege, they treat them with respect even if they’re hired to ram their mudshark pooters or elite-homo asses real good. Mandingo is the Zed for the white elite class. Of course, most Negroes are too dumb to bring down the white order. But the mulattos like Obama are far cleverer. Just as Zed had advantage over both the Brutals and the Eternals because he was genetically the combination of both peoples — he had the virility of the Brutals and the intellect of the Eternals — , some mulattos have white intelligence and black instinct. In other words, the white race pretty much over because it’s too stupid to see the truth, but this is what happens when the media, government, courts, finance, high tech, academia, and entertainment are all turned over to the Jews.

Anyway, victimology is not the problem. All peoples need a victimological narrative in order to justify their political power and action. What the White Right must do is develop a victimological narrative that makes white people feel morally justified in their anger against Jews and Negroes. This isn’t difficult to do. Indeed, it’s been done before. Consider how American whites in the past used to feel justified in their power because they controlled the victimological narrative of America and made whites the victims of ‘red savages’, ‘lascivious blacks’, and infamous ‘Japs’. Look closely at Jewish history and it’s obviously filled with lots of foulness — no more but then no less than the history of white folks. Jews pick and choose bits of history to make themselves out to be hapless victims of evil whites. Likewise, whites can pick and choose the horrible things done by Jews to counter-attack Jews whenever they bitch and whine about ‘antisemitism’ and the Holocaust. Also, whites can argue that white nations were the ones that defeated Nazi Germany, that Germany suffered greatly as the result of its aggressions, and that Germans have more than apologized and atones for their evils — which is a hell of a lot more than Jews ever did in relation to their own history of horrors. As for the Negroes, we need to make the ‘Hiroshima argument’. When Japanese bitch about the evils of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we say, sure, that was some nasty horrible shit, but Japanese were no saints and did horrible things in other parts of Asia. Likewise, we should tell the Negroes that, sure, there was something horrible about the Atlantic Slave Trade and all that, BUT it was the Negroes who done grabbed the Negroes and sold them to whites and Arabs. Also, America only brought in 300,000 slaves whereas Brazil took in ten times that number. So, if blacks are pissed about the slave trade, bitch mostly at Brazilians — and keep in mind that many Jewish Portuguese had a big stake in the trade and administration of plantations in Brazil. Also, it was through Anglo white folks that blacks came to realize that slavery was wrong, and it was Anglo whites who ended not only slavery in North America but also in South America and even in the Middle East and Africa where, by the way, slavery still exists in one form or another despite the best efforts of white folks. Also, consider all the horrible things blacks have done to other blacks before and after the age of European Imperialism. And think of all the murders, raped, robberies, and other horrible crap done by blacks to whites and other non-blacks in America and elsewhere. So, Negroes should just shut the F up for a change. And if Mexicans and other Meso-Americans try to mess with ‘gringos’, whites should tell them that it was the Conquistador-Hispanic Americas who conquered them, forced Spanish on them, changed their names to stuff like Gomez and Gonzalez, and kept them living under corrupt rule in poverty. Furthermore, why did so many indigenous natives welcome the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadores? Because most of them were under the cruel oppression of Incas in South America and the Aztecs in Mexico; therefore, they saw the arrivals from across the sea as liberators(though they turned out to be anything but, but then, blame the damn Spanish who conquered the Americas long before the Anglos first arrived on the craggy coasts of North America).
