Thursday, January 8, 2015

Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascism on the Politics of Victimology: Victimology Is Not the Problem. Consideration of Our Victimology vs Other Victimology. Part 1.

Murder of Jane McCrea
Hannah Duston Killing the Indians

For Part 2 of this blogpost, CLICK HERE.

Topics discussed: Victimology, National Feminism, Word and Honor, Northern Europeans, Southern Europeans, The Wild Bunch, Sam Peckinpah,Conservatism's vulnerability to PC, Liberalism's vulnerability to PC, Conservative servility to Jews, Jewish hypocrisy,bi-morality of Jewish religion and culture, the jackal-like way of Jews, Neocons and Iraq, 100 Million Black Dicks Project,Jews and EU, African migration into Europe, Christian morality, Jewish morality, Muslim morality, Semitic character of Arabs,Arab evolution under the sun vs Northern European evolution in the cold, blacks and 'nasty', gorilla style of the Negress,conflating black rage with black righteousness, Jewish exploitation of blacks, moralysis, herd morality vs individual conscience,Asian universalism and 'we mentality', The Shining, Stanley Kubrick, Asian social mentality, Jesus-Peter-shame-guilt,Japanese-American internment vs McCarthyism, nationalism from above, Poland and Korea, softalitarianism, 'leftist' hatred of controversy, Jewish stamp on 'leftism', white privilege vs Jewish privilege, shared ideas vs shared interests/power,homo-supremacism's effect on Jews and whites, paradox of loyalty and betrayal in Italian culture, the Godfather, Tom Hagen,Latin lack of character, betrayal and rule of law, Lawrence of Arabia, Jewish monotheism, forms of betrayal, powerful scapegoating the weak and the weak scapegoating the powerful, Northern European 'moral' cravenness toward Jews, Northern European homogeneity,British race-ism and imperialism,the positive side of race-ism in the British Empire,whiteness and moral perception,facial angularity and moral perception, Jews and goyim and looks, universalism of Greek philosophy, Greek art and time,the ideal vs real in Greek art, dogs-asians-Muslims, 'vice virtuosa', Jews as cancer of white history, Wall Street derivatives and 'gay marriage', English language, use of PC in Britain to morally defang the white working class, Germany and Jews,Lina Wertmuller, SEVEN BEAUTIES, military desertion and morality, paradox of universalism and elitism, Nazism and morality,Nazism and medicine, Jewish self-loathing and race-mixing, medicine and elitism, compulsive diagnostic syndrome,mental health issue, Jews and medicine, partisanship in the media and the Jews, Alfred Hitchcock and Vagina, Vertigo, Marnie,hypochondrophilia, A.I., 'romysterine', Face of Another, Marnie, Anglo-Americanism, Ayn Rand, genetics of goodness, problems of morality,goodness vs niceness, situational morality, respectability vs revelry, problems of bourgeoisie, House of Games by David Mamet,Something Wild by E Max Frye and Jonathan Demme, PSYCHO, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, sexuality and physiology, Lucian Freud,high and low in culture, the politics of 'sacralization' of certain groups, murk-to-mist conundrum, Greek mythology,Athena, Judaism, Holocaustianity, the rotten character of Jewish elites, duality of Jews, Dr. Strangelove, General Jack D. Ripper,Billiard as metaphor, facts and fairytales, evolution and water, evolution and isolation, complementary diversity vs invasive diversity,homo-latreia, homo-ipakoi, Jewish evolution and tribalism, Jewish morality and tribalism, paradox of Christian pacifism and bullying,paradox of individuality and obedience, futility of radicalism in relation to the elites, white Christian Church vs non-white Churches,avoidism and revanchism in animals,being wrong vs feeling wronged, Jewish supremacism and black supremacism, victorhood and victimhood, Bill Laimbeer Tactic, Russia and Putin and Jews, homos as proxies of Jewish power, Jordan Belfort-ism and Saul-Alinsky-ism,counter-victimology of the Right, progots or 'progressive bigots', ideology vs neo-fascist situational thinking, End of History,Francis Fukuyama, Russia-China-Iran and Jews, leftism and interracism, Negroes and 'spiritual' singing, Jews and mind-reading,God and gravity and special relationship with Europeans, positive universalization of particular positive characteristics,End of History and End of Debate, Anglo fear of Jewish wit, witzkrieg, Anglo/American sensitivity to Jews and other non-whites,Proposition Nation as Jewish Supremacist state that favors Jewish power and Israel,victimology and the Deep South, FDR or Roosevelt, Stalin, Jonathan Brent, white right and anti-Jewishness.

It has become fashionable on the Right to decry the rise of ‘victimology’ as the prevalent world-view and organizing concept in Western ideological discourse since the so-called ‘radical sixties’. Even some liberals feel that what began as moral necessity and justification has largely degenerated into various groups competing with one another for the top slot in the Holy Victim Jackpot. Victimology seems especially annoying since the ones who do the most complaining are NOT themselves victims and too conveniently(and crassly) bask in the misery of their ancestors. Worse, at the vanguard of the victimological discourse are white and/or Jewish ‘progressives’ who are among the most well-off, privileged, and powerful people on the planet. When privileged white and Jewish Liberals(whose wealth, status, and influence keep rising) keep yammering about ‘white privilege’ — apparently, they need ever increasing privilege for themselves to fight ‘white privilege’, but then, for many centuries the Christian clergy believed it needed and deserved ever greater wealth and power to promote the virtue of thrift and meekness — , the whole thing sounds more and more like a joke. It’s especially amusing to observe over-privileged white/Jewish ‘progressives’ sermonizing to ‘white trash’ underclass that the latter simply cannot understand the horrors experienced by the ‘people of color’ because of their ‘white skin privilege’. If this is true, just how do the privileged white ‘progressives’ understand the ‘pain’ and ‘agony’ of the ‘people of color’? If having ‘too much privilege’ prevents one from empathizing, let alone sympathizing, with the misfortunes of others, shouldn’t it logically follow that privileged white/Jewish ‘progressives’ would have the least clue as to the reality of oppression experienced by the ‘people of color’(who should be called ‘peopolor’ maybe). In truth, the ‘white trash’ underclass understand blacks very well as many of them have been victimized by black crime. As for many white/Jewish progressives, their supposed compassion is based on fantasy projections(from a safe distance) onto black realities they know little or nothing about. When something like Ferguson crisis erupts, white/Jewish ‘progressives’ ignore realities on the ground and instead project their paradigms onto what is pure and simple black thuggery.
I suppose the ‘progressive’ elites could argue that one requires sufficient privilege(and natural intelligence and empathy, with which they themselves were naturally gifted with at birth), education, and thinking in order to understand the true extent of the problems of injustice created by Western Civilization, and since white/Jewish ‘progressives’ have the knowledge and compassion, they should be the rightful leaders of Progress against ‘privilege’, especially since they are working hard to fill their own ranks with some token ‘peopolor’.
After all, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Marxist movement, and communist revolutions were all led by a class of privileged radicals or visionaries. The unwashed and uneducated masses simply don’t know what is what, and this goes for both most white people and ‘peopolor’. Whether relatively privileged or oppressed, most people don’t know and don’t care, especially on the matter of ‘what is to be done’. So, there always needs to be a vanguard led by the intelligent, imaginative, knowledgeable, and committed. Such form of ‘radical’ privilege could be deemed to be morally justified since it strives and struggles for greater justice and equality unlike traditional forms of privilege that were largely self-centered and self-serving. But then, the histories of Christianity, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution — all done in the name of The People — teach us that power and privilege, once institutionalized, tend to have their own logic. Also, for every genuinely idealistic privileged radical who works to undermine various unjust and unearned privileges, there are plenty of ultra-privileged cynics who buy off and appropriate the various ideologies-of-virtue to serve their own personal or egomaniacal interests. Does anyone really think the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros have made all that money to fund something like a communist revolution so that all their wealth will be taken from them and shared with the people? And besides, even if a communist movement were to prevail once again, how long before a new elite rises to guard their own power and privilege and rule over the masses with utter cynicism?

At any rate, what is most irritating about today’s victimology is the lack of depth, meaning, purpose, sincerity, good faith, intelligence, and integrity. Among the various ‘peopolor’ victim groups, only Jews have real brains — though Jews, ever chameleon-like, sometimes morph into whiteness and sometimes out of whiteness — while blacks and mestizos are mostly mush-for-brains or generally prefer style & volume over sense & substance. Jewish victimologists may be smart, but they are devious and untrustworthy since they opt for two agendas at once: bitch about their victim-hood and guard/maximize their super-privilege. Indeed, Jews are socially and historically schizophrenic because they want to convince us forever that "Nobody knows the trouble Jews seen, nobody knows but Moses and Anne Frank." We’ve been told a million times that Jews have been ‘oppressed’ for thousands of years. Of course, this is a bogus sleight-of-hand trick. Jews only seem to have suffered more since they remained as a cohesive group for longer than most peoples and because they went from place to place as minorities and drove gentiles crazy with their hideous weasel-like ways(that often brought about a backlash). Anyway, Jews keep telling us that their history was one of mini-holocaust-per-minute... until finally there was the real big one, The Holocaust. It’s like Fred G. Sanford(of SANFORD AND SON) acts like he’s had a 1000 heart-attacks and the BIG ONE is finally about to come! Of course, the Holocaust was truly a horrendous and tragic event, and we can all understand why Jews were and are still traumatized by it. It was so horrible that we are inclined to believe that Germans went totally insane and Jews were totally innocent. Any other view might strike some as ‘blaming the victim’. We certainly shouldn’t blame the victims for the Holocaust, especially as little children and old folks were killed too. Nevertheless, it’s a fallacy to assume that because Jews suffered greatly in certain periods and places, they were totally innocent in relation to the modern history of antisemitism or anti-Jewish-sentiments. It simply isn’t true that Jews were such perfect angels set upon by vicious gentiles out of irrational wickedness, envy, paranoia, hatred, and craziness.
Let’s suppose that Hitler had not carried out the Holocaust. Let’s suppose that Hitler hated Jews but never murderously. Suppose he taxed them heavily and prohibited them from certain professions. We can still sympathize with Jewish ‘victim-hood’ under such circumstances, but it would also be valid to ask what led Hitler and other Germans to push such anti-Jewish measures. Why shouldn’t we ask such questions? After all, we(Jews included) often raise issues about the problems caused by Muslim immigrants in Europe. And there are plenty of people who publicly declare themselves to be anti-Muslim for cultural, social, or moral reasons. All such criticisms and opposition to Muslims are considered valid in many sectors in society. And they indeed are. Now, suppose someone like Hitler were to come along who really hates Muslims, and a Holocaust takes place that kills 50% of Muslims in Europe. That would indeed be a terrible event, but would it mean that Muslims had been 100% innocent? Of course not. We could still recognize that Anti-Islamites had legitimate reasons for disliking and criticizing Muslims and Muslim culture. We can denounce the radical horror of Islamocaust, but it doesn’t negate the valid criticism of Islam that had been aired prior to the tragedy. Nor does it follow that every criticism of Muslims had contributed to the Islamocaust. If criticism of a group inevitably leads to genocide, then we shouldn’t criticize ANY group since whichever group is criticized will most certainly end up being killed by the bushel. Same goes for Jews. As horrible as the Holocaust was — and despite the fact that we should respect its victims — , it doesn’t nullify many of the valid reasons as to why so many Europeans came to dislike Jews. It’s like the atomic-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that killed so many children and old folks doesn’t invalidate much of the hatred that the Allies felt for the Japanese. One can argue that the use of atomic bombs was excessive, even evil, but that doesn’t make Japanese perfect angels who were killed by ‘totally evil racist whites’. Same goes for Jews. The truth is there were plenty of wicked Jews who pulled all manner of dirty tricks in finance in Europe. They also went out of their way to corrupt the culture, to spread communist subversion, to indulge in gangsterism, to reduce white women into chattel whore. "Really?", you ask? Well, look around today, and what has changed about the way of Jews? Jews still act pretty much the same. The great majority of Jews admire sick perverts like Masha Gessen. Some might argue that Gessen is just a fringe figure peddling sexual Ayn-Randian-ism, but could such a person have gained such fame and fortune without the support of World Jewry with their trillions in wealth?