In any struggle, to fight with confidence and resolve, one must TAKE OFFENSE from the cries of the other side. Without this ability to take offense and feel offended, one’s side will lack the outrage, will, sense of justification, and passion for revenge to take action. Why did the White Man rise to such great heights in the past? It wasn’t only because of his superior science, technology, and organizational skills but because of his ability to take offense when attacked by his primary enemies. So, when Mexicans attacked and killed the men in the Alamo, white Americans got all riled up and shouted ‘Remember the Alamo’ and waged war on Mexicans and won. White folks were capable of getting very angry back then, but Jews have bled the white man of his will to get angry. Jews have turned white guys into the saps in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST who’ve made to feel that their natural manly urges are all a form of neurosis that must be treated like mental diseases or emotional problems. (Of course, Ken Kesey’s story has to be taken allegorically as real nutjobs in mental institutions have real problems. The main patients in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST are not real nutjobs but mostly people who’ve voluntarily placed themselves in the care of the mental institution because they are too afraid to face the real world and their real emotions.) Nurse Ratched goads everyone to just discuss things calmly under her guidance. To some extent, her approach is valid and preferable than hotheaded violence(of the Jimi Hendrix’s "Hey Joe, what you gonna do with that gun in your hand?" variety). As Steven Pinker wrote in THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE, it’s preferable for people to master their emotions than act like wild-ass Negroes or thick-skulled Scotch-Irish hillbillies in the South. Fewer people get bruised, mauled, or killed that way. And one might credit the current Political Correctness for teaching young ones to choose peace over violence, though the problem of PC is that while it requires white folks — especially white straight gentile males — to be more passive, reflective, confessional, and redemptive, it actually encourages ‘victim groups’ to be even more aggressive, bitchy, touchy, nasty, rabid, virulent, hotheaded, hysterical, demented, and even outright violent. Indeed, look at the kind of nastiness that defines so much of the victim mentality of PC. Consider the crazy Jewish fruiter who went nuts about a Christian activist. Or a geek fruitkin who exploded at a religious defender of traditional marriage. Or some gross ugly hag who works at Burger King who attacked an anti-abortion activist. While PC teaches straight white gentile males to be calmer and more balanced, it encourages so-called ‘victim groups’ to fly off the handle all too often. (So, while Paula Deen was attacked and defamed in the nastiest way by vicious Jews over what she said 30 yrs after being robbed by a nasty Negro, she must be apologetic and sorry that she showed any kind of natural human emotions — she didn’t refer to someone as a ‘nigger’ for the hell of it but because she was angry, like when Americans called Japanese ‘Japs’ during WWII and when many Americans surely referred to Muslims as ‘fuc*ing ragheads’ after 9/11.) So, PC means that Jews, homos, and some non-white groups never have to say they’re sorry. Evil white folks must live the Love Story, but ‘victim groups’ can live the Hate Story. Indeed, even though Jews are not known for physical violence(except to helpless Palestinians and other Arabs), they are among the most aggressive arseholes when it comes to verbal violence, media violence, institutional violence, purging, blackmailing, blacklisting, tarring-and-feathering, witch-hunting, and etc. Funny how Steven Pinker doesn’t mention this side of Jewishness. You don’t have to be physically aggressive to be bullying, intimidating, and hostile toward others. Indeed, consider how that lowlifes Alan Dershowitz and Abe Foxman have used legal/academic/media muscle and pulled strings to have individuals denied promotion, fired, or blacklisted from certain institutions. As nasty as these people are, I do admire the Jews for their ability to be offended and be chutzpahistic enough to go on the attack, often viciously. Indeed, Jews employ adjectology in the most vicious manner, using all sorts of nasty words like ‘rabid’, ‘virulent’, ‘hateful’, ‘divisive’, ‘toxic’, ‘noxious’, ‘odious’, ‘foul’, ‘vile’, and etc. to smear, defame, and degrade other people. And yet, most white Americans are afraid to fight back in kind. They are afraid to characterize Jews as hideous, vile, nasty, disgusting, gross, venal, heinous, and vicious. Jews splash mud all over whites, but whites wanna play shoeshine boy to the Jews. A people who are incapable of being offended cannot fight, and those who won’t fight won’t survive. Imagine an elephant that is so nice that it does nothing as predator after predator surrounds it and starts gnawing at it. Imagine a whale that just passively floats while sharks are gathering to bite chunks off it. It may take some time to kill the big animal, but it will eventually be devoured and die.