They are still two-faced, contemptuous, arrogant, weasel-like, corrupting, and vile. Jews go out of their way to instill white women with feelings of victim-hood to create a rift between white males and white females. Jews understand that the most crucial bond among a people is sexual unity. If white men and white women stick together, the white race remains intact and white unity is preserved. Jews hate his, which is why they push feminism that makes white women hate white men as the worst oppressors of all time. This is silly, of course, since no civilization did as much for the progress of women’s freedoms and rights than Western Civilization(dominated by white men) has. If anything, true feminism should be a National Feminism, whereby all proper-and-sensible white women should remember and appreciate that white men treated their womenfolk better than any other male-kind around the world did with their women. But Jews want white women to see white men as oppressors and join with ‘peopolor’ against their own grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands, sons, and etc.
Jews, of course, remained as a race, culture, and heritage because Jewish men and Jewish women sexually stuck together for so long; even today, most Orthodox Jews and many Reform Jews — and even secular Jews — choose to keep it together sexually; they may have flings outside the community, but many eventually settle down with Jewish spouses. And even in intermarriage with members of other groups, Jews are careful to choose the cream of the crop of the gentiles and raise the kids as Jewish or with Jewish-consciousness. So, Jews practice elite intermarriage that favors Jewishness. Besides, as Jews have the most powerful sense of tribal/communal pride & heritage rooted in long history(of great achievements) and roiled in the cult of noble & tragic suffering, even a partly Jewish child is bound to cling to the Jewish side of him or her.
But when it comes to the white masses, Jews want them to be miscegenated out of existence. Jews want more yellow immigration so that white guys will have kids with yellow women. Jews want white women to become mudsharks and have disgusting mulatto babies with black men. Jews want Anglos to mix in huge numbers with Mexicans and become mestizo-ized. Personally, I don’t mind some Anglos and Mexicans getting together but not in numbers that turn whole bunch of blancos into a bunch of taco-heads. I mean Guillermo of the Jimmy Kimmel Show(dreadful piece of crap) is a nice guy, but do we want a whole bunch of future white guys to look like him? Or George P. Bush or PeeWee Bush.
Guillermo - Nice Guy but hardly future model for white race.
White folks really need a NATIONAL FEMINISM that should emphasize that white women’s power, freedom, privilege, rights, and protection are best preserved in close union with white men. For National Feminism to gain a footing, white women must wake up and see history and society in real terms, and white rightist males must stop with the dumbass macho crap that isn’t impressing anyone. A truly manly man doesn’t have to make a big deal of his manliness. It’s like what James Coburn’s character Steiner says in CROSS OF IRON(directed by Sam Peckinpah): "A man is generally what he feels himself to be." It’s usually guys who feel like nothing who have to construct some grand theory of ‘manhood’ by invoking Julius Evola, Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, and Jack Donovon, the iron fruiter.
I’m not belittling or putting down such figures per se but only pointing out that they shouldn’t be used as crutches by insecure guys who need some Theory of Manhood to feel like a man. If you don’t have the feeling there to begin with, you just don’t have it. It’s like John Wayne naturally felt like a man, but Don Knots most likely did not, but that’s okay, as he never pretended to be some macho tough guy. Knots could have read all the Evola and Donovan he wanted. He still wouldn’t have been much of a man. Most Alternative Right guys are dorks who are more like Don Knots than John Wayne, and that’s precisely why they always need some Theory of Manhood. If you need some grand theory of manhood to be a man, then you’re climbing up the wrong tree. Besides, manhood primarily needs to be practical than rigid, as survival comes before pride. Animals understand this. A tough male leopard may try scare away or fight off other male leopards, but it’s gonna run like a mothafuc*a when it sees a lion. A tough male lion may roar and try to intimidate other male lions, but if it sees a stampeding herd of elephants, it’s gonna bolt into the bush. Manhood is always relative, and a real man has to know his place in the pecking order. A sensible white guy will act tougher among yellows and browns, but he better watch himself with Negroes because, in most cases, black guys can whup the daylights out of white guys. Though we have this impression of blacks always acting crazy and out-of-control, black reality isn’t as simple as many white folks make out. Most violence among black youths is among those who are more or less equal in toughness. So, one tries to establish his pecking order over the other, and this can lead to mayhem. But when it’s obvious that one Negro is much tougher than another, the latter will play the toady or run like a mothafuc*a. Negroes may be crazy and stupid, but they can be very survival-sensible because they lead an animallike existence. Since they grow up in a brutal world, blacks are very keen about when to fight or take flight. Negroes aren’t usually into the Charge-of-the-Light-Brigade mode.
Indeed, Southern Europeans are similar in some ways possibly because they have less cultural and ethnic unity, less in the way of Rule of Law. So, they learn to read the signals, gauge when to cheat, how to lie, etc. In the past several centuries, it’s been the Northern Europeans who’ve been into rigid concepts of pride, propriety, honor, and other such stuff — and even in Asia, such norms exist more in the north than in the south. Negroes and Southern Europeans know that muscle must hustle. The negative side of the Negro and Southern European mode of behavior is the lack of scruples, conscience, and honor(based on virtue than on stupid pride). An Italian may not honor an agreement, but he’ll make a lot of noise about the his honor-as-a-form-of-vain-pride, usually an ugly thing. The positive side of the Negro and Southern European mode of behavior is the flexibility, adaptability, and alertness to the situation. This is what makes blacks good at something like Jazz. They be slickity-slackity. Italians are oily and greasy not only physically but mentally and emotionally. They can go from wolf to puppy dog a split second.
The Morally Adaptable Southern Italian. Take Me to America, G.I.
The positive side of the Northern European mode of behavior is the uprightness, properness, and primacy of the Word. Contracts came to mean something more to Northern Europeans than to most other peoples because Words given were expected to be kept. Over time, the sanctity of contracts were written into law and institutionalized, but for that to happen, there had to be a culture of Word and honor as one and the same thing. When an oily Italian speaks, you get the sense that he will say ANYTHING to get things his way. In contrast, a German doesn’t speak in vain. He means what he says, and what he says obligates him to the promise he made. Of course, we’re talking of general traits as there have been plenty of trustworthy Italians and plenty of devious Germans. Bismarck was an expert liar, and though he achieved great things for Germany, his trail of lies left European states bitter and angry with the power of newly risen Germany. As for Hitler, he could a complete sociopath when it came to the truth. Even so, with Hitler it was a case of ‘who, whom’. When it came to people he deemed as his enemies, weakling pushovers, or inferior peoples, his Word meant nothing. But when it came to people he admired and trusted, his Word did mean something. He never betrayed Benito Mussolini, for instance. And if a powerful British politician worthy of his respect had come forward and struck up a deal with him, Hitler would likely never have betrayed him.
At any rate, the negative side of the Northern European behavioral mode is the rigidity that can sometimes make people choose the Word over reality. As important as the Word is, there are times when reality counts more. No sense sticking to honor in face of horror. (The problem of absolute constitutionalism and libertarianism is that they demand total faith to the letter of the law.) Another negative aspect of the Northern European mode is the naivete it fosters among the populace. Whereas a Negro, an Italian, or a Greek grew up cynical, cunning, and/or conniving from a young age, Northern European children traditionally grew up in more stable environments where Words actually meant something. Therefore, some Northern European types foolishly seem to believe in the ideals and terminology of political correctness with naive goodwill. Northern Europeans were more likely to keep their word, remain loyal, and charge into battle even if it meant sure death. Back in the old days, the nationalistic elites ruled the masses, and therefore, Northern European masses were naively willing to follow-the-leader, indeed more so than their Southern European and Slavic European counterparts. (To some extent, the modern neo-Slavicism and neo-Latinism were attempts to Northern-European-ize the masses. Stalin knew well that the Russians would not have fought to a stalemate with Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 if Russians had been more like Germans. And Mussolini envied the superior organizational skills & iron unity among Germans and, via the Pact of Steel with Hitler, sought to Germanize the lazy and craven Latins into reliable tough men. Mussolini failed, but Stalin succeeded for the Russians fought as hard or even harder than the Germans in World War II. To be sure, Stalin also drew from ‘Oriental Despotic’ roots — embodied by Ivan the Terrible — and Jewish radicalism, but keep in mind that Marx was German and many Russian-Jewish Marxists wanted Russia to emulate Germany as a social and developmental model. But then, the Imperial Russian system under the Czars had also sought to Germanize the elites. Though Russian elites had looked to France for much of their inspiration in all things cultural and fashionable, the dramatic rise of Germany in the 19th century made it the favored model for both Russia and Japan, especially as a managerial model for the state, economic development, and military buildup and training.) When nationalistic Northern European elites had ruled their domains, the Northern European masses — even those of leftist persuasion — tended to be earnest in their sense of patriotic loyalty, unity, and honor. But with the rise of anti-nationalist ideology, political correctness, and anti-white self-loathing as the New Dogma or Word all across Europe, Northern Europeans have embraced the New Ideals with greater earnestness and commitment than by Italians and Greeks. Southern Europeans tend to say one thing but do another(often with utmost cynicism/opportunism), whereas Northern Europeans believe that Words mean something. Even the arch-criminal Pike Bishop in THE WILD BUNCH tries to stick to the word: "We’re gonna stick together just like it used to be. When you side with a man, you stay with ‘em, and if you cant do that, you’re like some animal; you’re finished, we’re finished! All of us!" Even though Pike Bishop and Deke Thorton are on the opposite sides, Bishop tries to defend his old friend by saying that "he gave his word", even if it was to the ‘railroad’. In another Sam Peckinpah movie, RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, an old ex-sheriff feels especially betrayed by his friend because a man’s word means everything to him. The Spaghetti Westerns or Gangster Westerns are different since the word never means anything in the Italianized Western universe.
Anyway, if one scrutinizes the Northern European mind-set, it’s possible to understand why Northern European types can be the most nationalistic people or the most anti-nationalistic people. Whatever the prevailing Truth happens to be, they are more likely to take it to heart & mind, as if the words actually mean something. This was somewhat less so in Great Britain because of the highly developed sense of irony. Also, the overt class-consciousness in Britain made it less likely for any kind of unified national consciousness from top to bottom. German society was hierarchical, but even the German elites partook of the sentimentality of being one with the ‘volk’ and even with nature. British elites were more likely to keep their clothes on(instead of running around naked in the woods) and more likely to remind the masses of their service to the Queen. Also, because the British system simultaneously maintained a monarchy and steadily weakened its power, the power dynamics of Britain wasn’t as cut-and-dry as in Germany or Russia where the Imperialism system did wield immense power. Though Great Britain is today among the most politically correct nations on Earth, it is also home of some of the most cynical attitudes about political correctness. Thus, British are a tricky bunch. Like other Northern Europeans, they do have a straight-upright-and-earnest streak, and in those terms, they are far more trustworthy than, say, Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, or drunken Russians who can’t even bother to sober up for a few hours a day. But their sense of irony has had a way of serving as a brake against excessive unity and authoritarianism — consider the Simon Pegg film THE WORLD’S END — , though there are PC groups in the UK that are as crazy as any around the world. But then, irony itself can play into the hands of political correctness since to be ironic is to be uncommitted. Therefore, irony can be demeaned by ‘progressives’ as aristocratic, haughty, privileged, detached, and uncaring of the moral issues of the day. Also, when backed against the wall by tremendous pressure, irony usually tends to turn into cowardice. Irony pokes fun, but it takes real iron to fight back. British neo-aristocratic types who are experts at irony would rather go along with PC, albeit in an aloof manner, than put up a real fight. Why, fighting back would be so vulgar, dear boy.
(In current Britain, the native masses can rely on neither Conservatives nor ‘leftists’, both of whom suck up to Jewish globo-elites. Though Conservatives are wont to associate themselves with freedom and Liberals love to associate themselves with liberty, both are prone to falling under the power of PC because of flaws in their system. There is an element in conservatism that is resistant to PC. It is suspicious of outsiders, alien influence, and external threats. It is essentially distrustful and keeps up its guard against would-be threats to its survival and power. But within the conservative community itself, there is a culture of conformism and subservience, and this can paradoxically work against conservatism. Firstly, because conservative community doesn’t properly foster individuality, it tends to lack strong individual voices that can lead, define, and command a crisis. It’s about everything getting along, going along, and following orders. So, even though the conservative community may stand in opposition to outside threats, it generally lacks inspired figures who can hold back the threat with better arguments and counter-attacks. Furthermore, because conservatives tend to be conformist within the community, if the core value system of the community are altered, everyone will likely just follow suit. This is why Jews have been so effective in destroying the Right. The Neocons decided to enter into the core power institutions of American Conservatism and rewrite its main tenets. Once the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity spread the new gospel[via media outlets controlled by Jews], countless American Conservatives mindlessly followed suit and are now worshiping MLK and Zionism. And it’s also becoming fait accompli among Conservatives that ‘gay marriage’ is an ‘conservative value’. Neocons may bash Saul Alinsky, but they employed the same trickery. They understood that a direct external attack on American Conservatism would force conservatives to circle the wagons, resist, and fight back — even if not very effectively. But if Neocons smiled and shook hands and slyly snuck into the core institutions of American Conservatism to rewrite its rules and values, then most American Conservatives would just mindlessly conform to the New Conservatism. Consider how Heritage Foundation caved to the demands of Neocon Jew hag Jennifer Rubin. Since conservatives are conformist WITHIN the community, all one needs to do is enter into the power core of American Conservatism and alter the rules. Once the new rules emanate from the core, most American Conservatives will almost instantly conform to the New Conservatism. As for liberals, they love to take pride in how they’re open to new ideas. This is good if they maintain a genuinely curious and critical mind-set. After all, much that is new is dangerous or harmful, and only a fool would embrace everything new, different, alien, or exotic. But there is a childlike tendency among Liberals to shelve their critical faculties and embrace whatever that is New[or hailed as worthy by the Liberal Elites] because it offers them pleasure, status, instant gratification, short-term jolly-wollies, and etc. It’s like a child easily falls under the sway of an adult who offers him/her candy. The Hansel & Gretel Scenario. Many Liberals are thus childlike whores of power, privilege, wealth, status, and influence. They turned to ‘gay marriage’ because it’s now associated with riches and privilege on Wall Street, the cool & hip in Hollywood, the powerful and influential in DC, etc. It’s like a child revering Santa Claus who has all the toys and gives them only to ‘good little boys and girls’. Also, Liberals all too readily surrender to pleasure and becomes its willing junkie-slaves. Partaking of pleasure can be liberating, especially in an overly repressed society. But it also means surrendering one’s self-control to the pied pipers of music, movies, TV, drugs, gambling, etc. Are all those idiot girls who look to the likes of Miley Cyrus really free and liberated? Or are they slave-whores of the music industry run by dirty Jews? Has porn made people free/liberated or addicted/enslaved to the cult of hierarchical sexual prowess? How liberated are white men who indulge in cuckold culture or white fruitboys who can only get off by having their bungies stuffed with Negro dongs? In seeking sexual ‘liberation’ through unfettered pleasure, they’ve turned into slaves of sexual power that is beyond their self-control and self-worth. When a white man invites and allows a Negro to do his wife on his own bed, the logic of liberation-through-sexual-licentiousness has come full circle. What began as a search for freedom has ended in utter surrender to superior power to which is one’s become addicted in slavish servitude. Like a junkie dependent on his pusher, many white porny boys have become addicted to pleasure-via-sexual-self-enslavement. White boys now whimper, "Conquer and humiliate my manhood, Negro. Do my wife and make me feel like shit." That’s how they get off. Jews are, of course, laughing with hideous glee at the total demise and collapse of the castrated white boy. The likes of Frank Rich are surely muttering under their breath, "Not only can you not take your country back but you can’t take your women back either... cuz when white women go black, there is no going back." Jews were looking forward to such an outcome all along.) Also, because PC has become tutti-fruitized with the rise of the homo agenda and because fruitkins tends to be neo-aristocratic, PC itself has taken on ironic tones, which is why PC is appealing to British elites with good education than to the masses. There is dogmatic PC for the masses and there is haughty PC peppered with irony for the more ‘sophisticated’ types who get off on stuff like Stephen Colbert and BBC comedies. Besides, irony wasn’t only used for satire against power and privilege but as satire by the power and privilege to look down on the dumb unwashed masses. So, to the extent that PC makes the British elites feel oh-so-snobbily superior to the bigoted and uncouth masses, it too has become a form of neo-aristocraticism. Ironically, the privileged and powerful elites use PC to browbeat the unprivileged and powerless masses into accepting the dogma of ‘equality’. This sounds counterintuitive the privileged are using the PC dogma of ‘equality’ to lecture the unprivileged, but then, the Christian social order had been the same stunt for over a thousand years. And communist elites did it too. But the dogma of equality itself isn’t foolproof enough for the Jewish globo-elites since fight for equality can join forces with majority homogeneity to usurp the power of the ultra-privileged minority, which usually happens to consist of Jews in the West. So, Jews have put ‘diversity’ above ‘equality’ as the highest good. Thus, if UK is filled with non-whites, the white majority cannot move against the Jewish elites in the name of anti-PC or even PC ideal of ‘equality’. After all, homogeneous communist nations committed to the ideology of equality easily overthrew the power of the Jewish elites. So, Jews see the cult of Diversity as their main weapon against goyim.
Diversity in London - Jews hate Muslims but they love how Muslims cause problems for White Goyim of Britain.
Anyway, Jews are especially problematic because they not only claim to be the biggest victims of all time but privately know they are by far the most powerful, privileged, dominant, aggressive, and influential people in America — and by extension the entire world. It must be pretty schizophrenic to go from the Holocaust to Globocontrol. Jews keep yapping about the Holocaust, but people are beginning to take notice of the tentacles of Jewish Globocontrol. But even taking notice of such power can get one in trouble, as Rick Sanchez found out. Jews ride a giant hot balloon over us but want us to see their hot balloon as a big iron ball holding them down. But if it’s a giant iron ball, how come Jews are rising above us than falling and sinking below us? It makes no sense, but we are forced to swallow nonsense by PC, therefore everyone’s been going a little crazy. Those who see and speak the truth go crazy because they’re blacklisted and destroyed. Those who convince themselves that powerful Jews are not powerful go crazy because they’ve surrendered all sense of reality. To swallow the orthodoxy that Jews are such pitiable victims despite their immense power(and all the harm they’ve done with it) means that we have to force our minds to deny the rules of gravity. It’s like we have to believe that a giant iron ball is crushing the helpless Jews even though we can’t help but notice that the big ball is actually a hot balloon that is taking Jews ever higher and higher. Jews have painted their hot air balloon black to make it seem like a giant iron ball, and they’re afraid that someone will finally poke a hole in it and deflate all this Jewish bullshit.
Jew-Fruit Balloon ain't no iron ball.
Jews can get away with so much nonsense because they are smarter than the gullible goyim. But even goyim who see the truth of Jewish power dare not speak the truth because they tremble in fear before the wrath of Jewish power. Also, as their peers have been brainwashed by Jews, most goyim fear being ostracized even by their own kind, most of whom are mindless philosemites.
Indeed, this is true even among most white Conservatives. If you tell them that Jews are behind Obama, the homo agenda, anti-white ideology, and etc, they accuse you of ‘antisemitism’ and ‘hating Jews’. White Liberals are ass-kissers of Jews, and white Conservatives are ass-lickers of Jews. If anything, white Conservatives lick Jewish ass to impress Jews with their utmost loyalty to the Jewish cause. The crazy logic goes, maybe if white Conservatives act servile before Jews, maybe Jews will forget that anti-Jewishness had traditionally been far more vocal on the Right. Of course, there’s some wink-wink signaling going on here. When white Conservatives act as lapdogs to Jews, they are hinting, wink-wink, that Jews should support white Conservative nationalism since white Conservative now go out of their way to support Jewish nationalism. "We’ll help you bash and oppress the Palestinians, so, in turn, you Jews side with us against blacks, browns, and yellows." Of course, no white Conservative dares to put his agenda in those terms, but, wink-wink, that’s what it’s all about. White Conservatives will even side with Jews against white gentiles in other nations, especially Russia.
In the case of Hitler, he was so dangerous that it was understandable why Winston Churchill chose to take a stand even though Hitler was a fellow white gentile. But in the case of Vladimir Putin, all this white rabid Conservative barking is downright looney tunes. It’s really only to win the support of Jews. White Conservatives evidently think that if they go out of their way to help Jews take over Ukraine and then Russia, Jews will finally come around to siding with white Conservatives in the Wet. Such notion is no less fantastic than Karl Rove and Jeb Bush’s great idear that if the GOP supports amnesty-for-all-illegals and expands ‘affirmative action’ for browns — at the expense of whites, of course — , great numbers of browns will finally come around to voting for the GOP. Jews must be laughing at all these white Conservative dummies who seem to suffer from battered wife syndrome.
Craven WASP whores of Zion.
Jews are hideous and venal, but they are smart. So, they have the power to make even lies sound like truth with their fancy theorizing and intellectual footwork. In contrast, most non-white groups — people of color or ‘peopolor’ — are shit-for-brains(though when it comes to political intelligence, they have enough sense to act for tribal/national interests than for ‘higher principle’). Indeed, much of black, brown, and yellow forms of victimology are merely copycat versions of Jewish radicalism. Blacks holler the loudest, browns mix PC with brown power, and yellows drone on and on like so many programmed pod-people, but one can’t help feeling that, if not for Jewish coaching and leadership, these groups would have no idea how to go about promoting their own victimologies. Though each group has its own style, the substance is warmed-over leftovers from the Jewish radical pot. There’s a trickle-down dynamics to political correctness whereby the ideas, theories, dogmas, and terminology of Jewish thinkers and activists flow down to everyone else. It begins at elite institutions, then flows to top state universities, then to government bureaucracies, then to lower-esteemed state universities, then to community college, then to high-schools, then to grammar schools, and then to kindergartens. Goy see, goy do. Goy hear, goy say. Especially as Jews control the media, they have the power to disseminate their ideas far and wide, which is why a bogus term like ‘homophobia’ became a lexicon almost overnight. And the media have also been a powerful tool in the assassination of reputations; reputations are important because they decide who and who doesn’t get to play the game of power and privilege; damage to Donald Sterling’s reputation was enough to expel from NBA ownership. So, once the homo dogma has become the ‘sacred’ rule in the West, anyone who won’t bend over to the homo agenda will be character-assassinated like so many people who’ve been attacked, mocked, demeaned, demoted, fired, and/or blacklisted by the system, especially at the upper echelons. Once their reputation has been damaged, they will have lost the opportunity to gain any kind of position, power, privilege, or influence. We say we are all equal in power in the US, but that’s just a lot of baloney. Real power is held in the upper ranks of institutions, governments, and business; and if only certain kinds of people are allowed to make it to the top, all of society will be ruled and shaped by them as they will wield the ‘megaphone’.
When Jews were still making the climb, they needed to rouse up the masses against the Wasp elites. So, Jews were on the side of mass power, mass rebellion, mass ruckus, mass rage, and etc., at least selectively, as even Jews in the past feared white racial rage and white populist anti-communism. But now that Jews are on the top, they don’t trust People Power anymore. They are totally into elite power and seek to maximize their elite power ever more. The dumb and hapless GOP is a perfect foil for the Jews. Since the GOP always falls for the bait and is willing to play the role of the Party of the Rich, the Successful, and the Powerful, the Liberal elite Jews can scapegoat the ‘party of privileged white males’ for the problems of inequality and privilege in this country. As long as the GOP rhetorically and politically privileges the elites — most of whom are Liberals(and even Republic elites tend to be Social Liberals into garbage like ‘gay marriage’, as is the case with the loathsome Koch Brothers) — , the elites will use the GOP as willing scapegoat for all the ills and wrongs of privilege and inequality. So, GOP will go on championing the super-rich and calling for lower taxes. Meanwhile, the Liberal super-rich(who keep getting richer and richer)will say it’s the GOP’s fault that there’s so much inequality in America and make a big stink about it’s a moral imperative to support the likes of Obama and Hillary Clinton who are for ‘equality’. Of course, Obama and Hillary are shills for the super-rich Jews too, but as long as the GOP is willing to play the foil of villain as the ‘party of the rich’, the problems of inequality can conveniently be dumped on the ‘greedy’ GOP.
Democratic Party has become the party of minorities, especially Jews, homos, blacks, browns, and yellows. That being the case, you’d expect the GOP to be party of the white majority, but it has come under the power of Neo-cons(or Zio-cons) who also direct Republican policy to serve minority interests, especially those of ultra-Zionist Jews. So, even when the party of the white majority bends over for elite minority interests, who speaks for the white middle? And since the white middle also has been PC-lobotomized, where’s the guarantee that white folks will stand up for their own rights? After all, even hard-conservative Ann Coulter always couches racial issues in terms of ‘GOP is actually better for blacks’ and ‘we Republicans love Jews more than Democrats do’, which is funny since the Democratic Party is totally run by Jews.
When will Ann Coulter stop sucking up to Jews? Of course if she did, her career would be ruined.
The truth is, outside the West, most peoples around the world never developed any sense of universal morality. (Most people around the world are into either ethnocentric tribalism or sheepish submission to whomever has the power. Ethnocentric tribalism/nationalism is a more of a recent development with the spread of European-style of mass-conscious nationalism all over the world. Prior to that, most people around the world, though of specific cultures and communities, had been drummed by their own elites to mindlessly obey, therefore when the elites changes, the masses bowed down to new elites[even if of another ethnic group]. This is why European Imperialists, Turkish imperialists, and Chinese Imperialists were able to rule over such vast areas. Though foreign rulers in foreign lands, the people they conquered and ruled over were into submissive mode as such had been drummed into them by their own indigenous elites.) Jews and Muslims may be regarded as exceptions. After all, Jews perfected the concept of the universal one-and-only God, and the mission of Islam is to unite all of mankind under the single dome of Allah as revealed by the Prophet Muhammad. One could also make a case for Buddhism. But none of them was satisfying as universal moral creeds. Judaism’s main emphasis wasn’t the universality of God for all mankind but God’s special relationship with the Jews. Since Jews are the favored/chosen of God, Jews came to develop a bi-moral system where there was one set of rules for Jews and another set of rules for gentiles. Of course, other peoples construed similar systems, but whereas Christians could be shamed for their hypocrisy(preaching universality but practicing particularism), Jews never believed there was anything amiss in Jews favoring Jews. Of course, Jews have used the narrative of victim-hood to justify their bi-morality — they had to favor themselves since they were persecuted by goyim — , but Jews have acted the same way even when there was no discrimination against them. (But Jews have become so accustomed to rationalizing their foul behavior through the Victim Narrative that they’re prone to overblown exaggeration or even outright invention to further their agendas. It’s like every Wall Street Jew scumbag weasel will invoke how his grandfather wasn’t allowed into some Wasp Country Club — and the trauma supposedly marked him for life, indeed no less than the scars of the Holocaust — to rationalize his thieving spree , or it’s like how Jewish communists like Lillian Hellman fabricated entire stories to make herself a Nazi-fighting heroine when she was little more than a Stalinist hag-dupe all her life. More recently, there was the viciousness of Sabrina Rubin Erdely who took a tall tale of some college nutjob and invented a rape porn fiction for Rolling Stone magazine in order to destroy fraternity life at a college she loathed because it has too many blonde ‘Aryan’-looking types.) Indeed in America, Jews are favored for everything, welcomed by and praised from all quarters, and hardly criticized despite their immense power, BUT they still act in a bi-moralistic manner where there’s one set of rules for Jews and another set of rules for gentiles. So, white South Africans were wrong to practice the system of ‘apartheid’, but Jews can do as they please in the West Bank. So, Jews can cry foul on the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church better not cry foul on all the foulness emanating from Jewish religion, culture, and community. Jews can bitch about ‘white privilege’ — even when much of that ‘white privilege’ happens to be Jewish — , but no one better talk about Jewish privilege. And the fact that even secular Jews act this way means that it’s not just a religious attitude but a deeply ingrained cultural or even genetic trait among Jews. The Jewish mind-set could well be innately devious and cunning since acting two-faced and weasel-like comes so naturally to so many Jews. Indeed, the idea of an earnest Jew is almost laughable. Jews evolved like jackals. Jackals are small and much weaker than bigger predators and prey animals. Jackals cannot bring down big prey, and it cannot go head-to-head with big predators. So, Jackals wait and see as big predators risk their lives in bringing down big prey. And then, jackals look for the opportune moment to move in to steal morsels. Many Jews evolved this way. As their numbers were limited, they could not fight head-to-head with far more numerous goyim. They could not bring down big nations and social orders on their own. So, they had to learn to be cleverer and fine-tune their sense of timing(which is perhaps why Jewish comedians are experts at timing). Without such skills, they could be destroyed like less intuitive jackals by big predators that won’t tolerate any other animal coming near their kill. Some small predators prefer to hunt for smaller game. But some small predators like to hang around the big guys and take what they can from big kills. Jews, filled with egomania of their own greatness, were not satisfied with small prey. They weren’t like ocelots that hunt for rabbits, rodents, and birds. Jackals want to eat the meat of big prey felled by big predators. So, evolution came to instill jackals with the kind of ‘personalities’ that made them especially cunning, devious, sneaky, and alert about their environment.
Jews are similar. Jews came to rely on feeding on the big goyim. Jews watched as gentile elites oppressed gentile masses or as gentile nations fought and conquered other gentile nations. Jews had a sly eye for big predators going after big prey or fighting other big predators. And Jews figured they’d get in on the action and steal as much as possible from the competition and conflict among the big powers. (Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic skills have been very jackal-like.) Of course, all nations and peoples employ such a strategy at times, but Jews or Jewkals became world-experts at it because they, for so long, didn’t have a nation of their own and had to depend on ‘jackaling’ among the bigger predators and bigger prey. Like jackals, Jews stood back while the big goyim struggled against one another and then pounced when they could run off with their own loot. Over time, Jewkals got so smart at it that they mastered how to tame and control the big predators and prey among the goyim. Imagine if real jackals in nature became so smart that they could control the behaviors of lions, hyenas, African hunting dogs, buffalo, wildebeest, zebras, and etc. It’d be an awesome kind of power, and such is the kind of power that Jews have over the goy populations. At one time, Jews had little control over the goyim and could only hope to feed on the left-overs or a choice morsel here and there, as jackals do in nature. But over time, Jews came to control the gentile world and grabbed the prime cuts for themselves and handed the leftovers to the goyim. It’d be like a pride of lions bringing down a huge buffalo at the behest of the jackal and then stepping aside while the jackal and its tribe sat down to devour the meat first, leaving the scraps for the lions and hyenas. Such is unimaginable in nature, but it’s all too real in the political landscape of the West. Jews make white goyim fight wars in the Middle East. Jews make Slavs fight Slavs in the Ukraine. Jews make American Christians hate Iranians. Jews make Americans send billions every year to Israel so that Jews can use American money and weaponry to crush the Palestinians. Most of the killing and dying is done by gentile populations of big nations, but Jews grab most of the prizes. What did American gentiles get from the Iraq War? Nothing. What did Iraqis get? Nothing. As for Iraqi Christians, their fate has been totally tragic. And what of the over 100,000 Iraqis who were killed since the invasion? And what of the tens of thousands of American casualties killed, maimed, or driven to suicide, almost none of whom were Jewish? They got nothing out of it. But Israel is so happy that Saddam Hussein is gone, and that Iraq will never rise again as a regional power as it’s caught up in an endless spiral of ‘civil war’. I wonder if Neocons or Ziocons(and their Liberal Jewish enablers in the media) really wanted to see a successful democracy take hold in Iraq. Maybe they wanted the American ‘nation-building’ efforts to fail so that Iraq will be divided and at war forever. After all, if a prosperous democratic Iraq were to rise, there’s no guarantee that it will hate Iran, side with the US, and be friendly with Israel. So, just why not have Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, and others fight one another forever? This is how Jews play the game. Of course, Jews didn’t create the various root tensions around the world. Just like Protestants and Catholics bashed one another for a long time, there are real sectarian/ethnic divisions in the Middle East. And there is bad blood between certain westward-looking Ukrainians and Russian Ukrainians. Even so, things would not have gotten so out-of-hand if not for Jewish meddling. It’s like the Five Families in THE GODFATHER were getting along in relative peace until Barzini caused a rift by secretly backing Sollozzo ‘the Turk’ to move against the Corleones. Jews love intrigue as long as it stirs up trouble and causes divisions among their gentile enemies/rivals/competitors while boosting their own power. How would Jews like it if some foreign power manipulated politics in Israel so that nasty divisions will arise among Jews of different nationalities or between Sephardim Jews and Ashkenazi Jews? Jews like to maintain control over their own affairs. They see it as family business and demand that they handle and clean their own dirty laundry. But Jews are always interfering in the affairs of gentile communities and nations to cause rifts among gentile populations. So, Jews try to turn white gentile women against white gentile men. Jews try to provoke problems among various Asian nations as they have among various Arab peoples.
That’s what all this ‘pivot strategy’ is all about. Jews try to sow seeds of discord within Russia and between Russia and its neighboring nations. Jews can’t tolerate any other people meddling in their own Jewish affairs, but they are committed to turning goyim against goyim whenever and wherever possible. Indeed, even the EU system that the Jews support isn’t so much unity as disunity. Some might see the EU project as the coming together of various European peoples into one people, i.e. a hope for the peaceful co-existence of all Europeans. On the surface, such is the stated agenda, but look underneath and the EU project has created many divisions and tensions among Europeans who feel slighted, left out, and bullied. With so many nations in the EU, true unity is impossible, which is why there’s so much bickering. Jews love to see such discord among gentiles. Furthermore, as EU cannot come together, Jews manipulate it from all sides and try to foist certain rules and policies upon the EU that will only increase discord and tensions while maximizing Jewish control over all of Europe. Consider how Jews pushed laws in the EU that have effectively banned speech that is harshly critical of Jewish power. Indeed, if there’s one thing that is supposed to unte all of Europe, it’s worship of the Holocaust, collective guilt in regard to Jews, self-loathing of Europeans as ‘racist’, and mania for ‘diversity’. (Paradoxically, Europe is supposed to be united in supporting the policy of ‘diversity’ that only causes more divisions among goy populations.) Through control of the EU, Jews seek to force Open Borders policies on all European nations, and not only Open Borders among Europeans but between Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Thus, EU isn’t about really about EUROPEAN Union but the union of Europe with Africa and the Middle East. Even if the EU doesn’t allow African and Middle East nations into EU membership, the EU cult of ‘diversity’ and ‘open borders’ will effectively force every European nation to accept huge numbers of immigrants, invaders, and ‘refugees’ from outside Europe, and that means Europe will be destroyed demographically. With all the hip hop music, Afro-pop music, black domination of European sports, and the rise of interracial Afro-Euro porn, millions of white women will be encourage to have Obama-babies. After all, if a million black African men come to Europe, it will mean the arrival of a million black penises searching out for white poons. It might as well be called a 100 Million Black Dicks Project. As immigrants and migrants often happen to be men, they seek out native white women for sex. As for immigrant women, they have many more children than native white women. It’s a horror show that is unfolding in Europe due to Jewish influence, and yet, the #1 priority of Europeans is to suck up to Jews and destroy Russia. White race, a total disgrace. Anyway, as European men have been castrated & pussified and as European women have been ‘liberated’ from their roles as wives/mothers, many will prefer to adopt some black African baby than produce and raise their own kids. Thus, the Rape of Europe will be complete. At least when Russians raped German women during WWII, it was whites raping whites. The future of Europe will be the mass rape — willing or unwilling — of the white race at the hands of black Africans, and Jews are, of course, rubbing their hands and cackling with glee. Just like the indigenous populations of the New World were raped and miscegenated into mestizo-ness or mulatto-ness, whites in Europe will become mulatto-ized and Arab-ized in the coming decades. Jews have devised the system to work in that manner. If the EU project among Europeans has caused so many tensions within Europe itself, imagine the bigger headache as Europe is essentially merged demographically with Africa and the Middle East. But Jews love it since they wank off to goy-vs-goy porn. And since every European nation cares more about Jews than about themselves — indeed they feel great guilt in having persecuted Jews and take great pride in doing favors for Jews(as if one’s virtues and evils can be properly gauged only in relation to Jews) — , it will do its best to embrace its own racial/cultural demise with the consolation that, at the very least, the Jews are pleased. In the EU today, the toppermost morality goes as follows: If you do something that displeases Jews, you are a terrible person. But if you do something that pleases Jews, you’re alright. Jews might as well be the god of Europe.
It’s also difficult for European nations to say NO to the EU agenda because, despite their anxieties about the future, their national economies now depend on the EU. Greeks may not like the EU, but who’s going to bail them out? Many people in Poland harbor doubts about the EU, but they’ve come to depend on EU markets and monetary policies. So, each European nation must sell its soul and prostitute its daughter to Jews and Africans in order to have fancy cake than just bread. Jews say, "Let them eat cake and hand over their daughters to be defiled by us Jews and Negroes." So, EU should never be seen as the coming together of Europe. Jews push ‘unity’ to instigate more disunity(among goyim so that Jews could exploit the divisions). EU has essentially become a Jewish Imperium. Of course, the union of European nations might have developed differently — Hitler had his own vision of European unity, one as unpleasant as the Jewish one — , but the combination of Jewish control of the US, the cult of the holy Holocaust, and Jewish control of global finance made the control of EU slip out of European hands into the hands of dirty devious Jews. Jews use EU because they can push Judeo-centric political correctness through EU networks. So, even Poland has come under massive homo propaganda. As part of the EU, it has to bend over to the homo cabal. And it won’t be long before Poland too is flooded with Africans and Muslims. Jews control the EU like the Turks controlled the Ottoman Empire. The neo-imperial structure gives Jews immense power over the various Europeans. And just like imperialist overlords used divide-and-rule strategy to keep their diverse subjects at each other’s throats, Jews do the same throughout EU. Jews love to see Greeks, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Poles, and etc. all bitterly going at one another. And Jews love to see whites, blacks, Muslims, Asians, and etc. all accuse one another in every corner of Europe that is becoming ever more diverse. Amusingly enough, Jews side with non-white minorities against white majorities but also encourage whites to raise alarms about how poor helpless Jews must be protected from those Muslims and Africans. Jewish logic: "You whites are racist and Nazi-like if you don’t allow millions of Muslims and Africans into your nations, and you whites are antisemitic and Nazi-like if you don’t take measures to protect us wonderful Jews from those hateful Muslims and violent Africans." The fact that so many whites fall for this nonsense doesn’t do much to reassure our faith in mankind.
One positive outcome of immigration to Europe: Arabs and Africans kicking Jewish ass.
Anyway, if Jews have a problem with universal morality due to their cosmological contradiction — there is one God for all mankind, but Jews are the special Chosen, and goyim exist to serve Jews — and their evolutionary jackalism, Muslims have a problem with universal morality because Islam is a fusion of universalism and Arab tribalism. Islam never resolved the problem of being loaded with both the universal morality of Christianity and all the cultural baggage of Arab desert tribes. (To a large extent, religion is about loving what doesn’t love you, which is why faith is so crucial. It’s faith that imbues a member of any church with the hope that God will love him as he loves God. David has that kind of ‘faith’ in Steven Spielberg’s A.I.) Christianity doesn’t have too many rules outside faith — though Catholicism and Orthodox Faith tend to be more ritualistic than Protestantism — , but Islam is nothing with the HOW in being a good Muslim. Islam isn’t just what you believe but how you eat(or not eat), drink(or not drink), dress, and etc. Islam even tells its followers to see dogs as dirty and foul beasts(when any decent human heart recognizes dogs wonderful creatures). There are proper ways to pray in Islam and at what times of the day. Muslims will tell you that these rules came from Prophet Muhammad, but in truth, most of them were merely the cultural practices of Arab desert tribesmen. So, Islamic universalism became a means to impose the Arab way of life on the entire world; it universalized the cultural eccentricities of a particular tribe. Islam also requires all able-bodied Muslims to make the Hajj to Saudi Arabia, indeed as if Mecca is the center of the world. Also, though Islam means submission and humility before God, it is an arrogant religion with an aggressive view of the world. Unlike Christianity and Buddhism that should be disseminated through peace and persuasion — at least in theory — , Islam proclaims that Muslims have the right to use the sword to quell the infidels and convert non-believers to the faith.
We could argue Islam is more honest in what it preaches because, after all, much of Christian conversions also came about under the threat of the sword. But, it also means that Muslims are less likely to be reflective and remorseful about the horrors they’ve committed.
When Christians think back on the terror of the Teutonic Knights or the atrocities committed in the Crusades, they feel shame than pride.
But Muslims don’t lose sleep over all the blood spilt in the name of Allah and Muhammad. In this sense, Muslims are like Jews. They bow down before God, but they never apologize to non-Muslims or reflect on the violence carried out in Muhammad’s name. So, Muslim morality can never be as mutually universalist as the European kind. Also, many people in the Middle East tend to have haggly-waggly and/or cutthroat personalities. Having fought so many wars over few drops of water and camel dung in the hot dry desert, they’ve evolved into a ridiculous people. It’s like what Peter O’Toole says in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA: "So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are."
And of course, them ‘ragger’ buggers are still fighting tribe against tribe in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, and etc. It’s almost in their nature. There’s a saying, "It’s in the water." Arabs evolved the way they did because, "it’s the lack of water." What seems petty and ‘little’ to us made perfect evolutionary sense to a people who had to fight with other tribes over every ounce of water. Also, since the hot dry desert was lacking in many things, people there came to rely heavily on trade than on growing stuff in the soil below their feet. Oil came much later of course. Arabs had to constantly raid other villages or caravans or haggle like crazy to get an edge. So, those with the best skills at being cutthroat raiders or hagglers succeeded more and had more kids. As a result, Arabs/Semites are not a pleasant people. Worse, their women make that silly sound with their tongues flittering sideways like crazy. Imagine European women acting that way. And Semitic languages may have developed the way they did because the air was dry and there was a lot of sand blowing in the air. So, Arabs and Hebrews likely had to spit out the sand often and blow their noses a lot, which may be why Semitic languages sound very guttural, as if the speakers wanna spit or blow their big hooked noses. Because of the extreme climates of the Arab desert, the natives there became camel-ized. Camel, unlike a horse, is a peculiar animal. It evolved to survive in the extremely hot and dry conditions of the desert. People and animals who evolve under such circumstances are likely to develop not only extreme physical characteristics but emotional characteristics. So, Arabs not only have camel-noses but make funny-sounding music. (Northern Europeans evolved in different extreme conditions. If Arabs living under hot and dry conditions developed basically two modes of behavior — lethargy & rest when things were too hot and stealing & haggling when the things were cooler in the evening — , Northern European cultural traits developed under conditions of extreme cold, isolation, and darkness. Northern Europeans didn’t have to worry about water. It was plentiful in the form of lakes, rain, snow, and ice. What they had to worry about was shelter and food. Since food had to be grown during a short summer season, Northern Europeans had to be very mindful of the proper use of time. If not enough was grown during the warmer seasons, they would die during the long cold winter. Also, Northern Europeans had to be more mindful and focused at all times since they had to tend the fire and maintain the shelter — and feel the farm animals through the winter seasons — in order to survive the winter. For an Arab, when things got too hot, there was nothing he could do but sit in a shade or crawl into a tent and sleep. He couldn’t turn off the heat, and there was no way a ‘ragger’ in the middle of a desert was going to invent air conditioning. If people in hot climes could do nothing about the heat except hide from it and rest, people in cold climes could do something about the cold. They could build permanent shelters and keep it warm inside by burning well-stocked logs through the winter. Northern Europeans needed to work more and be more sober throughout the year to survive. Though Arabs in the hot climes needed to think ahead too in consideration of water and heat, there wasn’t much he could do beyond securing wells and guarding them. In contrast, Northern Europeans could do much to improve their living conditions by planning ahead. Though the cold climate and geographical isolation made Northern Europeans lag behind the Near East, North Africa, India, and Southern Europe in cultural development, the evolutionary pressures that made Northern Europeans into a sober, focused, sturdy, and mindful — with time and material — well-prepared them to take the lead in civilization once the more advanced modes/ideas that had developed in the more populous south spread to the north. It’s like evolution prepared blacks to be better at many sports, which is why once Negroes were handed the boxing gloves, baseball bats, and basketballs, they whupped everyone else with ease. Though geographical conditions made it less likely for Northern Europeans to develop advanced civilization first, evolution may have made them most capable in taking the ideas that developed in the south to their furthest limit.)
As for blacks, they never developed any great religion or philosophy through history. But even if we were to argue that black African backwardness owed to geographical isolation, tropical diseases, and other such factors beyond their control, the fact remains that blacks are emotionally too aggressive, uninhibited, jive-ass, funky-wunky, and nasty(possibly the most commonly used word among blacks, indeed even more than ‘nigger’ and ‘motherfuc*er; indeed blacks love to holler ‘dis taste nasty’, ‘dat smell nasty’, ‘he nasty’, ‘she nasty’, ‘you nasty’, ‘look nasty’, etc.) My theory is that blacks love to use that word because nastiness just comes so naturally to them. Though blacks know ‘nasty’ is a negative word, they seem to obsess over it since so much of themselves and their world be so nasty or naaaasty! Indeed, most of the Noble Negro image and myth was the creation of do-gooder whites who projected sanctimoniousness and dignity onto the Negroes who lacked those qualities. Liberal elites did it to (1) allay white ‘racist’ fears of blacks (2) to allay their own trepidations about blacks (3) they mistook black colorfulness for genuine spiritual/moral soulfulness and (4) they wanted blacks to look to and emulate the Ideal Negro as favored by ‘good’ whites. For a time, white oppression ensured that Negroes couldn’t act too wild and instead sing songs about picking cotton than hollering like apes, beating up whitey, and raping whitey’s wife. So, for a long time, blacks were singing stuff like "Ole Man River". But once blacks got their freedom, they began to revert to their naturally nasty ways, which is why black culture is now totally nasty and ‘niggerish’.
Anyway, nastiness isn’t conducive to moral thinking and feeling. Blacks are natural thugs and ass-shakers. Of course, black thuggery is an advantage and admirable quality in the tribal world of African warrior-hunters. But what is natural in the wild is a pathology in civilization. So, blacks have been very difficult to deal with.
But, white folks always dreamed of the Noble Negro. In many cases, those who dreamt most of such nonsense had very little contact with black reality. Harriet Beecher Stowe was a Northern woman and didn’t know a lot of Negroes face-to-face. She cooked up a mythic Negro in her pea-sized brain. And when we watch the Morgan Freeman Noble Negro BS in movies like SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, we know the people who wrote and directed it had very little contact with Real blacks(or maybe they did and that’s way they served up racial pablum that would put moviegoers at ease since movies are a form of escapism).. The most honest look at real blackness prevailed in the 1970s and late 80s and 90s. In the late 60s and 70s, blacks rebelled against the notion of the Uncle Tom Negro, and therefore, Hollywood produced some movies with more grit and realism about black social reality. And the rise of rap music and black film-making beginning with Spike Lee opened the door for more realistic depiction of black American life. In contrast, during much of the 80s, the Negro was simply the funny guy or the sidekick. Now, with the rise of Oprah and Obama cults, we are back to pushing the Noble Negro myth.
Anyway, true morality and conscience requires empathy, self-criticism, reflectiveness, emotional maturity, and critical thinking. The problem isn’t only that black generally have lower IQs but their emotional makeup tends to be extremely self-centered. If Chinese collectively thought of themselves as the Middle Kingdom and if Jews collectively saw themselves as the Chosen of God, each Negro and every Negress done think he or she be the center of the entire damn universe. Every Negro done think he be some ultra-badass mofo. Every Negress done think she be some hot mama who done deserve all the respect in the world and who done think she be the one to be telling others what to think. Take that stupid and trashy Michelle Obama. An ‘affirmative action’ queen with barely two neurons in her brains, had she any emotional sense, she would know her real place in the order of things. But since she be some nasty-ass black ho who done think she knows everything and done demand, she act like a nasty bitch with everyone. Deep down inside, she must know she a dumb ho. She must know everyone at Princeton and Harvard was smarter than her. But her nasty-ass black bitch ego simply cannot face the music. Instead, she acts like she really is something special, and that it be other people’s fault that all she wanna do not be getting done. Damn honkey biatches be standing in her way! Shoo! Michelle is like many Negresses who be undergoing the Negro-claustrophobia syndrome. The real Negress side of her wants to howl like gorilla, shake her booty like some skankass ho, scream like a baboon, and move her neck around like a crazy chicken. But she went to elite schools and was told that she’s a real achiever. And she was surrounded by whites, Asians, Jews, and homos who were a lot smarter than her. So, she tried to prove that she is indeed one of them too, ie she too is intellectual, she too is academic, she too is brainy, she too is ‘serious’. But in truth, she’s a faker because her mind is, at best, is B-material. If not for ‘affirmative action’, she would have been lucky to enter a public university. So, she tries so hard to be taken seriously, but the fact is she really wants to holler and shake her big-ass booty like a skankass ho. But since her hubby is a ‘historic president’, she has to play it respectable. But, we can see it in her facial expressions and tell by her body gestures and the strained voice that she feels straitjacketed in whiteness. She has to ‘act white’ but doesn’t feel natural doing it. She wants to holler like an ape, swing from trees, and shake her big-ass booty.
The purported ‘higher morality’ of the Negro is essentially a construct of the Liberal White Imagination. Consider the opening of Steven Spielberg’s A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE where a serious-looking coal-black scientist-engineer(ROTFL) poses a MORAL question to the head scientist played by William Hurt. Hurt, as the brilliant white man, represents cold logic and control-freak neurosis. And Asian scientist who says something about lover-robots represents the smart but vapid & horny geek. But it is the BLACK woman who represents morality as something like a spiritual ideal. Now, of course, it’s true that there are black women with some degree of moral sense, but A.I. elevates black conscience as a kind of superior moral archetype. While white and yellow scientists might be better than her in the brain department, she has more heart0-and-soul. By and large, of course, this isn’t true. If anything, blacks are the least moral people in the world. If Jews are too smart for conventional morality — which they deride as opiate for dimwit goyim — , blacks are too stupid for even that. But if Jews and blacks share one thing, it’s an excess of self-centeredness that makes them less caring for others. Jewish conscience is, by and large, a put-on to bait ‘white guilt’. After all, white conscience is about white guilt/atonement in regard to others whereas Jewish conscience is about, well, white guilt and atonement in regard to Jews. The black morality bull-jive in films like A.I. derive its power from (1) white goy fantasizing to assuage their supposed collective ‘white guilt’ (2) Jewish manipulation to milk ‘white guilt’ for all its worth (3) black lack of self-reflection and over-abundance of self-aggrandizement and (4) black colorfulness and black magic power. If blacks were more reflective and self-reflecting, they’d tell white Liberals to cut it out and stop promoting blacks as a race of saints because it simply isn’t true. There have been some blacks who’ve done just that, like Arthur Ashe and Thomas Sowell who argued that blacks shouldn’t simply scream ‘racism’ and act the poor ‘victim’ all the time. (But then, they’ve been elevated by Conservatives as the most perfect and brilliant individuals that ever lived.) But, by and large, many more blacks are like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Indeed, black jivery is so potent that even many light-skinned blacks are full of themselves. Just look at Cornel West and Michael Dyson. In essence, most blacks are only self-righteous and aggressive on the morality front. But this aspect of blackery wouldn’t be so out-of-control if not for the natural/biological fact that blacks are more brash, more forceful, louder, and funkier. If blacks had the physiques and personalities of South American Indians, there would hardly be a racial cult around them. Blacks are more like chimpanzees and gorillas in their wild-ass style and ‘jigabooery’. If not for the blinding cult of ‘white guilt’, whites might see blacks for what they are. A race of stronger and more aggressive folks who should be watched with wariness. But because of the history of black slavery and European colonialism in Africa, there’s a tendency among whites to moralize black forcefulness as something than brutishness. If one were to honestly identify and discuss black forcefulness and colorfulness in terms of its animality, savagery, and lunacy, it would be condemned as ‘racist’ and ‘evil’ especially in light of the historical record. In a nutshell, the forces of Political Correctness will lecture us that it was such negative views of blacks — as wild and uncivilized savages of the Dark Continent — that justified slavery, imperialism, and colonialism. (But if that’s true, how come white Conquistadores treated the indigenous natives of the New World worse than blacks? Whites didn’t see the natives in Meso-America as particularly wild and savage, but the latter fared no better. If anything, worse.) So, even if such a view is correct, it’s impermissible because whites are supposed to be in the mode of collective penance. Thus, black forcefulness and animality have been moralized and spiritualized. And of course, plenty of blacks know how to play this game. So, if a black demagogue hollers and screams, we aren’t supposed to see him as a lunatic but as a brimstone-and-hellfire prophet. If a black woman howls like a gorilla in heat — like Aretha Franklin or some other black ho walloping around like an ape — , we are supposed to see it as some kind of spiritual rapture when it’s just gorillian-ness(though impressive sometimes, as when the Negress be hollering ‘gimmahhh gimmahhh’ in Rolling Stones’ "Gimme Shelter"). Amusingly enough, Liberals, who profess to be for egalitarianism and against any mindless worship of power, worship the Negro and Negress for his harder muscles and louder(more threatening) voices. It’s interesting that every powerful Negro figure is like a black Hitler — or Hitler was like the ‘white nigger’ of his age as he sure wasn’t ‘white bread’. So, how has this contradiction within white Liberalism be sustained?
It’s because black forcefulness has been re-jiggered by the media and academia as not being forcefulness-for-forcefulness sake but a source of spiritual wisdom and a product of unparalleled historical pain. But if great historical pain leads to such forcefulness, how come we don’t find such loud gorillian-types among South American Indians or Cambodian refugees?
In truth, black brashness and forcefulness are really the product of black genetics and should be regarded as such. One can admire or despise such qualities, but they aren’t the moral/spiritual product of history. Of course, black expressions convey a certain historical baggage, but it would be fallacious to conflate black emotional aggressiveness and moral righteousness as the same thing. In truth, blacks would be emotionally just as aggressive and wild EVEN IF slavery and imperialism under whites had never happened. It’s simply in their genes. But because of the cult of ‘white guilt’, white Liberals and Jews who control the media and academia have tried to explain the nature of black forcefulness in relation to white ‘historical guilt’. (In truth, the black nature was forged through 100,000s of yrs of evolution steeped in tribal mayhem and violence in Sub-Saharan Africa.) Since black rage has become associated so closely with black righteousness, there developed the silly notion that black forcefulness is a form of moralism in and of itself. So, even when worthless rappers, black demagogues, or black thugs howl with rage, plenty of white Liberals regard it as an outpouring of powerful morality. At its most ridiculous, black forcefulness and aggressiveness aren’t merely conflated with moral passion but with reason/logic itself, which may explain why idiot black students have been winning some collegiate debating contests. These Negro contestants are expected to employ logic or rational argument. All they need do is make a lot of noise, say a lot of gibberish, and act like gorillas. The white Liberal fallacy that conflates black powerfulness(in personality and antics), black rage, and black morality as the one and the same thing easily falls for such tomfoolery.
Such mind-set makes a similar argument for outright black thuggery as well, which is why white Liberals have been so desperate to rationalize black crime and thuggery in terms of righteous black rage. When blacks were going nuts in the 60s and 70s, plenty of white Liberals said it was righteous and understandable rage at the System that had kept blacks down for too long. Now, there was some degree of truth to this. When a people have long been oppressed and suppressed, there are gonna be outbreaks of violence when the pressure is finally released. All ‘liberation’ struggles saw outbreaks of violence that accompanied dramatic social/political shifts. And it would be disingenuous for whites to deny this since there had been plenty of white riots during key moments of crises. And in India and China today, there are plenty of populist protests, even riots. So, there was some validity to the idea in the 60s and 70s that black violence should be understood within the social, economic, and cultural context of the black experience instead of simply being condemned as blacks-acting-crazy. Of course, some lowdown leftists added gas to the flames and encouraged blacks to act even crazier in order to bring down the System. But there were lots of white Liberals who were sincere in their desire to understand blacks better and come to terms with historical of racial discrimination that had been real enough. (Of course, Jews taking a leading position in this ‘struggle’ was an easy way to absolve themselves of the blame that they’d been just as discriminatory against and exploitative of blacks as any other white group had been. If anything, more than most other ethnic groups, Jewish agents and managers fleeced Jews in sports and entertainment and hoarded the loot for themselves. By funding and leading the Civil Rights Movement, Jews could maintain their sweet deals with black entertainers & athletes, and sweep under the rug the historical fact that Jews had greatly profited from black talents without giving blacks their financial due. In fact, Jews in sports and entertainment have long had the attitudes and mentality of someone like Donald Sterling. Jews might call it ‘plantation economics’ or ‘plantation politics’, but Jews have treated gentiles like this all over the world. Just ask Russians and Palestinians. Just look at ourselves as Jews on Wall Street and Las Vegas fleece us left and right.) If indeed, blacks were merely whites with black skin, white Liberal socio-political diagnosis might have been proven correct. After all, who can deny that blacks were given the shorter end of the stick through most of American history? And surely, one can understand how it was hurtful for blacks to be denigrated on so many levels of a white-dominated society. So, with improved conditions and more effort on the part of whites, things might have improved a great deal in race relations between blacks and whites. But as it turned out, blacks aren’t simply white folks with black skin. By nature, they are a different race. They are biologically stronger, more aggressive, wilder, funkier, ape-like, punkass, and jigger-jiver-ish, and this was really the product of 100,000 yrs of evolution in Africa than 250 yrs of servitude in America. And black genetics were more the product of competition with lions, hyenas, leopards, hippos, elephants, crocodiles, baboons, tse-tse-flies, and etc. than of oppression under white massuhs. Africa was filled with so many dangerous animals that weak and nice Negroes got weeded out. Stronger blacks survived to chuck spears at hippos for dinner. If the spear missed and if a hippo ran after a Negro, he had to run like a ‘mothafuc*a’. And black women had to compete with baboons for gopher-meat, and that meant black women had to be wild-assed and jumpy-assed. And since it was hot and wild in Africa, blacks had nothing to do but shake their booties and swing their dongs all night long, which is why blacks are so booty-crazy.
But white Liberals, in their neo-puritanical and ‘anti-racist’ naivete, swallowed the Jewish BS that race is all just a social construct, which means that blacks are merely whites with black skins. So, what worked for poor whites in the past should work for poor blacks. But it didn’t work because blacks are different under the skin. Though part of the human species, they sometimes act as crazy as gorillas and chimpanzees. Also, once blacks learned that they are stronger than whites(and realized that white folks are scared half-to-death of blacks), their forcefulness went from the moralist antics of MLK to rowdy jungle-jive thuggery of the Black Panthers and Mike Tyson. But white Liberals have been blind to this because of the cult of ‘white guilt’. So loathe are white Liberals — and conservatives too — to see black forcefulness for what it truly is — animalistic product of 100,000 yrs of evolution in Africa — that they’ve moralized the aggression and thuggery as righteous rage stemming from history. Such a view has led to Moral Paralysis or ‘Moralysis’ of White Guilt that prevents the white race from doing what is necessary to unite, fight, and survive. (In a society founded on ‘progressive moral principles’, those with the moral upper-hand have the Ace card that trumps all the other cards. As long as blacks wield the ‘white guilt’ card and Jews wield the ‘antisemitic guilt’ card, whites will remain stuck in state of ‘moralysis’ no matter how bad things get. I mean things cannot get worse than Detroit, but NO ONE in the ‘respectable’ community has made a sane and proper race-ist argument as to how and why blacks destroyed that once great city. Instead, we have blacks and Democrats blaming it on ‘racism’, and we have Conservatives and libertarians blaming it on ‘socialism’. The only way the white race can dig itself out of the hole of ‘moralysis’ is to counter Jewish/black moralism against whites with white moralism against Jews and blacks. Follow the example of David Duke and attack Jews for their history of religious bigotry, finance capitalist douche-baggery, communist mass oppression, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, Wall Street/Las Vegas shenanigans, and the demographic destruction of the West. And tag blacks with robbery, rape, murder, and violence. Accuse blacks of having been a race of thugs in Africa for 100,000s of yrs. Stress the fact that African blacks captured blacks and sold them to whites. Only thus will whites have their own moral Ace card against Jews and blacks. And then we can play a proper moral poker game and kick some Jew/Negro ass. While Moral Progressiveness of the West has been a great thing, it has been turned cancerous and is now devouring than developing the West. Jewish germs mutated the moral genetics of the West into one of self-loathing and suicidal-ism.) Such a naive white Liberal view has been applied to the thundering soulfulness of black leaders such as MLK — a lowdown thug in real life — but also to black physical thuggery, which is why so many white Liberals admire Jack Johnson as much as they do MLK and Oprah. Jack Johnson was a thug, pure and simple. And he would have acted the way he did if he’d been born in our times. But because of the overtly racially bigoted era in which he lived, his wild antics and aggressive thuggery have been moralized into righteous revenge for all the wrongs done to black folks. While one can make such a case on sociological grounds — it must have been therapeutic for some blacks to see a black man rise to the level of champion in a society that was rife with anti-black prejudice — , it still remains the case that Johnson was, at best, an accidental hero. A true hero has something good and honorable that is intrinsic to his soul. An accidental hero just happens to be at the right place at the right time(or wrong time in Johnson’s case). Because of the racial injustice of the era in which he lived, even a thug like Johnson could be perceived as a hero, then or retroactively. It’s like, in a war, even a psychopath who killed just for the fun of killing could be hailed as a patriotic hero. Because of the history of white repression of blacks, a lot of negative and dangerous aspects of the black character and makeup have been misconstrued in morally justifiable terms. It’s like this: suppose you catch a big and wild dangerous animal and mistreat it for a long spell. You’ve clearly done something wrong as no creature deserves to be treated with cruelty. Anyway, suppose after all the years of abuse, the big and dangerous animal has been cowered and tamed(for the time being). Suppose you begin to feel sorry and want to atone for what you’ve done. Since you mistreated it on the basis that it’s big and dangerous, you convince yourself to stop seeing it as big and dangerous. And since it has been tamed, you figure it should be set loose and free. Once freed, suppose it begins to growl at you. Since you feel guilty, especially over having deemed the creature as ‘big and dangerous’, you try to convince yourself that its growls have nothing to do with its innate nature and instead everything to do with righteous rage in regard to the abuses it has suffered. You figure that if you treat it nice, it will finally calm down. But the nicer you treat it, more aggressive it gets. It takes a swipe at you, and you’re afraid because of its size and strength, but you dare not mention its bigger size and strength since its savagery and dangerousness had been invoked by you in the past to justify your capturing, abusing, and taming of it. We can surely see what’s wrong with this picture. At its core is a big fat fallacy. While it’s true that you mistreated the beast and the beast is partly angry at you for what you’d done, it’s still the case that it is, by nature, bigger, stronger, wilder, stronger, and more dangerous than you. Because blacks had been tamed and domesticated by white ruthlessness, a lot of whites got to thinking that blacks weren’t all that dangerous. This was true especially outside the American South where white folks didn’t have to deal with real blacks. Paradoxically, it had been white brutality and ruthlessness that had made blacks palatable for white Liberals. White Liberals wept over the image of the kind of Negro as shown in TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD. Save the poor poor helpless Negro!! But why did such ‘poor and helpless’ Negroes exist in the first place? Because they were made to fear the white man in the South. Once such fears dissipated, blacks got to seeing white guys as ‘pussy-ass’ white boys to beat up and white girls as easy meat to conquer(as white boys were to afraid to come between black boys and white girls). The mountain-sized Negro who wuvs a wittle white mouse is a white Liberal myth. To be sure, there are some white Liberals who laugh at such nonsense and find it offensive. The more ‘radical’ and ‘committed’ Liberals claim to be on with reality than with fantasy, but they too are under the romantic fixation with black forcefulness as a redemptive hope for ‘lame racist whites’.
Uncle Tom, the Noble and Tame Negro. But who tamed him? And what would he have been like without the taiming?
Anyway, blacks are, by nature, more tribal, more savage, more aggressive, more self-centered, and more self-aggrandizing. The notion of black moral archetype in A.I. raising the issue of moral reciprocity between man and robot is just too funny. What comes out of her mouth is clearly very un-black: "It occurs to me with all this animus existing against Mechas today it isn't just a question of creating a robot that can love. Isn't the real conundrum, can you get a human to love them back? But you haven't answered my question. If a robot could genuinely love a person what responsibility does that person hold toward that Mecha in return? It's a moral question, isn't it?" ROTFL. A Negress is worried about a conundrum? Maybe a cucumungandrum but since when do blacks care about anything or anyone other than they-selves? Anyone who’s been reading black columnists, pundits, and intellectuals should know by now that blacks are all about me, me, and me or black, black, and black. While all actors spout words written by others, what the black woman says in A.I. doesn’t even sound like it was formulated within her own mouth, let alone her own head. But she’s black and blackness is supposed to be morally commanding and compelling, and black forcefulness and commanding-ness are supposed to be synonymous with serious moral-spiritual concern — consider the cult around MLK, Mandela, Rosa Parks, and Oprah — , and so, we must be very hush-hush whenever some Negro or Negress pontificates about something, as if indeed the words are coming out of mouths of angels. (Funniest is Patrick Ewing as an angel in THE EXORCIST III. By the way, why the deification of Mandela but not Arafat?) But of course, reality(being race-ist) has its own revenge since fantasy cannot sustain itself in the real world. So, Bill Clinton decided to lock up a whole bunch of dangerous Negroes, and New York and other big Liberal cities enforced all sorts of policies to control the Negroes demographically, legally, or culturally. Such real measures were the reasons why crime went down in the 90s. Clinton spoke ‘correctly’ but carried a big nightstick. The Homo Agenda has been especially helpful in pressuring blacks to move to the back of the bus and watch themselves so that Jews and homo elites can ride up front.

At any rate, black victimology is morally worthless since blacks are only capable of seeing themselves as victims. With many blacks, such lack of moral empathy and imagination is due to their low IQ, but it’s not just a matter of intelligence but temperament, as indeed smart blacks are just as lacking in reflectiveness as the dumb ones are. Also, it’s not true that intelligence = bigger heart. Adolf Hitler was a smart guy but empty of heart and soul. Plenty of Jews are very smart but utterly lacking in any moral consideration beyond ‘what is good for the Jews?’ In contrast, plenty of dumb people are full of good will and remorse. Like dogs, some dumb folks even feel guilty for things they didn’t even do. The real problem with blacks is their temperament. Having evolved as warriors and warrioresses against lions, hyenas, baboons, and other nasty Negro tribes, blacks FEEL in terms of ‘my ass than your punkass!’ So, even though it is true enough that blacks had been done wrong in the American past, it’s impossible to come to any mutual understanding with them since they can only think and feel in terms of "FUC* YOU HONKEY, GIMME MO AND MO AND MO AND MO!" All this reparations thing isn’t about historical justice. It’s about blacks wanting something for free since it’s in their nature to demand and demand and demand. They be like childish apes who want free bananas forever. Black morality can never be universalist. It’s only about blacks. But don’t expect blacks to care about other blacks. Whenever blacks talk about ‘racial justice’, they really men they-selves or ‘me, me, me’. Black leaders will cheat and rob other blacks just for their own self-aggrandizement. Blacks scream ‘black, black, black’, but it all comes down to ‘I, me, mine’, and in this sense, blacks are as self-centered as chimpanzees. It’s only natural that rap music has become THE cultural expression of the black community. Though called ‘black music’, it’s really ‘black-and-me music’, what with every rapper yammering about HE is the ultimate badass rap thug. (Attitude goes a long way, and the prevailing attitude among black youths steeped in rap culture is that they know everything simply because they be so badass. They can’t even be bothered to pull their pants up and cover their underwear, they can’t even be bothered to attend school regularly and do their homework, and they can’t even be bothered to learn to appreciate culture outside the black community — unless it’s stupid video games and dumb blockbuster Hollywood movies — , but they think they know everything. The world is rich with art, history, literature, and diversity, and one requires the proper attitude of curiosity, humility, reverence, and appreciation to learn something about peoples and cultures, but the attitude behind rap is "I be the center of the universe cuz I can spout off foul-mouthed nursery rhymes and dis everybody and everything as ‘punkass’." How can a culture grow and expand with such a rotten attitude? Unfortunately, this poisonous rap attitude is spreading around the world, encouraging young people to see the world in terms of pimps and whores and disregard and dismiss everything that isn’t ‘badass’.) Indeed, a lot of blacks are so busy insulting and whupping one another that they got no time for anything else.
Blacks are especially immoral these days since their worst natural instincts are openly encouraged. Black pathology has been made synonymous with black morality. As a result, blacks think acting crazy, nasty, unpleasant, vicious, vile, and hateful is moral. If Germans act like Hitler, that would be evil, but if blacks act like Hitler, that would be seen as wonderful. This is especially dangerous since blacks are, by nature, unreflective, childish, self-centered, and vicious. If you encourage blacks to act in such manner and then excuse and even elevate such behavior as ‘radical’ or ‘authentic’, blacks will become even more difficult to deal with. And of course, this is why Liberals, for all their PC yammering about ‘racial justice’, opted to support policies that imprisoned lots of Negroes and/or gentrically cleansed blacks out of huge swaths of big cities. Though things were certainly more unfair for blacks in the past, one positive thing about past discrimination was it discouraged the worst instincts of blacks. Forced to restrain their lusts and viciousness and pressured to prove themselves as ‘credit to their race’, blacks felt compelled to go against their natural propensity for self-righteous and self-aggrandizing jivery. They were forced to be somewhat reflective, and this gave rise to such men as Booker T. Washington. Even when black leaders, intellectuals, and artists rejected white pressures, they still felt they needed to make their cases in a serious, intelligent, mature, and dignified manner, which is why black culture produced men like W.E.B Du Bois, Langston Hughes, Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright, James Baldwin, and etc. It’s like the last thing a natural alcoholic needs is to be encouraged to drink more and praised for his drunkenness. Today, Afroholics are drunk on their jungle charisma and charlatan rapper hyperbole.
How about Asian-Americans as hopeful practitioners and purveyors of universal morality in years to come? There’s been a steady stream of Asian-American immigration in recent yrs, and Asian-Americans seem to be a lot calmer than Negroes. Since many of them read books, do homework, and graduate from college at high rates, could we rely on them to be standard-bearers of higher principled morality? I would argue that faith in yellows(and the Asian-Indian browns though for different reasons) is misplaced. Paradoxically, universal morality encompassing all the people of the world requires a strong sense of individual morality. Universal morality isn’t merely about quantity — how many people ascribe to certain set of principles — but about quality. For morality to be of quality, it calls on independent individual conscience. Without such independence and individuality, higher morality simply isn’t possible. Morality without individual reflection, thought, and conscience can only be a traditional, communal, collective, ideological, dogmatic, or fashionable form of morality. An arch-conservative doesn’t question the premises from which his received values sprung. Collectivists have a herd-mentality, therefore a herd-morality that is lemming-like.. Most leftists and Liberals rely on ideology or dogma for their sense of right and wrong. Today, many young people absorb their sense of right and wrong from the buzz and flash of fashion. So, Donald Sterling is the worst man since Hitler because Twitter went nuts over what he said — even though what he said about blacks is mild compared to some of the criticisms leveled by Bill Cosby(who, in typical black fashion, lacks self-reflection as he’s been responsible for numerous sexual abuses and even rape) and Chris Rock. So, why was Rock’s tirade okay but Sterling’s mild private musings about blacks were not? Rock did it in a fashionable manner as a standup comedian in front of a crowd looking for laughter. Morality-as-fashion is close to useless for it lacks consistency. Usually, Jewish comics like Howard Stern and Sarah Silverman can get away with just about anything whereas Don Imus of the ‘nappy-headed hos’ must defer to others and get on his knees. Who determines what is and isn’t fashionable? The mass media, and who owns the mass media? The masses? No, the Jewish elites do. Even Twitter, though touted as ‘democratic’, reinforces elite/celebrity domination since the biggest news on Twitter tend to center around the ‘tweets’ by or about big-name stars, celebrities, and/or powerful/famous people. Rarely does a ‘tweet’ by an ordinary person become a hot topic — and when they do, it turns out that most ordinary people are mind-slaves of politically correct MSM and public schools. Sites like Twitter are less about the voices of the people than about voices of sheeple crowding around a few famous names(made famous by the Jewish powers-that-be who control the media).