Why was the big lug in OF MICE AND MEN so helpless even though he was big and strong? He didn’t have the instinct to be offended and fight back with rage. So, when the nasty smaller guy Curly began to punch him, he just slunk against the wall and wailed like a baby. It’s when his friend tells him to man up that he grabs hold of Curly’s hand and crushes it. White folks must learn to be angry again and crush the fists of the Jew. Of course, rage and passion need to be controlled. No matter how righteous one feels, when rage either becomes radicalized or rampages of control, it can turn into something as demented as Nazism or Japanese militarism — and even some of Allied ‘war crimes’ against Germany and Japan that were excessive. But without the ability to be offended, to be angry, to be riled up, and be ferocious, there can be no fight, no revenge, no justice, and no victory. There was a time when white folks thought it most natural to get angry when they felt their kind was wronged, but Jewish control of media and academia have associated white history with ‘historical sins’ such as imperialism, ‘genocide’ of the American Indians, enslavement of wonderful Negroes, mass killing of saintly Jews, oppression of happy homos, stealing land from Mexico, and etc. As a result, white folks fear that any show of anger on their part is synonymous with ‘irrational’ and demented ‘hate’ and ‘racism’. But of course, blacks are encouraged to get all wild and crazy about whatever they deem to be ‘racist’. And Jews give themselves the green light to viciously rip into any group — white, Christian, Muslim, Russian, Iranian, Chinese, Venezuelan, Palestinian, German, Polish, etc — that they deem to be insufficiently respectful toward Jews. So, Jews can kick whites in the ass, but whites must kiss Jews on their ass. Of course, white folks are allowed to hate and vent their anger at certain groups — especially if it serves the interest of Jews. Since Israel doesn’t want Iran to be a major power, we are encouraged to hate Iranians. One doesn’t risk one’s career by foaming at the mouth about those ‘muzzie’ Iranians. If anything, Neocons will help promote goyim like John McCain and Lindsey Graham who are hellbent on starting another war for the Jews. And Jews love to make white Americans hate white people in other parts of the world. So, even though White Russians mean no ill will to white conservative Americans, so many white Conservative dummies in this country who listen to Talk Radio have come to hate, hate, and hate the new patriotic Russia. And of course, Jews love it when white Liberals want to start a new Cold War with Russia over the ‘gay marriage’ issue. So, even among white Americans, certain hatreds are encouraged and approved IF they serve the interests of Jews. At most times, Jews warn white people that they must control their rage. Indeed, the term ‘angry white males’ created by the Jew-run media presupposes that white males are all privileged and have no reason to be angry but are only ‘angry’ because they’re bigoted, small-minded, and greedy. Because anti-anger-ism has been so deeply inculcated into the white heart, even white Conservatives get upset when real white right conservatives get angry and vent their spleen. The establishment and mainstream white Conservatives say, "Shhhhhh, don’t you know extremism is evil?" So, Conservatives must be oh-so-nice Conservatives, whereas Jewish scumbags, the Jew media, and punks like Obama, Holder, Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan can pile abuse after abuse on the white conservatives with hysteria about ‘war on women’, ‘homophobia’, ‘resurgent racism’, or fantasy KKK at Oberlin College. So, even though whites are warned not to jump to conclusions about anything, it’s perfectly okay for Jews, Negroes, homos, and dumb feminists to jump to conclusion about evil white males with the slightest rumor... as with the UVA rape hoax in the Rolling Stone magazine. And it’s not just about white Americans but about any group of people Jews don’t like around the world. Jews will defame and destroy any people or nation they don’t like. Anyone who’s observed the Jewish coverage of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis should know by now the total venality of Jews and their minions in the media, whether they be homos at the New York Times or pseudo-conservatives like Walter Russell Mead, the purpose of whose life is to give Neocon Jews endless rimjobs. If Jews hate Palestinians, Mead hates and abuses Palestinians. If Jews hate Germans, Mead dumps on Germans. If Jews hate Russians, Mead growls at Russians. There is no enemy of Jews that Mead doesn’t hate with the viciousness of a junkyard dog.
So, it’s about time for white folks to wake up and learn to be angry again. Sure, the anger must be controlled, but it must controlled by whites themselves, not by hideous and vicious Jews. And white anger must serve white interests, and it must be aimed at the main enemy of the white race, and today, it is the Jews because Jews are the ones who are behind the homo agenda, open borders, anti-white political correctness, interracism to dilute and destroy the white race, and etc. Sure, there are other enemies and rivals of the white race, but in any struggle, one must focus on the main enemy first and foremost. It’s like during the Cold War, US focused mainly on the USSR. Jews hate the white race, and the white race must take offense at this. The white race must learn to be angry and vengeful. And the white race must stoke and build up the flames of white rage to burn down the Jewish palace of power. White race and white rage must become one and the same if the white race is to survive. And it is for this reason that the white race must embrace and develop its own victimology. It was Spanish sense of victimology that emboldened them to take the fight to the Moors and reconquer Spain. It was because Russians were outraged over the attack on their Motherland when Napoleon and Hitler came invading that they rallied together to fight as one people and crush the invading enemies.
Today, it’s because white folks have been bled of their ability to be angry and feel as victims that they do nothing but stare at junk celebrity culture while their race, nation, culture, and power are all being destroyed piecemeal by piecemeal. And because Jews have cherry-picked and promoted only those privileged white Liberals who pat themselves with moral narcissism for their exhibitions of ‘white guilt’ that the White Narrative have been written by narrow-experienced white Liberals who assume that all white people are as privileged, favored, and well-connected as they themselves are. If you’re a white Liberal and have rich parents and attended some Ivy League School and got some teaching gig or media job — and if you’ve been drummed with stuff about ‘white guilt’ and ‘white privilege’ from cradle — , of course you’re going to think that most white people have it as good as you do. Therefore, you’re going to assume that white folks have no right to complain and instead, like your over-privileged and over-paid self, should be making a lot of noises about making amends with the ‘victim groups’ all over the world. Of course, if privileged white Liberals really feel that way, why don’t they just give up all their wealth, hand their jobs to ‘people of color’, and just hang themselves? Why should people who bitch about ‘white privilege’ hog so much of it? Because Jews rigged the system that way. One qualification for a white person to enjoy white privilege is to bitch and moan about doing something about it. I suspect privileged white Liberals know how the game is rigged and are doing it opportunistically — especially among the political class that is pretty shameless — , but I also suspect that many white Liberals, regardless of their intelligence and ability, are too lacking in experience and scope to realize how full of baloney they are. It’s so easy to become blinded by feelings of both guilt and narcissism, and white Liberalism combines both.

As for all true-blue white folks who still love their race, their own nations, their own heritage, and their own cultures, they must learn to realize that they have nothing to feel ashamed about — at least no more than Jews, Negroes, and other peoples do — and that they face a very grim and difficult future. There are no easy ways out now as the problems of the West are too grave. The options at this point is between bad and worse. But bad is still better than worse, and it’s time for white race to the embrace the white rage of victimolgy. The white race must understand that the most effective kind of power derives from both sympathy and ability. And it’s difficult to garner any sympathy unless one promotes one’s own victimology. But too many white guys on the right are either too aloof, unemotional, or too repressed on victimological issues. Aloofness makes them seem superior and snobby. Lack of emotions makes them seem unhurt and unworried by events. And the cult of superiority — most hilariously of the Nietzschean kind that rails against ‘slave morality’ — instills many white guys with too much pride to ever admit that their race is really hurting. Oddly enough, these superiorist whites pretty agree with ‘leftists’ and ‘people of color’ about the issue of ‘white privilege’. The only difference is that they believe that whites, as the superior people, are deserving of their privilege. Also, as they are into neo-aristocraticism, they believe a select groups of ultra-superior whites — usually themselves in their delusional narcissism — should rule as permanent aristocrats over all the other whites who don’t deserve democracy and representative government since, supposedly, democratism invariably leads to political correctness and etc. But in fact, it was the robust democratic populism of men like Andrew Jackson that fought for white interests, whereas it was the elite class of mandarins/brahmins in America and Europe who brought forth the kind of social and political revolutions that profoundly altered the trajectory of the white race.

Sure, the Liberal elites and Jewish elites will use the language of ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’, but they never meant to be equal with anyone. It was all just so much smoke-and-mirrors ruse to boost their own superiorist neo-aristocratic power. Anyone who thinks the George Soroses and Bill Gateses of the world really want to be equal with the rest of mankind is crazy. Even if they sincerely believe such tripe, they certainly do not deep in their hearts. Look what’s happening in New York, San Francisco, and Washington D.C.: neo-aristocraticism is very much alive, and so-called ‘cultural Marxism’ actually aids aristocraticism since its emphasis on the esoterica of art, culture, and fashion favors the rich over the middle class and the poor who’ve been turned into celebrity-culture-addicted drones, the kind of morons dependent on bread-and-circuses in the pagan world of the Ancient Romans. True democracy should favor each nation demanding a control of its borders as the majority folks of any land don’t want to be invaded by another people. Even Mexicans don’t support open borders as an ideal as they don’t want millions of non-Mexicans flooding into Mexico. They support open borders ONLY WITH AMERICA since it boosts their own national interest of ‘reconquering Southwest territories’.