Higher morality is neither conservative nor liberal. It is individualist, though one mustn’t fall into the fallacy of thinking something is more moral simply because it’s individualistically contrarian. One can be independent-minded and still be wrong about everything. One can go with herd-mentality & herd-morality and still be closer to the truth. If an independent-minded person argues that murder is good whereas a herd-minded person just goes along with the conventional morality that murder is bad, who has more sense? Even so, an independent-minded person still processes facts, data, stimuli, ideas, and values through his conscious will and arrives at a conclusion by the way of personal introspection and reflection. A herd-minded person just goes along with whatever happens to be the Truth of the Moment. Therefore, an independent-minded person at least has the ability to think of good vs bad on his or her own terms whereas the herd-minded person is totally at the mercy of the elites, powers-that-be, and/or the rowdy mob that reinforces peer pressure and peer passion.
Sometimes, the herd-minded person may appear to be independent for reasons of historical accident. So, a herd-minded Liberal may think he or she is free-thinking because his or her views are at odds with the mainstream. When ‘gay marriage’ was favored by only a few, many Liberals who supported the radical homo agenda surely felt this way. Since they sided with a minority view, they could fool themselves that they were free-thinkers who rose above the fray. But more likely, most proponents of ‘gay marriage’ even back when it was a laughable notion — indeed even among many homos — were merely goose-stepping mind-goons of homomaniacal political correctness that was drummed into their silly heads by ‘radical’ professors in the academia and trashy/shallow celebrities in the mass media(run by Jews). There are plenty of minority positions that have nothing to do with independent thought. The hippie movement never came close to winning over the majority of young people in the 60s and 70s, and it prided itself on being the ‘counter-culture’. But most hippies were mindless pothead conformists who were into being ‘groovy’ and ‘far out’. Listen to the interviews with attendees of the concert in WOODSTOCK the movie, and they seem to speak the same kind of lingo.
Of course, Conservatives can make the same mistake. As ‘gay marriage’ becomes the law of the land thanks to the Jewish-homo or Jomo cabal, more and more Conservatives are finding themselves to be in the minority and on the ‘wrong side of history’. Since they choose to stick with their ideals and values against the prevailing winds, they see themselves as free-thinkers who stick up for independent-minded principles. But more often than not, what most Conservatives espouse and believe in has little to do with independent thought. Their positions are herd-mentality positions that were once the dominant views of society. It just so happens that society changes(according to the wishes of the elites and their brainwashed mobs), and one herd-mentality overtakes another herd-mentality. So, the rise of ‘gay marriage’ and Conservative resistance are both cases of herd-mentality, even thought latter makes sense whereas the former doesn’t at all. Though there are relatively independent-minded thinkers on both sides, most ‘gay marriage’ proponents are herd-minded dupes, and most opponents of the homo agenda are Conservatives with a knee-jerk resistance to anything new and different.
However, since most Conservatives are herd-minded, they can gradually be brought over to accept the ‘new normal’, for which they will then become the most vociferous champions. If one day, the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin argue that ‘gay marriage’ is a very Conservative idea, then most herd-minded Conservatives will go along or offer at most meek/silent resistance. The reason why so many Conservatives have been won over to Jew-worship, MLK-worship, Oprah-worship, interracism, open borders, libertarian tomfoolery, and even ‘gay marriage’ is because most of them are intrinsically herd-minded.
And of course, both the Liberal elites and Conservative elites prefer the herd-minds over the independent-minds since sheep are much easier to control than lone wolves. And herd-mentality is especially favored by Jews — who run both American Liberalism and American Conservatism — since they comprise the elites and seek to manipulate the goy masses who are incapable of thinking independently. If goy herds really began to think about reality, their thoughts would lead to the obvious questions as to "why do Jews have so much power, and why do they bitch and whine about ‘white privilege’ when they got the most power and privilege?"
There was a time when many Jews were indeed for independent-minded thinking. When the elites were goyim — Wasp in America — and when herd-mentality used to be knee-jerkedly ‘racist’ and suspicious of Jews(if not outright antisemitic), Jews favored independent-minded thinkers since their views and expressions infused the culture-at-large with elements of doubt, skepticism, contrarian-ism, and dissidence. It meant the encouragement of speaking truth to power against both the gentile elites and the gentile mobs.
Currently however, we have a situation where Jewish elites sit atop the throne(with gentile elites sucking their toes) and look down with derision at the gentile mobs. The last thing that the Jasp(Jewish-Ashkenazi Supremacist Power) elites want is for gentiles to think independently because, after all, independent-minded people will begin to notice or know-tice things of an ‘inconvenient’ nature. So, instead of aiding us to see the truth about the nature of Jewish power, the Jasp elites saturate the media with nonsense about homos and transgender this or that. But most Conservatives are just as useless as the Liberals. For one thing, the so-called Conservative elites are totally bought and sold by Jewish bidders and scared shitless of their Jewish masters. As for most Conservative masses, their main worry seems to be all those Mooslims, all those Russkies, and all those Ching Chong Chinese when the most powerful enemies/destroyers of conservatives and the white race are the freaking hideous Jews. Many Conservatives are so retarded that their main shtick is that they are the truest opponents of ‘racism’ when a true conservative would, instead, question the very notion of such a concept as ‘racism’(and ‘homophobia’). Dumb Conservatives protest, "We are not racist" and "We are not homophobic" instead of demonstrating that ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ are both bogus terms and dirty Jewish distortion of language and truth. As long as Conservatives play by Liberal rules of terminology and narrative, they are bound to lose. All they’re doing is trying to prove that they themselves are even ‘more liberal’ than Liberals. Indeed, when the main argument of Conservatism is that it is more truly ‘liberal’ than Liberalism, what’s the point? It’s like the unwitting conundrum into which Jack Torrance falls into in THE SHINING by Stanley Kubrick. At one point, he becomes skeptical of Lloyd the bartender and demands to know who is paying for his drinks. Later in the washroom, he accuses Delbert Grady of having killed his own family. In both cases, he’s being defiant, argumentative, and defensive of his egotistical turf. But it doesn’t matter. He can’t win because, defiant or not, he has accepted the ‘reality’ of the phantom realm that has come to engulf his consciousness. The only true/effective form of resistance would be to remind himself that there are no ghosts, and there’s only reality. But once he falls into the ghost world, he can argue with ghosts all he wants. It won’t do him any good. His very arguing with ghosts implies that he has accepted the ‘reality’ of the ghost world. So, it’s only a matter of time before the ghosts turn him to serve their agenda. Likewise, as long as Conservatives invoke the narrative and terminology put forth by Jewish Liberals, their ‘conservatism’ can be toyed with and remolded by Liberal mind-benders. (Incidentally, could THE SHINING’s mountain setting be an allusion to all those German Mountain Films loved by the German Right and Hitler? Leni Riefenstahl certainly got her start in mountain films. In some ways, THE SHINING is like a combination of Kafka and Riefenstahl. Nuremberg Maze. And maybe there’s a kind of reference to Hitler’s mountain home Berghof. And maybe an allusion to MAGIC MOUNTAIN by Thomas Mann as well? And the scene near the end where Jack stalks Danny with an ax in the hallway likely inspired a few things in JURASSIC PARK where a raptor stalks the two kids who hide in the kitchen. JURASSIC PARK is kinda like a Kubrick film for kiddies.)
Defiance after Acceptance is Futile
Skepticism under Hypnosis is Useless
Anyway, though it’s wrong to categorize all Asians as one-and-the-same, it’s true enough that Asians(or East Asians at least) tend to have certain temperamental and emotional traits that tend to be more prominent among their kind.
(East Asian traits can also be recognized to some extent on the natives of the Americas since they migrated from Asia in the past 10,000 to 20,000 yrs). By surveying nations like China, Japan, Taiwan, the Koreas, Singapore, Taiwan, and Vietnam, it appears that East Asians tend to be group-minded than individual-minded. If blacks can’t think in terms of universal morality because every Negro and Negress be so much into ‘me, me, me’, many Asians(and natives of the Americas) fail in the area of universal morality because they are so much into ‘we, we, we’. Of course, ‘we mentality’ among Asians doesn’t necessarily mean that they only stick with their own kind. In Asia, most Asians may be slavish and conformist toward Asian standards, but the ‘we mentality’ tends to be malleable and adaptive to whomever and whatever controls the standards of the ‘we’. If indeed Asians were into ‘we Asian’ mentality, we would not see so many Asian girls going with non-Asian men. In America, the ‘we’ is defined in terms of whiteness and blackness, so lots of yellows try to conform the American ‘we’ ideal. So, even when yellows sign onto universal morality — such as Christianity, liberalism, communism, multi-culturalism, diversity cultism, egalitarianism, anti-‘racism’, or etc. — , most of them seem to be just conforming to the new ‘we’-ism of non-Asian foreign lands. (Back in Asia, Asians didn’t need to struggle to survive as Asians since they were Asians in an Asian world. They were Asian-in-Asia by default. So, the ethno-cultural survival skills of Asians have only been tested recently outside the East, and it seems most Asians away from their native homelands simply meld and fade into the ‘new we’ world of the non-West. Consider how Japanese-Americans are simply fading away into the American racial melting pot as the supply of new immigrants from Japan has dried up. In contrast, Jews have proven their mettle as ethno-cultural survivors because they’ve survived for 1000's of years outside their own homeland. Throughout human history, there’s been a tendency of women to go with the men of the winning tribe/race. As yellow women see non-Asian men as the real winners in the West, many of them flock to white men, Jewish men, and even black men. As Asian men are seen as ‘loser geeks’, many yellow women are ashamed to be associated with them. In contrast, Jews long ago developed a cultural mind-set and practice whereby Jewish women were bound to go with Jewish men even when Jewish men were losers. According to Jewish laws, even when Jews lost wars to other tribes, the puds of Jewish men were the true champions because they’d been blessed by God through the Covenant. So, Jewish women got the idea that even loser Jewish men had champion puds, and that kept the tribe together even in non-Jewish lands over thousands of years. Of course, many secular Jews do marry outside the community, but Orthodox Jews continue to emphasize and practice the custom of Jewish pud mating with the Jewish poon as a sacred rule. No such mentality exists among East Asians though it does exist to some degree among South Asians.) Whatever one thinks of Buddhism or Eastern mysticism, when certain Westerners adopted their tenets, they did so as individual seekers of higher spiritual truth and enlightenment. But when we see all those Chinese and Koreans convert to Christianity, it seems like herd-mentality at work. It’s not happening at the individual-initiative level. Though herd-mentality is usually associated with conservatism and reaction, it is just as useful for ‘progress’ and revolution. If Chinese weren’t so herd-minded, Mao Zedong would have had a much more difficult time persuading most Chinese to sign onto the New Order(or Disorder). Even the authoritarian-minded Slavs offered some stiff resistance to Stalin’s radical drive to collectivize agriculture, but so many Chinese mindlessly went along with Mao’s even more harebrained Great Leap Forward. Herd-mentality is a boon for both ultra-reaction and ultra-revolution since it’s the mindless who just go along with whatever is old or whatever is new.
Great Leap Forward - Herd Mentality at Work
‘We’ mentality isn’t necessarily nationalist-tribalist. If yellows really thought this way, they would work much harder to maintain and preserve their own identity, race, and power in America. Instead, yellows tends to be ‘we-collective’ than ‘we-tribal’. Since Asia is a sea of yellow, the ‘we’ mentality over there tends to be synonymous with yellow nationalism. But when yellows are placed in non-yellow majority nations, their brand of ‘we’ mentality is simply to conform with the majority. So, if the majority happens to be white Conservative, most yellows will try to be white-Conservative-like — as ‘America as apple pie’. But if the majority happens to be white Liberal, most yellows will try to be white-Liberal-like, which is why so many yellows are mindless followers of Political Correctness and stuff like ‘gay marriage’.
To be sure, the aura of majority matters less to Asians than the aura of authority. As Asian society has been very hierarchical and status-conscious, Asian conformism has been less about conforming to masses than aping the elites. This explains why so many yellows drifted to Liberalism even when majority of Americans held conservative views. Since the elites are overwhelmingly Liberal, yellows want to emulate and be approved by the ‘best and the brightest(and also the richest)’. The positive aspect of East Asian cultural attitude is that respect for education and striving for success have been universalized among their kind. Yellows, instead of looking horizontally at the masses that constitute most people, fix their gaze upwards at the best-educated, most successful, most respected, and/or most wealthy. So, they push their children to rise higher for self-respect and even for family honor(or bragging rights).
Me so greedy, me so greedy.
But the negative aspect of this cultural attitude is a kind of slavishness toward what is understood to be proper authority/respectability/style/fashionableness. So, if the authority of a culture happens to be anti-homo, yellows will be very anti-homo. But if the authority of a culture happens to be pro-homo, yellows will be very pro-homo. Yellows go with the aura of power. Now, this is true of all peoples to some extent, but it’s especially true with yellows. And because of this yellow trait, relatively few Asians develop true individual conscience or moral sense. Asians prefer to be ‘nice’ than truly good. Niceness is a superficial quality focused on seeming pleasant to and seeking approval from others, especially from the ‘better’ kind of people. Goodness, in contrast, requires the courage to fall out of favor with the authority or the crowd in defense of one’s own conscience and commitment to the truth. Goodness has spine and doesn’t bend with the wind, as niceness does. As Asian societies have been more about shame — sensitivity to social pressure — than guilt, a sense of right-and-wrong rooted in the individual soul, they favored the qualities of niceness over goodness. When Peter denied he knew Jesus, he was acting out of fear and shame. As Jesus died a pitiful death and became a figure of mockery jeered at by the crowd, Peter didn’t want to be associated with Him. But later on his own, as he wept, he felt guilt of individual conscience. He knew he’d betrayed someone most dear to him. Such morality isn’t absent in the East but is weaker than the kind of ethics defined by social pressure and expectations. Most yellows just sound like mind-clones of whatever happens to be proper, correct, fashionable, or prevalent. This is one reason why yellow power in America will never amount to anything like Jewish power. (The other reason is that Jews, being racially white, can pass for being socially white as well. Also, Jews have neutralized all counter-Jewish voices with the cult of the Holocaust. Jews win with ‘white privilege’ but also win by milking ‘white guilt’ that applies only to gentile whites, especially Northern European/Americans.) Jews, whether in majority-Jewish Israel or minority-Jewish gentile nations, practice a kind of ‘we-tribal’ mentality(in contrast to the ‘we-collective’ mentality of East Asians). The ‘we’ mentality among Jews isn’t simply about the collective, the majority, or the authority. It is about Jewishness. So, even in a nation where the authority and the majority are dominated by gentiles, Jews will practice a ‘we-tribal’ mentality. In contrast, yellows will be ‘we-tribal’ only in nations where their kind dominates both the majority and authority. (To be sure, Chinese practice a kind of we-tribal mentality in Southeast Asian nations where they feel themselves to be culturally and even racially superior to the not-too-bright-nor-energetic natives. In the West, however, yellows discover that whites are just as smart or even more capable than the yellows — as well as bigger and better-looking — , and so, many yellows try to just join in with white society. Even yellows who may have tribal feelings on culture and history cannot resist the amorous charms of some white person. Amy Chua may be into all-things-Chinese, but her private keyhole, aka vagina, was sealed off to Chinese men and opened only to some tall Jewish stud with the meaty pud who looks like a Greek god. It could be Jews have practiced a we-tribal mentality in the West because they feel intellectually superior to gentiles, just like Chinese in Southeast Asia feel superior to the local indigenous folks.) But in nations where the majority and authority are dominated by non-yellows, yellows will go out of their way to emulate and ape — and slavishly win acceptance from — the non-Asian elites and minorities. To be sure, there are exceptions. In cases where the yellows can plainly see that the natives are pretty childish and stupid, they will stick with their own culture. Again, Chinese in Southeast Asian have maintained their own Chinese-ness since the natives seemed so backward and barbaric. Why would someone from the Middle Kingdom try to win approval from the likes of Indonesians, Malaysians, or Burmese? But when yellow find themselves in nations and cultures superior, richer, more powerful, and more advanced than their own, they go out of their way to win approval and be accepted. To be sure, the Chinese are somewhat different from Japanese and Koreans(and Filipinos if they are to be included in the yellow category, which is somewhat dubious)since they’ve long had a culture of Middle Kingdom arrogance. But look at Japanese-Americans in the US. They’ve totally disappeared into the mainstream of ‘we collective-ness’ than ‘we tribal-ness’. So many Jewish-American elites still think in terms of Jewish identity, Jewish power, and Jewish interests, but most Japanese-Americans think and act in terms of "I’m a good American." When 120,000 Japanese-Americans were dispossessed and imprisoned in camps, they didn’t gripe. If anything, they were eager to prove their patriotism and American-as-apple-pie-ness. Even though they’d done nothing wrong but been collectively punished, they felt it was up to them to win the approval of the majority and authority powers of America. Contrast such attitude with the Jewish reaction to the so-called McCarthyism. Unlike most Japanese-Americans, many Jewish-Americans had been involved in subversive and radical groups and movements. Many Jews had been involved in espionage for the Soviet Union. Many had used their connections to send atomic bomb secrets to mass killer Stalin who was then closing the iron curtain around Eastern Europe, carrying out massive purges, having people killed left and right, and spreading communism all across Asia. Yet, when the American government sniffed around for Jewish communists and fellow travelers, most of the Jewish community closed ranks with leftist and anti-American Jews against the Wasp conservative and liberal-anti-communist establishment. Japanese-Americans were innocent but unduly punished, but they still tried to prove their worth in the eyes of white Americans. In contrast, many Jews had been foul anti-American agents and subversives, but when the US government went after Jewish subversives and radicals, most Jews sided with fellow Jews(even diehard leftist radicals)than with the US government. Even Meir Kahane the far right Zionist Jew railed against so-called McCarthyism in his book for its alleged ‘antisemitism’. This suggests that yellow morality is slavish and cowering towards authority.
To be sure, this is true of all peoples to some extent. After all, when we ponder the fate of white folks today in the US and EU, they seem to be ‘turning Japanese’ in their slavish cravenness toward Jews and even homos(and even-even trannies). Jews are so worshiped in America that if Jews say homos and trannies are their best friends, we must bend over to homos and trannies as well in order to appease the Jews. Suppose you invite a Jew to your party and you’re so very excited that the Jew will bless your house by attending, but suppose the Jew arrives with a flaming homo and ridiculous tranny and demands that they be allowed in too, or he will be so very offended. You admire and worship the Jew so very much that you dare not offend him, and so, the homo and tranny are also allowed into the party. And then the Jew, homo, and tranny begin to take over your house, and you are relegated to the dog house, but you are still so very happy since you see the Jew as the rightful master and yourself as his loyal servile dog. Indeed, when AIPAC conference rolls out the goy attendants, it’s dog show time all over again.
Sarah Palin, the worthless lap-dancing lapdog 'shikse' whore to Jews. On the other hand, a kind of idiot savant of 'antisemitism'. Because she is so universally loathed, her identification with Judaism and Zionism has given both bad press and bad name. One reason why many American Progressives fell out of favor with Israel is because Republicans like Palin beat the war drum for Jewish/Zionist power. Jews are worried about Zionism becoming smeared with Palin-ism.
Jews have survived for so long because their sense of ‘we’ mentality was tribal-textual-sexual than territorial and numerical. The yellow ‘we’ mentality has been rooted to soil and people. In Japan, it was all about Japanese people on Japanese soil. Japanese felt they were on Japanese land with other Japanese, and Chinese felt they were on Chinese land with other Chinese. Since the soil beneath their feet and the people all around guaranteed the yellowness of power, there was less need to conceptualize and theorize Chinese-ness or Japanese-ness into a portable and adaptive identity-politics. But Jews were different. Due to their relative nomadism and long existence among gentile majorities in gentile territories, Jews had to formulate Jewishness into a set of principles revolving around certain texts and sexual behavior. Jews had long been ‘sexting’ one another before ‘sexting’ in the modern sense existed.
And because of the different cultural and political circumstances, evolution favored different kinds of traits among Jews and yellows. Since Jewish community favored those Jews who were most committed to their Jewishness even in non-Jewish lands, those with the most we-tribal traits were favored whereas those with the least were absorbed into gentile society. (But because even the most we-tribal-centric Jews had to do business with gentiles in order survive, evolution favored Jews with a two-faced weasel personality. And indeed today we can see this trait in so many Jews who are, at once, seemingly tolerant & adaptive to gentile society AND resolutely tribal & loyal to Jewish interests.) In contrast, yellows mostly evolved in societies where they didn’t have to work to hard to maintain their identities since they were isolated from the rest of the world and for so very long. Japan was an island nation. Korea was peninsula buttressed by China. China was protected by Himalayas and vast deserts. Even when Mongols came invading, Chinese far outnumbered and absorbed them — and besides, Mongols were yellow themselves and didn’t look all that different from the slanty-eyed Chinese. So, yellow personality is pro-yellow only in yellow-dominant lands. Outside Asia, yellows in places like America are eager to have their identities erased through intermarriage with ‘superior’ whites. Yellows prefer children with Eurasian features than Asian features. Indeed, South Korea is said to be the Plastic Surgery capital of the world. With the rise of multi-culturalism, there’s been some noise about yellow identity and yellow power, but it’s just yellows imitating political correctness as devised by Jews. If anything, the cult of ‘diversity’ encourages yellows to mate interracially with other peoples. If indeed yellows thought independently, they’d realize that Jews are their main enemies, but notice that yellows just take order from Jews and bark at ‘white racism’ on command from their Jewish overlords. It’s like what Ron Unz wrote: "...Asian elected officials, Asian activists, and most Asian-American advocacy groups have kept silent on the likely existence of Asian Quotas at elite universities, thereby squandering any credibility they might have had during the contentious California debate. My own long article... quickly accumulated over 200,000 page-views while the analysis was soon widely discussed in the New York Times and numerous other prominent publications... But not a single Asian officeholder or traditional advocacy group took any notice or made any effort to hold the Ivies accountable on a matter of greatest concern to their own community... Asian elected officials or prominent activists could easily apply enormous pressure on the Ivies to release this simple data, but not a single one has chosen to do so. Such timidity is far from surprising. Most prominent Asian activists are either affiliated with universities or have close ties with individuals who are. Regularly denouncing the perceived misdeeds of ‘white supremacists’, rightwingers, or even merely Republicans is an easy position to take given that those groups possess negligible influence within the academic community. But Harvard University and its peers dominate higher education like a colossus, and leveling criticism against such targets is hardly conducive to academic career advancement. Thus Asians found in ethnic studies departments readily seek out the most obscure and insignificant examples of anti-Asian discrimination in throughout the wider world but remain totally silent about the massively visible biases in the most prestigious portions of their own academy."
Given all the yellow bitching about ‘white racism’, you’d think they’re finally standing up for themselves, but the opposite is true. They are merely kowtowing to the new master-elites the Jews. Even though Jewish elites may be discriminating against yellows at Ivy League colleges, yellows are oh-so-eager to win approval from their Jewish masters. If barking at non-existent ‘white supremacists’ will win approval from Jews, yellow dogs will bark ever louder. This is all the more amusing when it’s Jewish Hollywood that funds movies like RISING SUN and the remake of RED DAWN to fan ‘yellow peril’ fears among white goyim. So, Jews play it both ways. Make yellow dogs bark at white ‘racists’, and make white gentiles get all paranoid about them yellows. Given such slavishness among yellows, they can never be principled in universal morality rooted in individual conscience. Most yellows are incapable of individual conscience and thought, and that means no proper sense of higher right and wrong. Yellow moral sense is collectivist and ‘we-group’-oriented. If the official morality of an Asian community purports to be universalist, it’s purely a matter of accident. It’s like all those communist yellows in China, North Korea, and Vietnam didn’t arrive at communism through individual thought but through mass hysteria ignited by the new elites. So, there’s no chance of yellows challenging Jewish power in the manner that pushy-and-chutzpah-istic Jews challenged Wasp power in an earlier time. Also, because most white gentiles naturally feel closer to white Jews than to yellows, if such a challenge to Jewish power were to be posed by yellow upstarts, most white gentiles will side with ‘white’ Jews even though Jews are moving full speed ahead to wussify the white race into slave status vis-a-vis the Jews, Negroes/Mulattos, and Homos.
Yellows are as entitled to their own victim-narrative as any other people — and all peoples have it some extent, as, after all, didn’t American Conservatives just love to play poor helpless victims to all those ‘muzzies’ following 9/11? — , but their victim-narrative lacks a sense of mutuality(though not as much as those of Jews and blacks). If a people are going to declare themselves as victims in some cases, they should also be willing to acknowledge their roles as victimizers in other cases, but we don’t see or hear much of that in Asia. Only Japan has shown some remorse over World War II. But Chinese Communist Party refuses to face up to its foul deeds. And the Chinese are very nationalistic about Tibet and Uighur territories even though the Han Chinese gained dominance over those areas through naked imperialism. And Koreans bitch and whine with soap opera hysterics as if they are poor helpless victims— they even went bonkers over Apollo Ohno in the Winter Olympics even though the Korean skater clearly cheated — when they’d been their own worst oppressors and torture/kill/devour poor helpless dogs. (Indeed, the lack of mutuality and reciprocity can be seen in the Asian treatment of dogs. In Steven Spielberg’s A.I., the Negress scientist raises a legitimate point when she asks that if a robot has been programmed to love mankind, does mankind have the moral responsibility to love it back? Dogs are like David the robot in the movie. Dogs have been selectively bred by humans for traits that direct their emotions to love us, serve us, and obey us. They are utterly devoted to us like children to parents. We’ve bred those qualities in dogs. So, if dogs have been bred to love us, do we have a responsibility to love it back? In the West, the answer is Yes because mutuality and reciprocity are hallmarks of Western thought. In the East, whether it’s dogs or human subjects, the responsibility usually flows only one way. So, the ‘inferiors’ are expected to show complete devotion to ‘superiors’, but ‘superiors’ are under no moral obligation to return the favor to ‘inferiors’. Even in today’s China, countless millions worship Mao, a man who never much cared when tens of millions of Chinese were dying as the result of his vainglorious lunatic policies.) Yellows might show some more conscience in the US, but it’s purely slavishiness to Political Correctness as dictated to by Jews. So, even though it’s Negroes who’ve committed most violence to yellows and even though it’s the Jews who’ve been the main ‘yellow peril’-baiters in recent yrs, Asians will just attack and blame ‘white supremacism’ and ‘white racism’ for all the problem. Some yellows will criticize their own community but ONLY within the range of approved Political Correctness, i.e. they will excoriate some yellows for badmouthing blacks and Jews(and homos), but they aren’t bothered in the least by yellows badmouthing whites. So, even Asian self-criticism is just kowtowing to PC. All the same, yellows wanna be accepted by and intermarry with the white community because they still think America is synonymous with whiteness. I mean how many yellows wanna join with the Asian-Indian, Arab-American, or Mexican-American community even though, of course, there are dating and mating all around in some cases? But in wanting to be white-ish, yellows also take on the trappings of ‘white guilt’, especially because they feel they’ve violated the cardinal rule of PC that says America is so steeped in ‘white privilege’ that the ‘people of color’ — which oddly includes white Hispanics — cannot succeed or reach economic parity with whites. But many yellows do as well or even better than whites. How could this be if PC says US is a very ‘racist’ country? So, yellows feel ‘yellow-white-ish guilt’ for having violated PC. In contrast, blacks don’t feel any guilt for being overly represented in sports and funky music. Blacks think in terms of black power, yellows think in terms of yellow cower.

Jews have learned much from history, hardly surprising since so many history departments in American colleges are dominated by Jews. When Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, they both went about eliminating the Polish elites. Cut off the head and the body will follow. Guillotine the elites, and the body will go limp since the body doesn’t have a mind or will of its own. After all, even all nationalisms are, to an extent, an imposition of the elites. While some nationalisms are indeed more organic than others — surely a Polish or Japanese nation is more organic than Syrian or Indonesian nation created by European imperialist arbitrariness with territorial and demographic/ethnic integrity — , every national concept(especially in the modern sense) was an idea imposed by the elites upon the masses. So, while there were a bunch of peoples who spoke German, the idea of a modern German nation was forged with blood-and-iron from above. It was the end-result of a vision imposed on various German-speaking provinces by the expanding power of Prussian elites. And though there was something like a peninsula where most people spoke various dialects of Italian, the notion of Italian national identity was imposed upon everyone on the peninsula by the new elites that forged modern Italy. Prior to mass education and mass media, even most Germans and Italians thought locally than nationally.
The colonization and creation of 'Indonesia' by the Dutch.
The reason why so many non-western peoples and territories offered no resistance to European colonialism was that they lacked nationalist identity and sensibility. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the masses were just toiling servants of the elites. So, when the Europeans came and either eradicated or appropriated the native elites, most of the native masses just followed along. They, as the ‘body’ of the land, had no will or mind of their own. It was only with the rise of new native elites who emulated European nationalism that the idea of a mass national identity began to form and spread like wildfire. But for the ‘body’ to take on such an idea, they had to be led by the native elites who challenged the authority of the European imperialist elites. So, when Germans and Russians invaded Poland, they knew the most effective way to pacify Poland was to eradicate the elites. So, the Nazis sent a whole bunch of Polish elites to concentration camps, and the Soviets shipped a whole bunch of them to the Gulag. And some of them were exterminated outright, as with what happened in the Katyn Massacre. Thus, Poland nation was suddenly without a mind. To be sure, Polish nationalism had become such an ingrained element of Polish life at all levels over the centuries that resistance continued throughout the Nazi and Soviet occupations. Still, it’s difficult for the people to mount a challenge without the leadership of a well-trained and well-educated elite. (We can see the difference between a un-nationalized people and a nationalized people in the case of Korea. If the British and the French were to go to South Korea right this moment and divide it in half, all South Koreans would rise up en masse and fight to drive out the Brits and French trying to cut their country like a cake. But when Korea was divided by Roosevelt and Stalin near the end of World War II — just like Hitler and Stalin divided up Poland at the beginning of World War II — , most Koreans didn’t know what hit them and simply accepted and adapted to the New Order imposed by bigger powers. Many Koreans were ignorant and sub-literate and lacked proper nationalist spirit even though their nation/kingdom/state had existed for many centuries. So, when their nation was cut in half, those in the North easily became mad barking dogs of the USSR, and those in the south became mad barking dogs of the US. As class/caste than national identity had been main basis of social organization throughout Korean history, a united sense of national identity only truly formed in the late modern era. Even in today’s North Korea, what prevails isn’t really nationalism but the cult worship of a dynasty. It is worship of the Kim clan than love of motherland. Incidentally, how come only the Kims are fat in North Korea? Is it like what Imelda Marcos said about poor Filipinos? Being so poor and deprived, they need her to be gorgeous and luxurious as a kind of fantasy model? Is it like North Koreans are poor and starving, so they need to look upon their fat leader to pretend their bellies are full too? There’s no limit to human ridiculousness.) Of course, not all elites need be eradicated. They can be pressured to collaborate, which was the favored policy of the Nazis in France, and indeed, many French elites did collaborate with the Germans and did pretty well for themselves during the war. In Indonesia, Sukarno collaborated with the Japanese during World War II. So, the new elite power generally seeks to eradicate the native elites or pressure them to collaborate. Jews know all about this, which is why they employ a similar strategy in the US. Of course, as the US and EU are democracies defined by Rule of Law, Jews cannot go about grabbing power like their Bolshevik counterparts did in the USSR. Jewish elites in America cannot simply line up the old white gentile elites and shoot them dead in the manner that the Russian Czar and his family were liquidated by Jewish commissars during the Russian Civil War. Classic totalitarianism as developed by Lenin, Stalin, and Bolshevik Jews are out, so today, we have something like ‘softalitarianism’. American Jews don’t have people killed, but they have so much power that they can effectively destroy or ruin anyone’s reputation, without which one is relegated to non-personhood in the halls of power and privilege. After all, Jews control finance, the courts, the government, the media, the academia, and law firms. If you are deemed ‘racist’, your career as journalist is finished. No matter how rich you are, if you’re deemed a ‘homophobe’, your business will no longer receive funds from banks. Government will prohibit your business from opening in the most lucrative areas. Jew-run IRS will audit the hell out of you. And as most American people have been brainwashed by the Jew-run media, they will boycott you and your company as evil enterprises because, er, you believe in true marriage and refuse to bend over something as retarded and decadent as ‘gay marriage’. Even what you say privately can lead to your destruction. It’s true enough that Donald Sterling is a sleazebag, but the fact is his privacy was violated when he was outed as a ‘racist’. And what he said about blacks was pretty weak stuff as even blacks have leveled nastier criticism of black pathologies. But he was hounded and ruined — though Jews in the media over-reacted out of panic because Sterling is Jewish. Jews wanted to send out a message loud and clear that they are nothing like Sterling the BAD Jew(who supposedly is more like a ‘white southern plantation owner’ than other Jewish tycoons and moguls who run the sports and entertainment business). Anyway, Jews don’t have to kill someone or send him to the Gulag to totally ruin his reputation, business, and influence. Especially as the Counterculture movement of the 60s and Political Correctness since the 80s have fostered a culture of hysteria, rabidity, judgmentalism(though professing to be about ‘tolerance’), and taboo-enforced worship of figures like MLK and Harvey Milk, public opinion can easily be swayed thither and hither with a few button-pushing by the Jewish media elites. So, if the media say such-and-such person is ‘racist’, the masses will be foaming at the mouth, as happened with the Duke LaCrosse incident. Even before all the facts were in, the lynch mobs had formed on and off campus to denounce ‘white male privilege’. Of course, while certain groups — especially white conservatives — have targets drawn on their backs, other groups are protected and shielded from media scrutiny no matter how rotten they behave. There are so many Jews in Israel who speak like Adolf Hitler. They speak of Arabs and Palestinians as ‘sub-human’. They say that we gentiles exist as cattle to serve Jews. They gloat about how they control America and how dumb Americans are. But all such Jews are protected by the Jews who run America. But imagine if a European or white American politician spoke of Jews or blacks in a similar manner.
Though Liberals bitch and whine about how they represent Reason, they have no use for reasoned debate at all. They hiss like snakes, bark like dogs, employ hysterics of adjectology(defaming people and ideas as ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, and ‘toxic’), enforce taboos, demand that we worship at the altars of PC, and throw fits. Consider what Nicholas Wade said of his critics: "Many social scientists... have long based their opposition to racism on the assertion that there is no biological basis to race. I doubt they personally believe this and suspect that they oppose racism on principle, just as I do. But they believe that other people, less enlightened and intelligent than they, will not abandon racism unless told that everyone is identical beneath the skin. So whenever someone points out that race is obviously biological, defenders of the social science position respond with attacks of whatever vehemence is necessary to get the inconvenient truth-teller to shut up. For many years this tactic has been surprisingly effective. It takes only a few vigilantes to cow the whole campus." Many academic researchers won't touch the subject of human race out of fear that their careers will be ruined or because they actually believe in the PC nonsense — but then, given that PC credentials count for more than real talent in the promotion up the rungs of the academia, why should it be surprising that many academics are PC-addled mediocrities? Besides, as they remain in their cloistered bubble of academic privilege, they can play games with false theories while ignoring the brutal truths of reality itself. Western academics are like Hitler in his bunker playing war games with armies that don’t even exist. Ivory Tower is a hideout of theoretical self-deception. And as people in the media had their minds molded by Ivory Tower professors, they are serve as megaphones for the official scribes of the System. Nicholas Wade: Only the most courageous will publicly declare that race has a biological basis. I witnessed the effects of this intimidation during the 10 years I was writing about the human genome for The New York Times. The understanding of recent human evolution has been seriously impeded, in my view, because if you can't study the genetics of race (a subject of no special interest in itself), you cannot explore the independent evolutionary histories of Africans, East Asians and Europeans. The attacks on my book come from authors who espouse the social science position that there is no biological basis to race. It is because they are defending an ideological position with a counterfactual scientific basis that their language is so excessive. If you don't have the facts, pound the table. My three Huffington Post critics — Jennifer Raff, Agustín Fuentes and Jonathan Marks — are heavy on unsupported condemnations of the book, and less generous with specific evidence."
The PC shitters act in the Inquisition mode. If the original Inquisitionists were totally convinced that God was on their side, the new PC inquisitionists are convinced that Science and Reason are on their side. But when real science doesn’t confirm their convictions, they favor false science over real science since their dogma is more important to them than truth is. And take the Global Warming gang. I personally am not opposed to the notion of man-made global warming, but who can deny the hysterical, deceitful, and self-righteous antics of its proponents? Indeed, most leaders of the movement are not even scientists but holier-than-thou activists who cook false data to persuade the world that debate is no longer necessary and we must all get behind them. (This is how the ‘left’ operates. Marxists didn’t want debate. They were convinced they were completely correct, and the only option for all of humanity was to just submit to communism. Jews don’t want debate about Jewish power. Instead, we must just believe that Jews are wonderful and serve them without criticizing them, ever. Likewise, we are to believe that there was no legitimate reason for ‘Jim Crow’ laws. We are to believe that whites in the South were all irrational and crazy, and blacks were all noble and harmless. Never mind that blacks are, by nature, stronger and more aggressive, and therefore always posed a physical and sexual threat to the white race. When it comes to the ‘gay’ agenda, we are told that the debate is over. There is nothing more to be said about ‘gay marriage’. You must agree with how wonderful it is. If you disagree, you’re ‘phobic’ or ‘hateful’ and should be destroyed. Jewish nastiness and puritanism are hallmarks of much of Western ‘leftist’ attitude. No more controversy, says the ‘left’. It only wants forced consensus.) And of course, there are the Jews who see the greens(dollars) in the green movement since it means massive federal subsidies and another financial bubble where ‘green-is-the-new-red-white-and-blue’ companies rake in tons of dough in collusion with the likes of Goldman Sachs. It’s no wonder so many Jews are for the global warming hysteria. It’s another way to rake in the dough. There should be little ‘mysteria’ behind this hysteria. It’s Jews pulling the strings as usual. Jews hyped the Iraq War, Jews hyped the war on Libya, Jews hyped the destruction of Syria, and Jews hyped all the vile anti-Russian hysteria. Jews don’t care about ruined goy nations and mounds of dead goy bodies as long as they get what they want. Just look at the face of Victoria Nuland. What do you see? You see the face of Jewish perfidy, hideousness, vileness, and putridity.
Vile and Disgusting Jewess Victoria Nuland
That such a vile, lowdown, nasty, and dirty Jew is allowed to handle the affairs of American foreign policy should awaken us to the true nature of the Jew, but most dumb Americans howl at Russia for not building a national altar to Pussy Riot. The New America is what happens when dirty hideous Jews remake the national culture and values.

Anyway, since Jews now have such effective and near-total means of destroying reputations and lives, most aspiring and ambitious people in America seek to collaborate with the Jewish overlords who, incredibly enough, have the combination of supreme power and victim-hood sympathy. Usually, when a people represent the supreme power of a social order, the victims are represented in the people who serve them. But in America, Jews not only have supreme power but wear the mantle of sympathy-victim-hood via the Holocaust Cult or Holo-cult. So, Americans cannot even discuss the problem of Jewish control of media, government, academia, law firms, Wall Street, Hollywood, countless NGOs and think tanks, and etc. Indeed, Americans are so dumb that only 9% of them think that ‘Jews have too much power’. This is all the more hilarious since Jews go out of their way to bitch and whine about ‘white privilege’ so as to deflect people’s awareness from the biggest privilege in America that is, of course, Jewish privilege. So, Jews are proud of Jewish power and Jewish privilege but disdainful of white power and white privilege even though the most powerful and most wealthy members of the white race are Jews. So, Jews piss on white gentiles, but white gentiles merely open their mouths to the Jewish golden shower with servile gratitude. In America, 90% of Jews believe that white gentiles have too much power and privilege, but less than 10% of white Americans believe that Jews have too much power and privilege — even though Jews are by far the richest and most powerful people in America and the world. If white gentiles are indeed this dumb, they deserve to lose and fade from history. Live or die, most white gentile elites and wanna-be-elites have opted to collaborate with their Jewish overlords just like many French elites decided to just go along with the German overlords during World War II. As evil as the Nazis were in Eastern Europe and toward Jews, it must be said Germans were far more respectful and admiring of the French than Jews are of white gentiles. Germans wanted the French to maintain French glory and pride(as allies of Germany) whereas Jews want today’s France to be drowned in a sea of black Sub-Saharan Africans and North African Muslims. Nothing makes a Jew happier than to see white French women reject white French men and have children with black Africans and Muslims in waves and waves of geno-erasure. Jews assure whites that their future progenies will become more intelligent, more beautiful, wiser, and more advanced with greater race-mixing. Following the logic of multi-culturalism, North Africa, Brazil, Bolivia, and Mexico should be the wisest, most beautiful, and most intelligent places on Earth. Funny, but the nations that most so-called ‘progressives’ admire most tend to be Nordic ones like Sweden, Denmark, and Holland. Of course, such nations are at the forefront of multi-cultural ideology, but I wonder if Liberals would be so enthused about such nations once the multi-cultural project is achieved there, and they’ve become minority white societies teeming with Third World masses who fail at school, drain the welfare economy, and raise crime levels. But of course, when multi-culturalism fails, Jews will say it was because whites did NOT DO ENOUGH to accommodate ‘diversity’. (If Jews really feel this way, why don’t they all move to Detroit and live alongside blacks? Isn’t it interesting that Jews say whites should do more to accept non-whites, especially Muslims and blacks, but they themselves use all sorts of nefarious means to drive blacks out of big cities to make room for privileged Liberal yuppies and to trigger wars in the Middle East that have led to the deaths of 100,000s of people?) Jews bitch about how ‘anti-Semites’ always blamed Jews for everything, but it’s Jews who blame whites for everything. If a white person kills a white person, whites are at fault. If a white person kills a black person, whites are at fault. So far, so good. But if a black person kills a white person, whites are still at fault. And if a black person kills a black person, whites are at fault still. Why are all those black African acting like apes and killing one another with machetes and by spreading AIDS? Whites aren’t doing enough to save them!
Who's to blame for black Africans acting this way? Whites, of course, or so say the Jews. It's because whites haven't done enough to make things pleasant for blacks in Africa. It's always the white man's fault according to Jews. But when it comes to the violence and squalor in Palestinian territories, remember the fault is entirely with Palestinians and not with Jewish Zionists who stole the land and have oppressed Palestinians ever since.
What a lot of white people don’t understand(or seem to have forgotten) is that shared ideas are not the same thing as shared interests(or shared power). If people A and people B share the same ideas, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the ideas will serve both sides equally well. Take the homo agenda. Since Jews are for it and increasing numbers of white gentiles are for it — by some estimates, 80% of those under 30 are for ‘gay marriage’ — , you’d think it’s an idea that serves both communities equally well. But while some groups use ideas to gain control OVER others, other groups come UNDER the power of such ideas. The homo agenda clearly favors Jews over white gentiles since Jews, like homos, constitute a minority elite. Normalizing — indeed lionizing, glamorizing, and sanctifying — homosexual power leads to the justification of ‘minoritarian’ rule, domination, and supremacism, and of course, that’s precisely what Jews seek to accomplish. Since Jews are only 2% of the population but rule as the overlords of America, they want all of us non-Jews to get used to the idea that the majority should bow down to the minority. Thus, the spread of homo-supremacism serves the Jews much more than it serves the interests of white gentiles. Most ideas are rigged to favor one side over another side. In some cases, it’s blatant, as with racial discrimination against non-whites and certain white ethnic groups in the past. Surely, if a white southerner and a black southerner both embrace Jim Crow Laws, it’s going to serve white interests more than black interests.
But even ideas that are seemingly ethno-neutral can favor one group over others. Libertarianism will favor Jews over whites and whites over blacks in most endeavors. Even though it’s all about meritocracy and freedom on the basis of individuality regardless of race and color, it will favor Jews over whites since, proportionately, there are more smart Jews than smart gentiles. And there are more smart whites than smart blacks. Of course, in the area of sports and funky music, it will favor blacks over Jews and whites. Libertarianism will also undermine black interests more since blacks are less able to handle freedom responsibly than whites or Jews. If you open a casino and allow drug use in a community full of Negroes, many of them will use them to excess and flip out like a bunch of swinish apes. It’s in Negro nature to be more wild-ass. They are more likely to be act in the mode of "Let’s roll the dice and bump the booty nice."
So, sharing the same ideas doesn’t have the same effect on all groups. Some groups will be better served by the ideas than other groups. The homo agenda ostensibly seems to be about homos and nothing else, but the fact is Jews have promoted it because it’s good for Jews. And why do Jews push open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens(whom the Jew-run media designate as ‘undocumented immigrants’)? At its face value, it seems to have nothing to do with Jews. We are told that it’s about humanitarianism, compassion, sympathy, inclusion, diversity, vibrancy, tolerance, and etc. If such are good things, wouldn’t white gentiles gain as much from open borders as Jews would? So, why are so many more Jews for open borders than white conservatives? It’s because diversity among gentiles will aid the Jewish supremacist strategy of ‘divide and rule’ over the goyim. Meanwhile, smart and responsible white conservatives understandably want to maintain white domination in a nation founded, developed, and constructed by their ancestors who were the visionaries, conquerors, and settlers who made it possible in the first place. (Jews will bitch about how white gentiles stole land from the Indians, but plenty of Jews sold goods to white settlers and got rich off it, so Jews are no less responsible. Jewish merchants sold clothing, food, tools, equipments, liquor, guns, and more guns to white settlers in the conquest of the American West. It was a Jewish guy who designed those tough jeans for cowboys. And Jewish bankers funded the expansion. So, Jews need to shut the fuc* up.) Jews understand that, despite all the rosy ‘humanitarian’ rhetoric, open borders policy serves Jewish interests far more than it serves white interests. Indeed, only an idiot would say that Maine and Minnesota have been well-served by the arrival of all those Somalis who just suck up public expenditure. But Jews love it since a diverse gentile community is easier to toy with in a divide-and-rule manner.