Suppose every nation acted like Mexico and supported its own national interest. They would all reject open borders since the majority of the people prefer to maintain demographic continuity, unity, and dominance. Indeed, even in America — and even among Democrats — , the majority of people don’t want open borders and want a serious decrease in immigration rates. The main reason why America has opened its borders to so many foreigners was not due to populist but to elitist pressure. Of course, people voted for those politicians, but then politicians, being beholden to elite interests, also pushed policies that the great majority of Americans never wanted. So, the elites exploit certain aspects of democracy to undermine democracy. Needless to say, in the long run, open borders may be bad for the elites, but the elites tend to think in the short term — but then, this has been a habit of the vain and selfish aristocratic classes through the ages. Why did so many aristocrats become indebted to Jews? Because they kept borrowing more money to throw parties, to purchase jewelry for their mistresses, and to have a good time. Sure, some aristocrats of certain cultures — like the Prussian, for example — tended to be more serious, sober, responsible, and diligent than the aristocratic classes of other cultures(Spanish, Polish, and Russian), but too many aristocrats, especially in peace time, grew up in a world of privilege and knew little else. So, they were willing to borrow huge sums for short-term pursuit of happiness than think in the long term. This is how Jews got so rich in so many parts of Europe. They not only served as middlemen merchants and tax collectors for the aristocratic class but lent easy money to silly aristocrats who didn’t think in the long-term. And since aristocrats were born into their class, a good many were pretty dumb and/complacent since their status wasn’t determined by intelligence and effort but by the mere luck of being born into a rich family. As time passed, more and more aristocratic families had the titles but no money, whereas Jews got the money but no titles. So, in the end, Jews might even buy the titles and pretend to be aristocrats. This is why the White Right should not idealize the aristocratic order. What is so great about a bunch of English snot-nosers dressed in red on horses unleashing a pack of hounds to track down and rip an innocent fox to shreds? Such people seem to me like a bunch of arseholes. Who wants to be ruled by the likes of Hirohito the dork, Tsar Nicholas the idiot, Prince Charles the fool, Emperor Puyi the sap, and etc? Not that populists like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Sukarno, and Napoleon were good people — and we should certainly be wary of someone who calls himself the ‘man of the people’, a notion that paradoxically arrives at megalomania by the way of ‘humble’ immersion in and representation of the ‘will of the people’ — , but at least those who rose from the bottom to the top proved their worth through genuine ability(even if it was of the sordid, venal, ruthless, and opportunistic kind). Indeed, the so-called Man of the People often proves to be dangerous because his power represents a contradiction. If he is indeed a ‘man of the people’, why must he rise ABOVE the people and rule over them like a god? Is he ‘one of them’ or towering ‘above them’? Are people sharing in or submitting to his ‘greatness’? People like Stalin, Mao, and Hitler saw themselves as the ‘man of the people’ who came from humble roots — and understood the frustrations of the masses — but they also saw themselves as far superior to the masses who should be treated and led like sheep and cattle. Indeed, they saw themselves as gods or even greater than gods. If there’s one advantage to aristocratic rule, it’s that aristocrats don’t feel that they are The Great Man. (The neo-aristocratic outlook of the Founding Fathers certainly had a restraining and moderate effect on the thrust of the American Revolution. It made for greater moderation and temperance.) Aristocrats must get along with other aristocrats and respect each other’s privileges. Since they belong to a privileged class that is comfortably situated above the masses, they can’t claim to be the Man of the People, and that means they have no right to rule as god-men. An aristocrat’s view of power and politics is limited to his class, and though this may be oppressive and exploitative — and conceited and snobby — , it cannot claim the kind of feverish/sorcerous power that draws its passions from the masses. So, the accrued power of the aristocratic order is always very limited. If a nobody from the social bottom rises to the top, he may well claim to represent the masses, which is just about everyone. And since his pedigree is rather low, he needs to invoke the politics of mass rage to justify his power, and this may make him overly aggressive in a chip-on-the-shoulder way. It’s a troubling combination of inferiority complex and superiority complex. As a Man of the People who rose from the gutter, he has to stoke the fires of mass passion at all times, and this can be potentially dangerous. Indeed, it could be that Kemal Ataturk was able to resist such temptations because, more than so many other ‘great leaders’ of the 20th century, he didn’t rise from the gutter but rose up the ranks of the military and was close to centers of power from a young age. Therefore, he able to fuse together elements of aristocraticism and populism. He was a modernizer who reached out to the people, but he also understood that the key to responsible power was for the ‘great man’ to work well with others and maintain certain necessary hierarchies that are simply too natural to the human condition.