What about Latinos, Hispanic-Americans, or whatever they are called these days? As for native ‘Hispanics’ of Indian or mestizo descent, most of them are like East Asians with maybe lower IQ and less commitment to education. Calling them ‘Hispanic’ because they speak Spanish makes about as much sense as calling American blacks and American Indians ‘Anglo’ because they speak English. As for white Hispanics, they are incapable of universal morality due to issues of ‘national character’. Though we generally associate Hispanic-American politics and sentiments with Leftism and ‘progressive’ politics, the essential Latin character is rooted in a rotten kind of conservatism. Compare Spain with Britain or compare Italy with Germany. Both Spanish culture and Italian culture through the centuries became overly conservative around the influence of the Catholic Church, the family and clan, and the village. Another factor is the matriarchal factor in Latin cultures. Though Latin societies were as male-dominated as Northern European ones in the social, legal, and political sense, they made for larger space for maternal/feminine feelings, not least because of the cult of the Madonna. So, if a Northern European dad punished his son for bad behavior and if the son ran off the mother, the mother would sternly and ‘coldly’ back up the father. Therefore, the kid would realize that he better grow up and face responsibilities of adults. In Latin nations, if the father chased the kid around with a stick, the kid(especially the son) would go running to mama-mia, and she would protect him with hugs and kisses, and this kind of shtickolini would carry on even when the son was all grown up. So, Latin men tended to develop mama’s boy tendencies and failed to mature fully into hardened adults. It’s like them fellers in Federico Fellini’s I VITELLONI. They’re amusing and funny but so totally pathetic and ridiculous.
Childish Italians in Federico Fellini's AMARCORD
They are a bunch of clowns. In some ways, this makes the Latins more endearing than the more rigid and frigid Northern Europeans, but it also makes them a bunch of moral cowards, craven jerks, and spineless weasels. Of course, conservatism need not be like this, but this is the kind of conservatism that developed in the Latin world. The father acted big but was mostly hot air. He chased around his son who hid under the dress of his mother. With such craven cowards, there couldn’t any proper Rule of Law or universal principles. So, Latin societies became entirely a matter of connections, family, clan, village, whom-you-know, and etc. At the political, cultural, and social level, it was all a matter of being oily, sneaky, servile, craven, and spineless. So, even as Italians and Spanish put on pompous airs about pride and honor, they were really governed by gutless opportunism. If a German student were to ask his parents to intervene on his behalf to have him admitted to medical school, he would likely feel a great sense of shame. And very likely, the parents would feel morally outraged that their son would ask for such a thing. But if an Italian or Spanish son asked for such favor, the parents would think it’d be only natural for them to do what they can. It’s like what happens in THE SICILIAN by Mario Puzo where some guy is admitted into medical school because he has connections. And Greeks aren’t much better from my personal experience. They are utterly shameless in their corruption and venality — though very amusing and fun as a people.
THE GODFATHER is about loyalty, but betrayal is as integral to the ‘Sicilian thing’ as honor is. In Part I, we learn that Paulie ‘sold out the old man’. And someone ‘fingered’ Sonny to the Tataglias. And Vito and Michael pretty much expect Clemenza or Sal to turn against the family and make a deal with Barzini. On a more sinister level, the father and son might have intentionally exposed the two men to Barzini’s pressures so that one of them would have no choice but to betray the family. They were used as bait to fool Barzini. And indeed, Sal didn’t wanna do what he did and only did it as a last resort. Betrayal is so common among Italians that Vito orders Luca Brasi to go the Tataglias and pretend to turn against the Corleones. When Michael is in Sicily, it is one of his bodyguards who betray him and end up killing his wife. In Part II, Fredo turns against Michael. And in the flashback, the younger Vito Corleone(played by Robert DeNiro)is able to get revenge on the old man who killed his father, brother, and mother because someone in the old man’s clan turned on his master. So, it all comes full circle. Ironically, everyone betrays everyone in a world where loyalty is such a paramount virtue. One might say that, paradoxically, Italians were so much into loyalty precisely because betrayals and backstabbing were so common. In a world where you can’t trust everyone, you wanna uphold the value of loyalty as much as possible. But the chances are you yourself may have to betray someone, and that means others will lose trust in you — after all, they could be next — , and so, everyone’s eyeing everyone for his own advantage. But one could also argue that betrayal became so common precisely because so much premium was placed on loyalty. If you are expected to be loyal to the group, clan, or organization at all cost, it means you have to betray your deepest principles of morality. And in a Christian society where people are supposed be about brotherly love and understanding, being expected to remain loyal to family, clan, or organization above all else could poison the soul.
Tom Hagen(Robert Duvall) was raised the Sicilian way in THE GODFATHER, and he’s a smart and decent guy in many ways. But he’s expected to be loyal to the family at all costs. He was raised that way, and so, he just goes along with all the murders and betrayals. He doesn’t even protest when the prostitute is murdered and used as blackmail bait against Senator Geary. When a naturally intelligent and decent man is raised and expected to act in that manner, he may be loyal alright, but he has betrayed something that is fundamentally moral and humane. Though Hagen is loyal to the family to the end, a part of him must have lost faith in what it’s all about. He’s become like Adolf Eichmann, a bureaucrat who does as he’s told because he must never question loyalty. And yet, even though he’s loyal, he’s not loyal-loyal. When the shit hit the fan in Germany in 1945, the likes of Eichmann, who’d served the Nazi regime with utmost loyalty, just took off and ran. They didn’t feel they should go down with the regime. They were loyal mentally but not in the heart. Same goes for Hagen when Vito Corleone is gunned down. He’s loyal to the family but advises Sonny to make a deal with Sollozzo the Turk. Hagen is loyal to the ‘business’ of the family, not to the family itself. If the Corleones were to fall and if another gangster outfit offered Hagen a job, he would take it probably. When Eichmann was caught, he didn’t die as a Nazi. He explained that he’d just followed orders and carried out his duties. He wasn’t a loyal ideologue but a loyal bureaucrat. Eichmann was, in that sense, both the most loyal and the most treacherous of Nazis. No matter how extreme the order, he carried it out. But when the regime collapsed, he simply turned his back on everything that had happened. Whatever his personal ideological preferences might have been, Eichmann would likely have done the same thing under the rule of communists, Liberals, Christian-Democrats, or etc. His case is not only about the banality of evil as Hannah Arendt coined the term but the banality of ‘goodness’. Indeed, how many people are good in the sense that they really think about the good-and-evil of what they’re doing? When American soldiers are told to bomb the hell out of a city, how many of them question the moral validity of the order? If Eichmann were working in the US government, he would surely be pushing laws shutting down bakeries that refuse to bake ‘gay marriage’ cakes. Such would be deemed as ‘good’, but it wasn’t so long ago that the ‘good’ government officials in America were cracking down on homosexuals. If American cops are ordered to arrest people for leftist behavior, they will do as ordered. If they’re ordered to arrest people for rightist behavior, they will do so again. We like to believe that cops are good defenders and upholders of law-and-order, but they are merely enforcers of laws written by others more powerful than they. Don’t most officials, bureaucrats, and cops just enforce laws that are handed down to them? How can they be genuinely good(in the moral sense) when what is ‘good’ is defined by others – mostly Jews and homos — and when they simply carry out the orders? If the Nazis had won and defined what is ‘good’, then Eichmann would have been about the ‘banality of good’. Likewise, just how did so many Americans who were opposed to ‘gay marriage’ suddenly become pro-‘gay marriage’? Did they really think about the goodness of the homo thing, or are they mostly sheeple dummies who allow the Jewish-Homo or Jomo elites to determine for them what is good and what is bad?

The problem of Latin culture is also related to the burden of tradition. Southern Europe is simply older in history and civilization than Northern Europe, and on a positive note, this means a rich heritage of culture and custom. On the negative side, it means a lot of dead and stale baggage(though not as crazy and stinky as in India). Christianity and other Western virtues were implanted and implemented in a more of ‘blank slate’ manner in the North since Northern Europe didn’t have much of a high culture prior to the rise of Christianity. Also, the various Germanic groups in the North were more homogeneous, and therefore, they were more likely to be cohesive and able to work together more fitfully.
In contrast, the diversities in the South, especially in parts of Southern Europe, Spain, and Portugal were much more problematic as there had been large influxes of totally non-European peoples. Also, even among whites, Latins and Germanic were different. As Spain and Italy had been conquered by Germanic barbarians, there was a strange blend of Latin-ism and German-ism. And some degree of mixing added some of the hallaballah and haggly-waggy Northern African and Middle Eastern genes to Southern/Mediterranean Europeans there. The fearful threat of the non-European world and the dread of the bloodlines being ‘polluted’ by foreign invasions made the Spanish and Italians more conservative. Though southern Europeans often revile Northern Europeans for ‘racist purism’, such accusations were partly a projection onto Northerners their own fears about their ‘polluted’ gene pools. (It’s like light-skinned Indians and white Hispanics are very mindful of their racial distinction from darker-skinned peoples, BUT they love to make a big stink about how they are part of ‘people of color’ vis-a-vis Northern European types.) A southern Italian was upset that a Northern European saw him as a greasy ‘dago’ because, deep down inside, he harbored the same anxieties about himself.
In a world lacking in Rule of Law and shared-and-enforced higher principles, people turn to both tradition and opportunism. Since society cannot move forward — as dysfunction reigns all around — , tradition becomes of paramount importance. But moribund tradition may not be sufficient to put food on the table, so there is endless acts of opportunism to get a slice of the pie. In an ideal world of Rule of Law, everyone would agree on the rules and cooperate as conscientious citizens. But with breakdown of Rule of Law, you try to gain any little edge over others. During times of crisis, all peoples act like this. Germans and Japanese were doing all sorts of crooked things right after World War II when food and shelter were hard to come by. But as dust cleared and a new order was built, Germans and Japanese shifted into more socially responsible gears — though, to be sure, Japanese society is like well-managed corruption than functional Rule of Law. But Italians, Portuguese, Argentinians, and many other Latin peoples seem unable to dig themselves out of the corruption rut. Of course, another problem is the preference of style over substance in Latin culture. Consider the Mexican-American War. Americans were more into can-do spirit and real pragmatic achievements in machinery, industry, and technology. American officers didn’t put on fancy uniforms. In contrast, Mexican officers put on fancy attire and had more style. But style cannot beat substance in war. But the Spanish and Italians came to favor the uniform over the gun. It’s no wonder that Italy has been famous for design but not so much for engineering. (Nazis had design and engineering but then lost all sense under the reckless megalomania of Hitler.)
Understandably, disgust with stagnant tradition and greedy opportunism led many Italians and Spanish peoples to the left(and even the far left), but national character being what it is, the Italian and Spanish left were essentially rooted in the traditionalist and opportunistic world-view. It was less about social justice or equality than about reaching for a convenient crutch to explain their weakness vis-a-vis Norte Americanos and Northern Europeans(especially of Anglo and Germanic variety). Though the Spanish and Italians had ruined their own societies through their own corruption, venality, and reaction, they could conveniently employ leftist rhetoric to instantly turn themselves into poor victims of Yanqui capitalist-imperialists or Northern European ‘racists’. Their leftism was mostly childish antics, a lot of bitching and whining. It was just a variation of running off to mama.
Also, leftism was a handy excuse for failing to face up to real challenges in favor of delusional shortcuts to progress: It was economics reduced to taking from the rich and giving to the poor. While the Latin rich were plenty corrupt and undeservedly guarded their wealth with various privileges, the only true solution to Latin social dysfunction was a combination of Rule of Law, change in national character, the culture of integrity, and culture of honesty. But leftism needn’t face any of those issues and simply scapegoat the rich — and ‘racist’ Northern Europeans and Norte Americano yanquis — for all the problems. But what is the state of Cuba today after so many decades under leftist rule? Of course, many still blame America for the embargo, but this complaint never made much sense. If indeed America is about capitalist exploitation, wouldn’t Cuba be better off not trading with such an evil and parasitic power? Also, why do leftists want Americans to buy cigars, alcohol, and sugar from Cuba when they never tire of reminding us of the evils of smoking, sugar consumption, and binge-drinking? What is the state of Venezuela today after so many years of Hugo Chavez and his successor? How is Argentina doing under ‘leftist’ rule? What did the ‘leftist’ regime in Spain achieve in the 2000s other than ‘gay marriage’ — if one is retarded enough to regard the homo agenda as some kind of positive achievement? Not that Conservatives have any more integrity, but the point is the problems of certain societies go beyond politics or ideology. It’s about national character, issues of Rule of Law, and the culture of integrity/responsibility. Some cultures inculcate children with the culture of responsibility while other cultures do not and instead encourage kids to blame everyone else but themselves or their own culture. And some peoples are naturally more prone to be self-reflective while others are naturally more prone to be self-righteous. This is why it’s poisonous to encourage blacks to blame others for their own problems since blacks are, by nature, a bunch of self-centered ass-apes who tend to be low in introspection. It’s like pouring gasoline on fire or giving whiskey to the Irish.
Mario Puzo: An Expert on(as well as apologist of) the Latin Character(or lack thereof)
The Latin character can be glimpsed in Mario Puzo’s description of some Italian man in his neighborhood in one of his non-fiction books. The man worked at some grocery and everyday, he snuck away with a dozen eggs, a loaf of bread, some sugar, and maybe some other stuff. In other words, he stole from his boss. Anyway, Puzo says it was in this manner that the man was able to save enough money to move to a better place and even send his kid to college. Puzo describes it in a positive manner. And in novel of THE GODFATHER, Puzo isn’t troubled by the fact that the young Vito Corleone got started by robbing dresses from a clothes merchant. He figures the merchant has insurance, so that’s that. It may be amusing on the pages of a book, but what happens when so many people think and act like this? "It’s okay if I steal since I’m hoping to send my kid to college." "It’s okay I robbed the guy since he will likely stiff the insurance company in turn." It’s the kind of rotten behavior you see and hear in GOODFELLAS. To be sure, Latin ‘socio-moral’ logic more functional than Negro ‘socio-moral’ logic. At least the Italian man stole eggs and bread to save for the long term and to do something worthy like send a kid to college. And at least Vito Corleone, though a thief, is good to his wife and kids; he also takes care of some people in the community. In contrast, a Negro will steal just to stuff the big gaping hole between his fat-ass lips.

When Negroes act bad, it’s all about me-me-me. Still, it’s a pretty rotten cultural attitude that was ingrained in Mario Puzo’s character. Worse, the Latins tend to project their own rottenness onto the Northerners, indeed as if to suggest that everyone of every group is equally rotten. So, THE GODFATHER would have us believe that, well, Sicilian-Americans do what they do because, after all, everyone is part of the ‘same hypocrisy’. So, what Vito and Michael do are no different from what Wasp businessmen and politicians do. But really, if the Founding Fathers and the original settlers of the America were Southern Italians and acted like Clemenza, Sonny, Sollozzo the ‘Turk’, the Tataglias, Barzini, and even the well-educated Michael, would America have become the promising land of progress and productivity? America would likely have turned out like Argentina or vast Cuba.
In THE GODFATHER, the worst possible crime is for someone to betray the family, and yet, so much of the business-as-usual among southern Italians requires someone to betray someone. So, even though someone within the ‘family’ who betrays the ‘family’ is the worst possible scum, the family tries to encourage members of other ‘families’ to betray their own ‘families’. The young Vito Corleone(Robert DeNiro)finally gets his revenge on the old man who’d murdered his family by ‘turning’ someone in the old man’s clan. Of course, in any power equation, all sides play this game. American government tried to ‘turn’ Soviet agents, and the USSR sought out American agents who’d spy for the Soviets. But at least in social and moral principle, the Anglo ideal is that betrayal is wrong all around and only justified when absolutely necessary.
Also, the Rule of Law allows what might be deemed as betrayals under different circumstances into a matter of contractual competitiveness. Without Rule of Law, you must belong to one side or another based on ‘tribal’ loyalty. And if you turn against your original side and go to the other side, you’ve proven yourself as a traitor. But under Rule of Law, one can say one’s loyalties switched from one side to another based on individual free will and meritocratic competitiveness. Where individual will and freedom are paramount, your basic loyalty is to your self-interest and the legal contracts that ensure your right to choose among various options and groups. So, if you leave company A and go to company B, it’s not betrayal but merely changing jobs based on your self-interest based on contracts. And since everyone in such a system is bound by law than by blood loyalty, tribalism, clan-ism, or group-ism, all sides accept such behavior as legitimate since everyone has the same rights. And in matters of politics or ideology, it’s okay for someone to go from Party A to Party B if he or she sincerely underwent a change of heart. In contrast, in an order where the culture of individual conscience is weak, morality and right-and-wrong are about taking sides and sticking to one side in a ‘my country right or wrong’ manner.
But where individual conscience is allowed and even cultivated, it is okay for a person to go from one side to another IF he or she sincerely underwent a change of heart. To be sure, many political and ideological decisions and switches are made for reasons other than principle. Most politicians change their positions on issus on the basis of self-interest, and politics is mostly prostitution, which is why almost all Democratic politicians and increasing numbers of Republican politicians have signed onto ‘gay marriage’. It is why almost everyone is Congress is a servile running dog to the Jewish-Zionist Lobby. And most likely, Elia Kazan turned against his leftist compatriots more out of self-interest than scruples, which is why his political transformation has garnered less respect than that of Whittaker Chambers whose change of heart was sincere and principled. One can do the right thing for the wrong reason, and one could do the wrong thing for the right reason.

At any rate, loyalty is a difficult issue all around since everyone has many interests, many friends/associates, and many ideas/values. It’s impossible for someone to be loyal to everyone and everything. If someone has friends who’ve come to hate one another and if both estranged ex-friends tug at his or her loyalty, whom should he or she choose? We know it’s difficult to love more than one person in a romantic relationship. Being loyal to more than one lover is almost impossible on an emotional level, as illustrated in Francois Truffaut’s JULES AND JIM.
The Ancient Greeks had a difficult time with their gods since various gods demanded loyalty but giving loyalty to one god or goddess could well estrange and even enrage other gods and goddesses. Paris realized this when he awarded the Golden Apple to Aphrodite and not to Hera and Athena. It’s like Teddy in A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE doesn’t know what to do when both David and the boy-Hitler-look-alike-kid(the real son of the mother) order it come to him.

Sometimes, the liberation from strict loyalty can feel liberating, as in the case of Peter O’Toole as Lawrence of Arabia(in David Lean’s movie), who seems freed of any particular loyalty to anything. He’s on a grand adventure to serve the British, the Arabs, himself, or whatever. But after awhile, he begins to feel uncertain about what he is and where lies his ultimate destiny. Lawrence is a paradoxical figure as his life becomes, at once, all about him and nothing about him. As he begins to ‘write’ and act out his own ‘book’, he isn’t bound to any single political system or interest. He himself if the master of his destiny. But in having to satisfy and fulfill promises to all sides — the British commanders, the diplomats, and so many Arab tribes who don’t trust one another — , he has to be everything to everyone. Initially, he felt morally and culturally superior to the petty and barbaric Arabs whose world-view and behavior seemed rooted in ancient bloodlust and vendettas. (He also felt superior to the British — even officers above him — because he saw himself as a man of great empathy, vision, and creativity in contrast to the narrow, rigid, and bigoted outlooks of the British from top to bottom who were, furthermore, lacking any genuine good will about the Arab world.) But once he’s beaten and possibly homo-raped by a Turkish officer, he becomes as blood-curdling as the Arabs. He goes from a leader who’s above the fray of petty Arab bloodlust to a warrior whose vengeful rages are just as ‘tribal’ and personal.
At any rate, it surely simplified things for Jews to have reduced the number of gods to just one, the one and only God. Monotheism. That way, Jewish loyalty need not be divided and could concentrate on one vision of power and truth. But however one may conceptualize the spiritual realm, the real world is a different matter, and loyalty is always a matter of contentiousness since so many peoples and things demand your loyalty. So, every person is divided among loyalties to one’s family, friends, occupation, ideology, faith, and etc. Even within the family, what happens when the parents divorce? What happens when a parent is torn between children who grow to hate one another? What if one spouse is a Jew and another is a Catholic? What happens when one’s close friends are Jews but another close friend supports the Palestinian cause? What happens one is an ardent believer of evolution but has friends and family members who are into Creationism? What happens when one’s commitment to truth compels him or her to embrace race-ism(race + ism = belief in the existence of races and racial differences) when the PC orthodoxy enforced by Jewish Supremacists severely punishes most people who dare speak up on that topic, especially without Jewish approval. (Paradoxically, anti-race-ism aids and abets Jewish racial/tribal supremacism since suppression of racial truths blinds us to the reasons as to why Jews are so rich, influential, and powerful. Jews want us to believe that Jewish advantages are purely historical, cultural, or social. If historical, European gentiles are to be blamed for Jewish success, i.e. Jews were forced to excel in finance, business, and academics since ‘antisemitic’ gentiles forbade Jews from farming the soil. If cultural or social, there’s the promise that all of us can become just as successful as Jews if we just adopt the correct formula. It’s like arguing that blacks are superior in sports purely due to historical and cultural reasons, i.e. since blacks were made to do manual labor and discouraged from using their brains, they came to excel at physical stuff. But weren’t most native/indigenous folks of the Americas also made to do manual labor without much in the way of intellectual pursuit? Indeed, even Liberals say we need a lot of Mexicans since they seem to have a knack for picking lettuce and tomatoes — and doing all sorts of manual labor for cheap bucks. So, how come Mexicans are not so good at sports? Some might say it’s because Mexicans are physically smaller than blacks, but isn’t size a general characteristic of racial differences? Furthermore, even among Mexicans and blacks of same body size, blacks still do better in most sports. Isiah Thomas wasn’t particularly tall, and there are surely many Mexicans of at least that much stature. Yet, why aren’t they as good in basketball? After all, basketball isn’t only about height as there have been many excellent players who weren’t so big and plenty of big guys who were suited for the sports. So, why have even most smaller players been black? Furthermore, black success in sports undermines the argument about how the legacy of slavery holds blacks back. It’s been said that blacks have been so traumatized by slavery and its legacy that so many of them have no faith and confidence in themselves to succeed in anything. They are full of despair and just wanna hide their head in shame inside a hole, which is why they fail in school in such high numbers. But the fact is blacks are full of they-selves and think they is #1 and the center of the universe even though they don’t know shit. If anything, they suffer from excessive self-esteem. Also, if indeed blacks are so traumatized and lacking in confidence due to legacy of slavery, how come they have so much energy for dribbling the ball, running, jumping, hitting, singing, dancing, and etc? How come they got so much energy for shaking their booties, humping ho’s, and screaming & hollering in churches and dance clubs? If the legacy of slavery have indeed robbed blacks of their pride and confidence, they should be failing in sports as well, especially since the sporting industry was no less racially discriminatory against blacks as other sectors in the past. Besides, white American rage at black athletes was much more powerful than against, say, black professors or black scientists. Indeed, elite universities had been integrated long before baseball leagues. And there were many more whites who were sympathetic to blacks in the academia — which always had a large number of progressive and liberals — than in sports industry that pandered to working class white passions that were often blatantly anti-black. So, why did blacks do better in sports than in academia? And why have Asians have done so poorly in sports despite the massive Chinese government investment in track-and-field in the Olympics? If we want an honest answer, we simply cannot discount the role of genetics. If indeed Liberals are really concerned with black under-presentation in the math and science departments, why aren’t they similarly concerned with white, brown, and yellow under-representation in many sports? Liberals, even as they insist that racial differences don’t exist or are infinitesimal to the point of irrelevance, seem to act on the premise that blacks are indeed advantaged in sports for natural/biological reasons. So, even though black representation in quarterback positions in the NFL is in line percentage-wise with the national share of the black population, Liberals demand that there should be even more. Why? Isn’t such an argument on the basis that blacks are naturally superior in athletics, and therefore, blacks should dominate the quarterback positions as well in other positions? To be sure, Liberals don’t seem to mind that most kickers are white. I guess since that position is the least prestigious, it’s okay for whites to hog all of it. Anyway, all this insistence on racial equality really aids and abets Jewish supremacism since Jewish power keep expanding without being noticed for what it really is: tribal supremacism. If Nazi supremacism was promoted with declaration of ‘Aryan’ supremacy, Jewish supremacism is protected with declaration of ‘racial equality’. At least the Nazis were honest in their racial-tribal arrogance. If we were to realize that Jewish power is based on higher Jewish intelligence, pushier/nastier Jewish personalities, and greater innate drive among Jews to stick together and subvert others, we would come to notice, debate, and challenge the power of the Jew. But if we are led to believe that Jewish power is just an accident of history[or doesn’t even exist], then we can make believe that it’s nothing special, and that all of us can become just as successful as Jews as time goes by. Of course, Jews also distract us from the issue of Jewish power by endlessly raising controversies about the white-black gap in education, wealth, and etc — or Jewish elites bitch about the male-female gap in wages when, in fact, Jewish women earn more money than gentile men, especially black and brown gentile men. Just like there are so many ways to slice a pie or pizza, there are so many ways to cut and paste social data and frame issues. Since Jews control the media, most of the issues are framed to make white gentiles responsible for all the ills around the world. No wonder they were called ‘dirty Jews’. Given the power of the Jews, the real issue should the be Jewish-gentile gap in media, law firms, high tech, medicine, academia, courts, Hollywood, and etc. but Jews have made it a taboo for us to notice that they have the most power, wealth, and influence due to factors that are genetic as well as cultural and historical.)
Most people don’t enjoy betraying others, but a distinction needs to be made among individual betrayal, culture of betrayal, and necessity of betrayal. Some people simply betray others for nothing other than individual gain, as with the ‘Take me to America’ bodyguard in THE GODFATHER. Nevertheless, such individuals are more likely to exist in a society with a culture of betrayal. Sicily’s culture of loyalty was inseparable from its culture of betrayal. That’s how gangsterism operates. It’s based on both total loyalty and total self-interest. You’re 100% loyal to a clan and even willing to kill innocents at the behest of the clan. But if another clan offers something better, you switch loyalties and become 100% for that clan(at least for awhile). The Anglo ideal of loyalty is more moderate. Loyalty is important but one must never totally give oneself to a group, an idea, or cause. It’s like what the Christian says in CHARIOTS OF FIRE. He loves the King/Queen and Country and all that, but as a man of God, he cannot race on Sundays. In contrast, the Sicilian ideal is that you should be 100% for the clan or the ‘family’. If the clan orders you to murder a prostitute(as in THE GODFATHER PART II), you do it without question. If you’re a Sicilian Catholic priest who heard someone’s confession, you might pass the secret to someone within your clan even if you’ve violated the law of the church. Such moral vacuity means the loyalty can never be based on anything meaningful or moral. Thus, no matter how powerful the cult of loyalty may seem, it doesn’t go very deep because of weak moral foundations. Also, even though the underlings may be loyal to the boss, who’s to say the boss will reciprocate the loyalty? This is what Hyman Roth exploits in the relationship between Michael and Frank Pantangeli. Though Michael didn’t turn on Pantangeli, Roth fixed it so that Pantangeli would think that Michael betrayed him, which is why Pantengeli decides to squeal on Michael to the FBI. Also, in a loyalty culture, one is more likely to feel disregarded and disrespected if one is not favored, and that might lead to betrayal.
In an individual meritocratic culture, you are expected to go out into the world and prove yourself. But in a loyalty culture, you expect favors simply because you are part of the clan. Carlo was especially bitter in THE GODFATHER because, even though having married into the family, he wasn’t handed a key position. Also, loyalty culture is hierarchical, which is why Fredo was so angry that younger brother Michael bossed him around in THE GODFATHER PART II. Of course, not all loyalty cultures are the same. Sicilian variety is different from the Japanese kind. As Italians believed in the higher God, they at least felt that there was an authority higher than that of the boss. Also, Italians are innately oily and shifty due to their innate genetics. Japanese are, by nature, more rigid emotionally. Also, as traditional Japan lacked faith in the higher one-and-only God, the loyalty to one’s superior took on an almost spiritual nature, which is why a Japanese traitor was bound to feel more guilt-ridden about his treachery, indeed even to the point of slitting his belly open if necessary. When Japan lost the war, plenty of Japanese killed themselves as a matter of honor. But most Italian Fascists just hid or changed their clothes and pretended to be anti-Fascists and welcomed the Americans. It’s in the Italian nature due to both culture and nature. Italians are a bunch of oily mama’s boy hustlers — though Greeks are even worse.
Anyway, there is also the matter of the Necessity of Betrayal, which is essentially a moral matter. PRINCE OF THE CITY is one of the best films on the subject. The character of Danny Ciello(Treat Williams) turns on his partners not for self-gain or craven cowardice but because of the repressed compulsion to confess his ‘sins’ and come clean. The story is heart-wrenching because his partners, despite all their flaws, are good friends and even good cops under the circumstances. And it’s too simple to just blame the cops since the system itself is corrupt. But truth and morality compel Ciello to betray his friends because there’s no other way to tackle the entrenched culture within the police department. (And unlike ON THE WATERFRONT, it’s done without big speeches and the uplifting ‘happy ending’. It’s one of the most faithful adaptations of social truth, but then it was a total bomb at the box office.) A less good movie on a similar theme is CASUALTIES OF WAR. It’s so difficult to be a good man and stick up for truth especially in a dangerous world where you must depend on your partners who are willing to risk their own lives for you. Even if someone’s scum, how do you turn against him if he saved your life? When everything is reduced a matter of us vs them, humans begin to act like chimpanzees and dogs. They instinctively bark aloud with others of the pack at rival packs. But such emotion-laded loyalty without moral grounding doesn’t go very deep. It’s like sports. If a player is with a certain team, he will play 100% to win for the team and to destroy other teams. But if he’s traded to another team, he will do the same for that team. Gangsterism is like that, and gangsterism crept into the narcotics department in PRINCE OF THE CITY. But Ciello has a conscience and decides to do the right thing. But decisions have consequences(many of them unforseen), and some of them are beyond good and bad and beyond anyone’s control. It’s like the sidekick of Joe Pesci’s character in CASINO seems most loyal, but at the end, we see him beat Pesci’s character to a pulp with a baseball bat. Such loyalties are both total and empty. It’s not like the loyalty of Peter in Jesus based on morality and spirituality, which is why Peter felt genuine guilt when he denied Jesus three times. But the gangsters feel no guilt. They are really motivated by greed and fear, at best by sentiment, hardly a substantive emotion. While they will serve a clan with 100% loyalty while on the job, they are also on the lookout to switch to another clan. Why are we not surprised when the sidekick betrays Al Pacino’s character at the end of CARLITO’S WAY? Since gangsterism operates on the principle of the zero-sum game where winners win and losers get blown away, one must take sides and totally stick to that side, that is until one makes a switch to another side that seems to have the better odds. Besides, the very nature of gangsterism tends to attract those with weak sense of moral scruples.

But in a Rule of Law system governed by individual meritocracy, it’s perfectly okay for one to quit at Google and go work for Apple if the latter offers better pay. As it’s competition under agreed-upon Rule of Law, no one gets killed, and the competition continues with both companies trying to lure the better kinds of workers with more promising opportunities and pay. This is why the notion that THE GODFATHER is a metaphor for capitalism is disingenuous. While Anglo-American capitalists have played it dirty — especially in the 19th century — , their behavior wasn’t entirely devoid of Rule of Law, and if anything, once the capitalists became rich, they funded the very institutions that advanced greater Rule of Law and social progress on all fronts. How many Sicilian gangster families have done that? To be sure, American capitalism has become more gangsterist with the rise of Jewish power that is, at its core, tribal and amoral toward goyim. Jews are like Irish-and-Italians with brains. Just look what Jews have done with Wall Street. Just look how Jews operate foreign policy. Just look at the collusion among Jewish-controlled media, Jewish-controlled Hollywood & music industry, Jewish-controlled finance, Jewish-controlled government, Jewish-controlled courts. Just look at how Jews use their dirty power to undermine and destroy all their enemies. Jews are like gangsters and ideologues rolled into one. They are Leon Trotsky and Meyer Lansky rolled into one. Unlike the Irish, they fight with ideas and intellect as well as with political machines and clout. So, Jews don’t merely wipe out their enemies in gangster style. They have them ‘purged’. It’s like how William Kristol gloated about how all the ‘Arabists’ were purged from the GOP. It’s like how Jennifer Rubin the ghastly Jewess used her poison pen to have Jason Richwine purged from American Heritage Foundation. Or take the hideous Jewess Victoria Nuland and her dirty deeds in Ukraine. Look how Jews in the media and government are working in tandem to bring down Russia so that it too will be a gangster paradise for Jewish Lawyers in Love. Consider how the hideous Jewess Sabrina Rubin Erderly admitted to journalistic fraud during her college years, but she was still fawned upon by the establishment media and given a freehand to write up even more ludicrous stories that finally culminated in the UVA rape hoax. As in the days of Lillian Hellman, Jewish crooks are protected and promoted for telling lies. In contrast, those who speak the truth about racial differences and Jewish power are silenced and destroyed. Just ask James Watson and the late Helen Thomas.

Anyway, even the Latin Left isn’t truly progressive or reform-oriented. It is less about getting to the source of the problem and pulling out the poison weeds roots and all but about fixing the blame on other nations and peoples for Latin problems. So, Castro just blamed America for all Cuban problems, past and present. So, Latin American leftists espoused Marxism and lionized communist intellectuals like Eric Hobsbawm as convenient crutches as to why North America became so powerful and rich while much of Latin-America lagged so far behind. (Latin American intellectuals love to blame the ‘gringo’ or ‘yanqui’, but how come Canada has proven itself to be far more productive and functional than most of Latin America? Canadians didn’t send gunboats to Latin America.) Indeed, it sure took long enough for Eduardo Galeano to admit that his book OPEN VEINS is mostly a crock of baloney. Latin American leftism was ironically fueled by one of the worst strains of conservatism. One knee-jerk aspect of conservatism(at its least dignified) is the blind notion of us-vs-them and the readiness to fix all blames on others as scapegoats. (Though PC would have us believe that the powerful scapegoat the weak, it’s just as usual for the weak to scapegoat the powerful, indeed when the powerful are not to blame for the problems of the weak. Mugabe of Zimbabwe can blame white nations and white folks all he wants. The disaster he brought upon Zimbabwe was the doing of blacks led by his rotten self. Of course, the powerful also scapegoat the weak. In America, powerful Jewish supremacists scapegoat all the problems of American society on middle class, working class, and underclass whites. New York Times is more angry with hillbillies living in trailers in the South than with Zionist bankers on Wall Street who’ve used all sorts of dirty tricks to rake in trillions from the rest of us. But then, there are powerless ‘white trash’ types who scapegoat powerful Jews for everything. While it’s true that Jews are indeed responsible for much that is rotten in the world, many of the problems of ‘white trash’ community must be blamed on ‘white trash’ folks themselves as many of them are indeed dumb and childish, like the family in Clint Eastwood’s MILLION DOLLAR BABY.) Liberalism, at its best, counters such mindlessness by calling for a more even-handed and open-minded assessment of problems and crises. The impulse behind Latin American leftism has essentially been conservative since Latinos used Marxism as a crutch with which to push most of the blame for their own failures on the gringos or yanquis. It was especially despicable coming from white Latin Americans. After all, long before Anglos arrived in North America, the Spanish and Portuguese had settled vast areas of South and Central Americas — and the Caribbeans. They’d spread germs and wiped out millions of natives. The extensive race-mixing happened as the result of white males taking native women, sometimes by rape. And Brazil imported ten times more slaves than North America did. And white Latin elites enjoyed power and privilege over the native populations, mestizos, mulattos, and blacks. So, for Latin American whites to play the role of ‘oppressed people of color’ is truly stomach-churning.
Just blame the Gringo
It’s almost as bad as Jews playing the innocent lambs of history when their own history has been rife with genocide, exploitation, collaboration with enemy invaders(as Jews supported the Moorish invasion of Spain and southern Italy), slavery(Jews bought and sold many more white and black slaves than whites or blacks bought or sold Jewish slaves), mass killing under communism, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and subversion of the West since the end of World War II, indeed to the point where America will soon become a white minority nation and EU will follow if current immigration trends continue. How can Latin American whites be so craven? But then, Italians and Spanish in Europe are no less craven — though Greeks can be even worse. They’ve messed up their own economies but bitch and whine and dump all the blame on Germany for not pouring more funds into their toilet bowl economies.
Northern European ass-lickers of globalist Jewish Supremacists
But then, at least on the political level, Germans and Brits are no less craven than Italians and Greeks. Germans and Brits are even bigger ass-kissers of Jews than southern Europeans are. Partly and paradoxically, this is because Britain was one of the main victors of WWII and Germany was the main loser of WWII. Britain, as the winner, likes to portray itself as good and decent and anti-Nazi, and Jews have played on this moral vanity-insecurity and pressured UK to prove that it is indeed anti-‘racist’ by opening its borders wide to the colored folks. (Britons have felt moral anxiety despite their victory in World War II because their empire was one of the most race-ist in the world and much admired by Hitler for that very reason.) In contrast, Germany, as the loser nation that committed the horrendous Holocaust but was allowed to survive and thrive, feels obligated to suck up to Jews and beg their forgiveness for all eternity. (As Germans also caused great havoc in Russia where possibly over 20 million people died during the war, they also feel ‘collective guilt’ regarding the Slavs. But when push comes to shove, German ‘collective guilt’ bends to power than conscience. Though Merkel made obligatory noise about German culpability in the destruction of Russia during World War II, she’s decided to side with globalist Jews against Russia in the recent crisis over Ukraine triggered by none other than Jews. So, in the end, the German politics of guilt is less about moral conscience than conscious awareness of who has the real power in the world. As US is the biggest military-and-economic power and is controlled by Jews, Germans will bend over to Jews. And Jews love this because Jews are a very jealous people. Jews don’t want German ‘guilt’ to be divided between Jews and Russians. They want German ‘guilt’ to kneel down before Jews and Jews only. So, never mind the 20 million+ dead Russians and Slavs in World War II.) But, there’s another reason why Jews exert more pressure on UK and Germany than on southern Europe. As Northern Europe is richer and more powerful, it needs to be placed under greater control than the often dysfunctional southern Europe. Also, as Jews are partly Semitic, they are racially closer to southern Europeans than to Northern ones, so Jews have more of an inferiority complex vis-a-vis Northerners who look lighter, ‘cleaner’, and ‘purer’.
Paradoxically, Germany and Great Britain are politically more craven and servile toward Jews precisely because they have more of a moral culture. One would think a more moral people would be more principled and more courageous, but this isn’t the case when they don’t control their own moral narrative. When, in the past, Brits and Germans controlled their own moral narratives, they didn’t feel that they had to prove their worth to other peoples. But now that both UK and Germany are essentially controlled by Jews directly or indirectly(Germany relies on Jew-controlled US), politicians and elites in both nations go out of their way to prove their repentance and goodness to their Jewish bosses. But since such moral sense is based on anxiety-riddled fear of alien Jewish power, British and German elites are a bunch of craven wussies wetting their pants in front of Jews. Because Northern Europeans are more sensitive about moral matters, they are more willing to bend over backwards to prove their moral worth. In doing so, their backs eventually break, and they are rendered spineless. Since those who control the moral narrative in Northern Europe are Jews and since Jewish supremacists manipulate morality in the most cynical manner, moral sense has become warped in much of Northern Europe, which is why even Sweden — which isn’t guilt of either Nazi or communist crimes — goes out of its way to prove its worth before the Jews. In contrast, Southern Europeans aren’t very morally sensitive. If anything, they are natural-born Machiavellians and don’t give much of a crap about what Jews think. They are also less likely to be politically correct. They will be politically correct against Northern Europeans — shaming Germany and Nordic nations for their ‘racism’ against Southerners — , but when it comes to their own behavior, they are more likely to make fun of blacks and crack jokes about Jews. It’s hard to shame the shameless. So, greater moral sensitivity among Northern Europeans can actually produce a culture — at least an elite culture — that is more craven. It may have the trappings of higher morality but is really motivated by the anxiety of reputation. David Cameron and Nick Clegg are really shit-scum who suck up to Jews. What is especially disgusting is that they are so preening in their moralism even though their purported moral values are little more than appeasement of their Jewish bosses. Anglo-Brits may have beaten the Germans, but Jews beat the Anglos. Given the political cravenness of Northern Europe, their moral sense survives in non-political areas like work quality, diligence, honesty(outside politics), mutuality, and reliance. And those qualities continue to generate a good deal of productivity and wealth in that part of the world. But unless Northern Europeans regain political control away from the Jews and define their own future, they will essentially be cattle working for Zio-globalist supremacists.
Anyway, even though southern Europeans are white folks, the only people who’ve risen to the level of sincere universal morality have been certain Northern Europeans and Northern European Americans and non-white Northern-Europeanized American. Only among Northern European types has there been an extensive degree of individual moral conscience. While such people exist in all cultures, they tend to be few and far between in most societies outside the Northern European and North American hemisphere. Even among Northern Europeans, it’s mainly been the Anglos, Nordics, and Germanics who have been most conscientious on the individual level. This may sound somewhat odd since one can point to British piracy in the seas, Anglo slave trade of Africans, and, of course, Nazi war crimes. And yet, even when Northern Europeans did things of dubious or ghastly moral nature, they’ve been formidable in their endeavors because they’ve been relatively morally upright among themselves(if not to other peoples). Even under the system of National Socialism when Hitler and his henchmen were cooking up some horrible agenda for much of the world, most Germans from top to bottom were mindful of working hard and being responsible toward one another. Those were great moral assets within Germany that made for social harmony and economic productivity. It was in dealing with certain non-German peoples that the Germans failed big time morally. But even Nazi Germany was not a total moral failure since most Germans treated other Germans — and Germany was overwhelmingly German — with decency, honesty, and trust. Nazism became a total moral failure outside Germany in places in Poland and Russia. The collectivist enterprise of National Socialism undermined the power of individual conscience, and this did have a corrosive effect on all Germans, but at the very least, there was a strong emphasis that all Germans should treat one another as fellow comrades according to the Rule of Law. So, at least among Germans, even National Socialism was, by and large, run according to Rule of Law and with moral precepts. In contrast, even among Italians, Fascism couldn’t achieve much since Fascism or no Fascism, most Italians acted like weasels and craven mama’s boys. After the defeat of Germany, the restoration of individual conscience in combination of German culture of mutuality and trust did wonders for the German economy. The highest form of morality seems to develop in a world of security, homogeneity, power, social order, laws, checks and balances, and a balanced respect of theory/ideas and practice/reality. Indeed, it wasn’t always the case that Northern Europeans were great shakes in the morality department. After all, Swedes had once been Vikings who struck terror into the heart of Europe. Germanic peoples were once barbarians not unlike chaotic Russians today. Celts used to wreak havoc all over the British Isles long ago. Indeed, it was only in the last 200 years that Northern Europe became recognizably morally more advanced than the South and other parts of the world. It wasn’t due to one factor but combination of factors. Relative homogeneity ensured more social cohesiveness across greater distances. Though there were regional differences within Sweden, Britain, or Germany, they weren’t of the magnitude between, say, Northern Italy and Southern Italy. Also, Northern Europe, for a long while, didn’t have to worry about invasion from the outside. Northern Europeans might attack Northern Europeans, but even such events happened to be relatively rare. In contrast, Southern Europe experienced many more wars, especially as they were later to unify into nations. Greece and parts of Balkans even came under the domination of Muslim Turks. Parts of Italy and much of Spain and Portugal had been invaded by North Africans and the bloodlines were, to an extent, changed forever. As for the Slavs, they’d been attacked by Muslims from the South and Mongols from the East.
Northern Europe, in contrast, was geographically safer, and thus, they grew more trusting and less paranoid. The only Northern European nation that became pathologically paranoid was modern Germany and only because the discrepancy between its ambitions and the geographical realities. (To be sure, one could argue that Great Britain was paranoid in its obsession with maintaining the ‘balance of powers’ on the Continent. Though British continental policy was essentially strategic, it may partly have been a projection of the British way of doing things. As British political culture tended to be more liberal and pluralistic than in most parts of Europe, it may have preferred a kind of Europe with similar ‘division of powers’ among many kingdoms and nations in the name of mutual recognition and ‘fairness’. Just as the British didn’t want all the power vested in the king, the clergy, or the business class within Britain, they didn’t want to see all of Continental Europe dominated by one kingdom or nation.) While nations like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark well understood that they could never become great powers, Prussians began to hear the call of their true potential. Eyeing the rise of modern nationalism in France, Prussians led the way in uniting the Germanic states into modern Germany, and it wasn’t long before it found itself as the biggest economy and the most powerful military power in Europe. This realization made Germans want to be recognized as a great power. Therefore, when the French, the British, and Russians were perceived as encircling and strangulating Germany to deny its rightful ‘place in the sun’, Germans grew increasingly paranoid and resentful. Similarly, when Japan was first modernizing in the 19th century, it merely wanted to survive as an independent nation-state. But as it defeated China for the control of Formosa and Korea and even fought the Russians to a draw(or even semi-victory), the Japanese began to feel mighty big about themselves. When their demands for great power status were not satisfied by the British and Americans, Japanese grew increasingly bitter and paranoid. Similarly, China in the 80s only wanted to make economic progress and eat better. But with the sudden rise of China, many Chinese have caught the ‘great power’ bug and take even the smallest slights with paranoid fury. But so do the Jews. Jews are now so addicted to their great power supremacism that they throw conniptions every time they don’t get everything their way. So, if Putin won’t bend over to every Jewish demand(as craven white gentile elites and politicians do in America), he is made out to be the new Hitler who must be gotten rid of. (And given that American popular culture is so debased, the majority of Americans, including Conservatives, believe Putin is an evil man because he’s disliked by the Pussy Riot.) German resentment need not have turned paranoid if the British hadn’t themselves been so paranoid about the rise of Germany, but then, Germans would have done better not to be get so worked up about the rise of Russian power. But apart from the rise of German paranoia and the calamity it led to, Northern Europe has been the most stable place in the world in much of the modern world. It had the combination of homogeneity and security. Also, as Anglos came to dominate the world — and their wealth flowed to other parts of Northern Europe linked by trade with the British Empire — , they began to feel more magnanimous and idealistic about properly governing the world. And it was true enough that, in general, the British ran a more humane and progressive imperialist operation than most other imperialists.
And in a way, British ‘racism’ paradoxically also made the British more moralistic. Though racial purism could be used for horrible purposes — as happened with the Nazis — , it also had the effect of making a people feel more orderly, cohesive, united, and responsible. If indeed race-mixing leads to higher morality, mulattos and mestizos of Brazil and Mexico should be the most moral people in the world. We know that to be false. The British, because they remained white, felt they should uphold British rules and values. Though white Britons lorded over their non-white subjects who were deemed racially and/or culturally inferior, they also felt they should live up to the principles of the higher and pure-blooded white race. As the British believed in both racial superiority and the cult of ‘fairness’ worthy of true gentlemen, their racial supremacism wasn’t merely arrogant and nasty(though it sometimes was) but also good-willed, helpful, and magnanimous. The British believed in the White Man’s Burden as a moral duty of the white race to spread civilization around the world. Though the element of class had its nasty side in British history/society, its positive influence was in cultivating manners and values than just inculcating us-vs-them tribalism. If a British gentleman saw a lowly brutish British thug mistreating a colored person, he might feel a moral obligation to come to the aid of the colored. Such values partly explain why today’s British elites tend to sympathize with the non-white immigrant community more than with ‘angry British yobs’ and others of their ilk who are deemed ‘racist’. But what had once been a virtue is now a vice as Great Britain is being flooded by nonstop immigration that can lead to the very demise of Britain.
Anyway, Anglo propriety and magnanimity would have been difficult to maintain throughout the Empire if the Brits had mixed in huge numbers with the dark-skinned natives. For one thing, it’s undeniable that dark-skinned natives were more backward, more barbaric, more savage, more reactionary, more childish, and/or more primitive. And possibly less intelligent. They were incapable of running a modern system of governance and economy. They needed to be guided by whites with superior ability and knowledge. It was because the Brits remained white that they were able to maintain their high standards and function at a high level of competence. If they’d mixed with the natives in huge numbers, it would have been more difficult for the Brits to remain culturally and morally British since many of them would have had divided loyalties, confused values/customs derived from two very different cultures, and mixed-up genes. This would have been especially problematic with black Africans since black genes are funkier, nastier, and more out-of-control.
Because we live in politically correct times, we think ‘racism’ was and is totally bad. This is why, when a black Zimbabwean told a BBC reporter that things had been better when the white regime of Ian Smith had run the nation, the white reporter begged the interviewee to take his words back. To the white Liberal, nothing is worse than ‘racism’ as if ‘racism’ was about nothing but the Holocaust and trading Negroes across the Atlantic. In truth, ‘racism’ was often a case of ability-ism or abilitism. There was no denying that whites were more able and had the ability/means to run modern economies. This superior ability vis-a-vis non-whites could be cultural — and in some cases, non-whites could learn to be just as clever as the British(and there are plenty of smart and able Asian-Indians and Singaporean Chinese) — but, in some cases, there was also a genetic-racial basis to the differences. So, for Zimbabwe to be run like a modern nation, it needed white British rule. And it was ‘racism’ that made the British elites in places like Zimbabwe feel that they had a special mission and responsibility to run things according to their own standards. If the British elites in places like Zimbabwe had racially mixed over the years and had become a bunch of mulattos, they would have been genetically and culturally more black African, thus less likely to be good at governing according to the British way.
Indeed, one of the problems that Lawrence faces in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA upon going native is that while the Arab way makes for good lightning strikes in warfare and looting the enemy, it’s no way to rule a modern social order. If order is to be established in the Middle East in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, whites have to do it the white way, not by the native way which is just a lot of throat-slitting antics over who should carry whose water. So, even though ‘racism’ came to be associated with some bad stuff, it was also associated with good stuff. On the positive side, it meant that Northern European white imperialists should remain true to their high standards of morality, ability, and governance. And in order to maintain such standards, it certainly helped that whites were mindful of their racial and cultural whiteness. And because whites ran things better, even dark-skinned natives did better under British rule than under their own. Though Asian-Indians like to boast that there has been no massive famine in India since the end of Independence, this had nothing to do with better governance by Hindus themselves. Rather, it was because more advanced agricultural technologies advanced by the West were introduced to India and because foreign aid continued to pour in. When we compare the first half of 20th century with the second half, we have to take into account the differences in science and technology. After all, America itself changed drastically from the first half to the second half of the 20th century. Even by 1950, there were plenty of Americans without electricity and indoor plumbing. So, if Asian-Indians managed to evade certain calamities in the second half of the 20th century, it really owed to advances in science, medicine, and technology in the West that were applied on India. People always bitch about how evil South African Apartheid was, but to a large measure, Afrikaner ‘racism’ was really a form of abilitism. It was predicated on the notion that the abler whites of Northern European stock should run the nation since they had the brains and knowhow. Racial equality sounds good on paper, but it can lead to equalization of ability and the lack of ability. If whites are more able and blacks are less able, forcing racial equality will mean that blacks should be given equal access to the running of institutions and machinery. But what happens when blacks run places like Detroit, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Birmingham, entire regions of Mississippi, and South Africa after Apartheid? It’s not only bad for whites but it’s bad for blacks too since black rule leads to demise of social order and economy. Once that happens, not only do whites flee but blacks are left mired in their own dysfunction. While ‘racism’ could be unjust in collectively favoring one race over another — even favoring dumb whites over smart blacks — , it’s also undeniable that white rule was better for both whites and blacks than black rule over whites(the horror!) and black rule over blacks. While, as a matter of pride, black Zimbabweans may be happy to see their own at the top, in terms of functionality, production, and social order, white ‘racist’ abilitism did far greater wonders for black Africa. Today, black Africa is making some stride because lots of Chinese and Asian-Indians with superior abilities are paving roads, setting up enterprises, and building schools and hospitals.
Israel operates on the ‘racist’ premise that Ashkenazi Jews with superior ability should control most of the commanding heights of governance and the economy. Of course, in the long run, imperialism is bound to come to a close as the majority native peoples demand self-rule, but one cannot disassociate the superior ruling-and-management styles of Northern Europeans from their race-ism. It was because they remained race-ist that they were able to maintain the consciousness of higher standards that were essentially particular to their culture. Paradoxically, Western universalism was grounded in the Western particularity. Being purely British, white British imperialists felt they should live up to high British standards. This could sometimes lead to sneering arrogance and contemptuous behavior among the British — as seen in GANDHI by Richard Attenborough — , but it also had the effect of preventing British rule from becoming muddled, lax, and confused.
Of course, the moral issue became confused somewhat because the highest values of the British Empire were espoused by its upperclassmen. The lower elements of British society — the dregs — were often crude and uncultured. They were used as cannon fodder and given the dirtiest jobs, physically and morally. So, naturally, they felt far less moral obligation when it came to upholding British standards. At times, as in Australia, these uncouth buggers even went around wiping out the natives like animals to hunt. In such cases, the British elites were caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they relied on the manpower of the ‘dregs’ to do the dirty work of expanding and settling the empire. On the other hand, as gentlemen with a culture of ‘fairness’, it just wouldn’t do to allow the ‘dregs’ to act like barbarians and treat the native like animals, especially as one of the missions of the Empire was to spread the light of Christianity. And yet, weren’t the ‘dregs’ of British society so crude and lowly because they were economically and socially browbeaten and even oppressed by the snobbish upper classes?
Wasn’t the conceit of superior moral principles among the British upperclass made possible by the immoral privilege it enjoyed over and enforced against the masses?
A similar kind of dynamics existed in the American South, with upper class Southern gentry being somewhat more generous toward the Negro than the "po’ white trash" who felt downright competitive with the Negro and were hired by Southern gentry to do all the dirty work in the race relations. And in New York, the urban gentry elites depend on the ‘working class’ members of the police for their safety and security, but they also constantly berate the police for brutalizing the helpless Negroes. Urban gentry elites order the NY police to ‘stop and frisk’ the Negro, but they also complain about how the sensitivities of blacks are not being respected by the police.

It’s worth asking if the physical quality of whiteness itself has something to do with morality. This isn’t to suggest in any way that having white skin, in and of itself, makes one more moral. There are plenty of decent non-whites and swarthy-looking Europeans, and there are plenty of nasty, vicious, and vile light-skinned whites, especially among the drunken Irish and the even more drunken Russians. (It’s like the mother in KINGS OF SUMMER says, "The Irish are the blacks of Europe.") But perception might subtly affect how we see others and ourselves. Indeed, in most cultures, lightness, brightness, and whiteness are associated with cleanliness, purity, and enlightenment whereas darkness, brownness, and blackness are associated with filth, obscenity, and danger. Consider the Ancient Egyptian poem "Hymn to the Sun":

"He says: Thou appearest beautifully on the horizon of heaven,
Thou living Aton, the beginning of life!
When thou art risen on the eastern horizon,
Thou hast filled every land with thy beauty.
Thou art gracious, great, glistening, and high over every land;
Thy rays encompass the lands to the limit of all that thou hast made:
As thou art Re, thou reachest to the end of them;
(Thou) subduest them (for) thy beloved son.
Though thou art far away, thy rays are on earth;
Though thou art in their faces, no one knows thy going."

It exults in the brightness of the day with the rising of the sun.

But consider how it describes the dark night:

"When thou settest in the western horizon,
The land is in darkness, in the manner of death.
They sleep in a room, with heads wrapped up,
Nor sees one eye the other.
All their goods which are under their heads might be stolen,
(But) they would not perceive (it).
Every lion is come forth from his den;
All creeping things, they sting.
Darkness is a shroud, and the earth is in stillness,
For he who made them rests in his horizon."

It compares the darkness of night with death, paranoia, fright, and criminality.

In Greek culture, Apollo the Sun god is second only to Zeus whereas Hephaestus(or Vulcan) who dwells in the underworld is seen as something of a lesser(and deformed) god. And of course, when Greeks die, they are thought to end up in Hades, the dark underworld. By some perverse trick of nature, areas that receive the brightest rays of the sun created the darkest people, whereas the places that receive the least amount of sunlight created the lightest-skinned people. In India, women using whitening creams to look lighter. While there are many positive attributes associated with blackness — consider the awesome monolith in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and Woody Strode as the giant hired killer in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST — , even blacks often prefer light-skinned people. Indeed, some black Africans like whiteness so much that they’re convinced that albinos have magical qualities. Thus, albinos in Africa are killed for their body parts by black jigger-jivers not out of hate but out of superstitious love/admiration for their supposedly miraculous properties. And consider the special interest people have for the white gorilla, the white tiger, the white lion, etc. But it’s not just white color but also facial angularity that might have led to more acute perceptions of moral standards among whites. The white face is most geometric among the races, and such features may have a perceptive influence that favors clarity, form, and order. Albinos are even whiter than white folks but they have fatass lips and snubby noses, and such features don’t inspire an appreciation of form and clarity. They look like white hairless ape-like creatures.

Though we must always remind ourselves that looks can be deceiving and say very little about the true inner-character of a person, there’s no denying that looks do subtly influence our view of others and the world. If you looked like Quasimodo of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME — one of the movies as I haven’t read the book — and if your people also look like Quasimodo, you will likely have a different view of the world than if you(and your people) looked like Alain Delon. Though we can all agree that one shouldn’t judge a book by its cover — actually, the essence of a book can be glimpsed by its cover as serious literature and popular genres(like romance and mystery) are packaged differently — , we do prefer to associate physical attributes with the deeper meaning of things. So, we want our heroes and heroines to be beautiful or noble-looking, whereas we prefer our villains to be ugly, gross, or nasty-looking(even if attractive). Jack Palance played many heavies/villains because he just looked bad(albeit in a magnificent way). And people vote for politicians often based on books, appearances, height, and etc. The taller candidate, even if a dodo puppet of Jews, seems grander in character simply because of his stature. We respond to Clint Eastwood differently than to hawk-faced Lee Van Cleef and rat-faced Eli Wallach in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY because of the particularity of his looks. Jesus was portrayed as a beautiful man in many classic paintings even though He may have been a funny-looking Jew. Also, we are affected by our self-image. Though each person has a innate personality regardless of looks, our self-image affects not only our view of ourselves but of the world since our sense of self-worth is inseparable from our sense of how others see us. In some extreme cases, even if others have a good impression of us, we may have such a negative view of ourselves that we find it hard to cope with our lives. Consider the problem of Anorexia Nervosa where perfectly decent women keep losing more weight to be more presentable. Though the world finds them ever skinnier and more-appalling-looking, they believe themselves to be getting prettier in the eyes of the world. Since losing weight generally improves looks, some women come to think that continuing to lose weight will make them prettier and cut away the ugliness. They have no sense of the law of diminishing returns. When a fat woman loses weight, she looks better, but there’s a point where her looks will get worse if she continues to lose weight, and her face looks like that of Skeletor.
(It seems the West/white folks are suffering from a moralistic version of Anorexia Nervosa. There was a time when the progressive moral efforts of whites did make for a better and more just society in the Western world. It burned away the fat of social discrimination at many levels. But the constant mania to burn away more fat of ‘white privilege’ — when, in fact, such kind of social fat is — rare is leading to the eating away to the very muscle and bone of the West.) It’s like some people have to keep getting more tattoos and more body piercings. In the film OPEN YOUR EYES, the character is convinced that his face is disfigured even though no one else thinks so. In VERTIGO, a woman’s perception of herself and the world changes in relation to the alteration not only of her identity but of her looks. Imagine if you wake up tomorrow looking like Rosie O’Donnell. While your inner-self will be the same, the your sense of self — and how others see you — will be drastically altered. Though gorgeous models will tell you that looks don’t matter and that they really care about the beauty of the inner-soul, what would happen to them if they woke up the next day and found themselves looking like Whoopie Goldberg, Sandra Oh, or Catherine Keener in the mirror? They’d likely want to kill themselves. Consider the profound changes that happens to the man in THE FACE OF ANOTHER(by Hiroshi Teshigahara and Kobo Abe). If you’re some guy who lost his face in an accident and were fitted with a new face, your behavior will be affected by the qualities of the new face. If you’re given the face of Charles Laughton in one case and the face of Pierce Brosnan in another, you-as-Laughton-look-alike will surely feel and think differently than you-as-Brosnan-look-alike. And we’re not simply talking about feeling good or bad but about your relation to the world in general. If you look like Charles Laughton, you will feel that the world finds you ugly. You will feel bitter about the world and about yourself. Since everyone’s ego is at once defensive and fragile, you will likely blame the world more than your bad fortune. But if you look like Pierce Brosnan, you know that lots of ladies(and even fruitkins)will love you, and your view of the world might be sunnier(and a bit cocky).
The relationship between the movie director and the star has been like that between the Jew and the goy. Movie directors are, by and large, not good-looking and hide behind the camera. But to compensate for their lack of looks and charisma, they seek power and control. Movie stars, in contrast, no matter how popular, must follow the dictates of producers and directors — though some are savvy enough to gain control of production and/or direction, as with Clint Eastwood and Mel Gibson(before he got to hitting the bottle too much). There are far more Jewish puppet-masters than Jewish politicians. There are many more Jewish writers, directors, and producers than frontline movie stars. Jews often use a goy ‘front’ to gain control and push their view of the world. Even many Jewish characters are played by more mainstream-looking goyim, as in the movie AVALON by Barry Levinson.

Even within members of the same race, the looks have a way of affecting behavior, outlook, and behavior. So, good-looking people tend to hang together. Rich men go for good-looking women. Good-looking women are more confident than ugly-looking women. Of course, people also look for ability, character, and integrity; looks alone are never enough. The younger sister character in Edward Burns’ NEWLYWEDS is very pretty but a real pain the ass, and after awhile, you just wish she’d fall down the stairs and break her neck or something. Even so, all things being equal — suppose everyone were similar in innate character, intelligence, and personality — , looks are everything. And even when both good-looking people and ugly-looking people are for social change and reform, the motivations — subconscious if not conscious — behind them are often different. Good-looking people will be more likely to anticipate social change with a sunny outlook and attitude whereas ugly-looking people will be more likely to call for change as a form of vengeance(as with character of Alberich in NIBELUNGEN). It’s like Cybill Shepherd’s character and Albert Brooks’ character in TAXI DRIVER seem to be driven by different emotional agendas in their support of the presidential candidate Palantine. Same goes for Holly Hunter’s character and Albert Brooks’ character in BROADCAST NEWS. When a pretty wasp activist calls for reform, he wishes that the world will be as radiant, pretty, and attractive as himself or herself, but when an ugly Jew calls for reform, he or she wants to undermine everything that is considered to be mainstream, healthy, and normal in favor of the degenerate, nasty, and the ‘new normal’. The face of the Jewish radical soul is none other than Masha Gessen.
Masha Gessen - We are obligated to find as attractive the very Jews who find themselves to be ugly and hate the world for it.
But even Gessen has nothing on Andrea Dworkin.
It’s like Joe Buck and Ratso Rizzo in MIDNIGHT COWBOY have different views of the world even though they are stuck in the same rut and share some common problems. The handsome person believes that the world should reflect his attractiveness. In contrast, an ugly person knows that no matter how much society improves, he will still remain ugly and disgusting-looking like Woody Allen. The world can be saved but not themselves. Most Ashkenazi Jews have white skin, but many of them have funny and/or strange characteristics — and curly hair — , and so, the Jewish world-view is bound to be different than that of certain groups of goyim. If Betty Friedan looked like Catherine Deneuve, she likely wouldn’t have been such a nasty person. To be sure, there are plenty of beautiful women with curly hair, and Jewish looks can be strikingly beautiful and noble-looking. But by and large, there are too many nebbish-looking Jews like Woody Allen and too many putzy-looking Jews like Anthony Wiener. They always feel as outsiders in a goy society, especially because so many of them become economic and social winners/leaders. If they were losers in both looks and socio-economic competition, they might just shut up and accept their lot in life. But they are winners in social competition, so they want it all, but their looks stand in the way. No matter how high Weiner rises, everyone will see him as the ‘ugliest mofo in the world.’
Even within their own community, Jews feel weird since some Jews look very white while others look very Semitic. And indeed, there was a time when Western European Jews used to look down on Eastern European Jews and didn’t want to have much to do with them — in the way that Northern Liberal whites today look down on Southern and Western whites as ‘racist’, ‘backward’, ‘barbaric’, and etc. (And though blacks don’t like to discuss it much, light-skinned blacks and dark-skinned blacks tend to have differing world-views. It’s the ‘enemy’ of white folks that holds the two black communities together.) Just like many Western European Jews tried to persuade the French, the British, and the Germans that they were more like the respectable goyim than like the hairy, smelly, and under-educated Jews of Eastern Europe, many of today’s white gentile Liberals and sellout Conservatives are so eager to win approval from Jews and homos by excoriating and badmouthing backward, ‘reactionary’, and ‘racist’ white Southerners, Westerners, and small town folks in flyover country. Such whites are today’s equivalent of ‘House Negroes’; they are always bashing other whites as if they themselves are honorary Jews, homos, or mulattos.

One might argue that the universal moral philosophy began with Greek thought and art. Logic was crucial to Greek philosophy, and the rules of logic are, after all, beyond culture. As Greeks, more than any other people, developed and fused empiricism and logic in both social and natural observation, they could take credit as the true originators of universal morality. Socrates didn’t so much preach or even teach; he demonstrated his sense of truth by logical argument. Though Greeks were culturally arrogant and regarded non-Greek as ‘barbarians’, the Greek way could be adopted by other cultures more usefully than culture-specific views and values of most cultures. To adopt Chinese or Egyptian culture, one had to become ‘Chinese’ or ‘Egyptian’. In contrast, one could adopt Greek philosophy without becoming Greek. To accept Confucianism is to become ‘Chinese’ in manners and customs. But studying the ideas of Socrates/Plato didn’t so much turn one ‘Greek’ as inspire one to think in a certain abstract way. Besides, Plato was a ‘futurist’ of sorts. Unlike most philosophers of most cultures throughout history who studied the past & present and sought to justify the existing order of the dominant elites, Plato’s societal views were based on theorems of the perfected society yet to be. And unlike religious prophecy that left it all up to God, Plato’s works argued that man, through the power of the mind, could bring about such an order through logical introspection, truth-seeking, and proper understanding of the world through the self. Greek thought wasn’t simply rooted or grounded in Greek history and tradition but sought to go beyond them.
The matter of Greek art is somewhat trickier. More than any other Ancient culture, Greeks came up with the cult of the independent-individual artist/playwright. In most cultures, dramatic works(often accompanied with music) conveyed, continued, and reinforced the values, sacred truths, and mores of the society. And they were often spiritual/religious/ritualistic in manner. Greek playwrights, in contrast, began to create works where characters embodied individual psychologies and motivations. They were more than archetypes in emblematic situations geared towards the preservation of the sanctity of the social order. Greek drama began to move away from officialdom. Of course, we are talking especially of the Athenians as Spartans and Greeks of many other city-states weren’t much into that stuff. Thus, a Greek drama could be harshly critical or mockingly satirical of the prevailing social order, and it could represent the morality of individual conscience. As for Greek sculptures and architecture, the accuracy, precision, and clarity had a way of suggesting universal and timeless qualities than particular and cultural ones. Also, Greeks were into the cult of nudity, and an unclothed figure is more universal than one who is clothed in the attire of his or her particular culture. Also, even Greek clothing was simpler and less elaborate/adorned that those of most other cultures that were intrinsically more ‘exotic’. Even so, we have to be careful about Greek art since what Western Civilization rediscovered much later was a washed-clean and blank-slated version of Greek art and culture. Time had wiped and scraped away most of the colors, designs, and patterns that had been painted into the sculptures. And of course, most of the eyeballs had been moved from statutes too. So, much of original Greek art was actually a lot more particularist than ‘universal’ or ‘classical’ than neo-Classicists assumed or were apt to believe. Ancient Greeks were really Greekolopouloses.
What later Europeans rediscovered were sculptures and buildings wiped clean of their ‘cultural’ coloring. Whatever the Greeks may have expressed of their particular culture in color and ornate patterns, the power of time wiped it clean and left a kind of abstracted essence of Greek culture, and it was this aspect that came to define the later Western Civilization’s perception of Classical Culture. It’s no wonder neo-Classical sculptures tend to be mono-colored and lacking in individualized eyeballs. It’s as if Greek eyes are pondering totalities and the universe than one particular set of realities.
So, the appreciation of Greek universalism was partly based on actual achievements of the Greeks but also partly an accident of history due to the ravages of time.
But, it must be said that time tends to favor the universal because the ultra-particular tends to be rigidly restricted to a time and/or a place. In a way, the development of the Jewish God was also the result of time peeling away at the particularist elements of the cultures from which Jews absorbed various ideas and influences. Jews absorbed cultural, spiritual, and philosophical expressions, ideas, and images from various cultures, but over time, the particularist crust cracked and fell off and what remained was the kernel of the idea about a single unified spiritual essence and moral truth.
Greek influence on Western Civilization was less about blank slate than blanked slate. It was time that had blanked much about the Greeks that had been very particular and restricted to their culture. Even so, there was an element in Greek culture that fused the ideal and the real, the godlike and the humanlike. In many cultures, gods were depicted in rigid poses as if gods were too mighty and dignified to require the casual movements of humans. So, Egyptian statues of gods and pharaohs tend to emphasis the static, as if their greatness is as fixed, perfect, and eternal as the constellation itself. And since the Egyptians believed that they’d arrived at cosmic perfection, there need be no distinction between the living world and the dead world. Pharaohs lived on in the other world, and they were reborn into the living world. In Buddhist nations, there are basically two poses for Buddha, with him sitting meditating or lying meditating.
It’s as if the spiritual, cosmic, and eternal essence of Buddha was captured in those two poses. And in most cultures, there wasn’t even an attempt to capture and represent the forms of the ordinary-human. Greeks arrived at something in between, fusing the ideal forms represented by the gods and the realistic positions/movements represented by man. Most Greek art weren’t ‘realist’ in the modern sense, but they captured more of the vivacity and casualness of real people and real life than the arts of most other cultures. And yet, as creating sculptures was expensive and time-consuming, Greek artists obviously didn’t just represent the ‘snapshots’ of life. Instead, they infused the idealized poises of divine figures with the element of spontaneity and movement found in real life. So, certain sculptures of Greek gods have an element of human vibrancy, and certain sculptures of human figures have an element of godlike dignity. Such balance of the divine and the human was rare in the ancient world, and it later came to define the essence of Western Civilization. As the divine is a rigid and purist ideal, it had the effect of suppressing the individual humanist impulse. But then, as much of reality is unstable and restless, its raw depiction can encourage ‘anarchic’ and neuroticized shapes, forms, and expressions. But if the civilizational ideal is to infuse the divine with the human and to inspire the human with the divine, then something like the Renaissance may flow from it.

Anyway, the reason why Northern Europe became the summit of universal morality seems an accident of history than anything else. Some in the Alternative Right community argue that white people — especially Northern Europeans — are genetically predisposed to be more empathetic, sympathetic, and so on, but this is based on selective evidence. To be sure, there might be some truth to the argument when we consider the treatment of animals in European nations. Europeans came to value dogs and cats more than other cultures — though there were times in European history where animals were treated horribly. As dogs played such a crucial role in the advancement of mankind — and were full of affection for humans — Europeans came to recognize the special relationship between man and dog. In contrast, even Asians with full-bellies have no compunction about killing and eating dogs. Worse, they even have dogs tortured before they’re killed so they will taste better or increase the sexual drive. To be sure, Japanese don’t eat dogs — which may be an accident of history since a certain feudal lord forbade it — , and there are plenty of Asians who’ve come around to seeing the evil of eating dogs and cats, as well as of tormenting bears for bile. But the culture of cruelty is still endemic in Asia. Arabs and Muslims in the Near East are also a nasty bunch. The Koran says dogs are filthy and should be killed as vermin. As for blacks, they are so loutish that even chimpanzees and baboons despair ‘there goes the neighborhood’ when blacks come near. Needless to say, black Africans treat one another in horrendous ways, so one can well imagine how they treat animals. And the biggest abusers of dogs in the US are Negroes who are crazy about dog-fighting. That said, there’s a long history of animal cruelty in the West too, and we mustn’t give into the convenience of amnesia. Queen Elizabeth got her jollies by attending bear-baiting bloodbaths. The English, until pretty recently, were still into fox-hunting-or-lynching. It was especially offensive since English aristocrats put on fancy airs and attire to practice this most detestable of customs. And the Spanish still have the ghastly bloodsport of bull-fighting. And surely, few cultures were as cruel to animals as the Roman Empire that put on gladiatorial spectacles where thousands of animals could be destroyed in a single day.

There are two sides to everything. Characteristics of whites that could be more sympathetic and moralistic in one setting could be colder, more ruthless, and more heartless in another setting. We need only consider the actions of so many Nazi Germans during World War II. Depending on how the German character is nurtured, shaped, and directed, the Germans could be among the most conscientious and moralistic people or the most coldly ruthless and heartless people. Also, the issue of morality is so never easy since certain virtues can be harnessed to serve certain vices and vice versa(or vice virtuosa). For example, the German culture of trust and responsibility was a moral virtue. It has allowed Germans to work and cooperate with one another better. It has made Germans more mindful of their duties and obligations to community and nation. But such virtues can be directed to serve someone like Hitler. Hitler came to power promising and delivering many positive things for Germany in rebuilding the economy, ending massive unemployment, regaining lost territory, and rebuilding German power. So, he won the trust and respect of many good and decent Germans. But the Nazis in power harnessed the virtues of the German people toward waging war and committing genocide. (It’s like Jewish supremacist elites today harness, exploit, and distort the basic decency of many Americans to win support of the Jewish War on Iran and Russia. Even good people can easily be led astray as the bad can easily be packaged and sold as the ‘good’ — consider how the Jewish media have promoted ‘gay marriage’ and the Pussy Riot as positive/wonderful things — and the good can easily be vilified as the bad — consider how Christian bakers who refuse to bake ‘gay wedding cakes’ are vilified as scum of the earth, and so many decent Americans have fallen for this Jewish-homo or Jomo canard. Consider what happens in MEET JOHN DOE where the powers-that-be turn a hobo into an instant saint and then destroy him as an instant villain. People followed him and abandoned for the same reason: a sense of goodness, but in both cases, they were duped by media manipulation. So, it’s not good enough to be good. Goodness can be manipulated, especially because it tends to be naive, earnest, and trusting. One has to be critical about the nature of power. One needs to be hard-nosed as well as good-hearted.) We have a habit of seeing the world in terms of good guys vs bad guys, and we assume that good guys are all good and bad guys are all bad. But deep down inside, we know many on the ‘bad’ side possess certain virtues. The men in the submarine in DAS BOOT are tough and decent German patriots. They are industrious, loyal, courageous, and conscientious toward one another. They aren’t like cowardly and craven Italians who run off to mama-mia at the first sign of panic. They aren’t like craven Koreans who won’t take any blame for the ferry disaster. (If Italian men lack moral character because their mothers spoiled them too much, Korean men lack moral character because their fathers beat them too much. Italians know they can always run to mama, and Koreans know they better always hide from papa.) But the men of virtue in DAS BOOT are fighting for Hitler. So much goodness is being used to serve so much badness. But the something similar could be said for the ‘good’ guys. We have a tendency to sympathize with victims as the ‘good’, but so-called ‘victim groups’ are often rife with vices, and if anything, part of the reason they came to be victimized in the first place could have been the result of their own rotten vices. This isn’t ‘blaming the victim’ but identifying vulnerabilities that open a person or a group to certain hostilities that are all too common in nature and society. Take the Negroes. We talk of their noble suffering under white Southerners — and ‘racist’ Northerners’ as well — , but the Negro is a dangerous kind of human with many apelike characteristics. Negroes have been ‘kept down’ because they are difficult to have around. Sure, such a view is officially deemed as ‘racist’ by most people, but even white Liberals in the North prefer to remain apart from most Negroes. Why is that? And look at Gypsies. We’ve heard about how they too were targeted by the Nazis, but the fact is Gypsies or Roma are a bunch of chicken thieves, and even Liberal Jews don’t like them. Jews may promote Negroes and Gypsies as ‘fellow victims’ of ‘white supremacism’, but most Jews would rather live next to white ‘conservative racists’ than with Negroes(who kick Jewish butt) and Gypsies(who look to rob Jews blind at every turn). And of course, Jews themselves have many vices. Though the story of Jews surviving the Holocaust and regaining their footing in the world is inspiring — and we would like to believe in the noble vision of Jews as being like Anne Frank of sacramental myth — , the fact remains that many Jews are nasty, vile, hideous, sadistic, cruel, conniving, sneaky, duplicitous, deceitful, self-righteous, cunning, and manipulative. Abe Foxman may be a Holocaust survivor, but he is a disgusting cretin who shamelessly milks the victimization of Jews to gain wealth, clout, and privilege for himself. When white Conservatives look to the likes of Abe Foxman and Sheldon Adelson for guidance — their Jewishness supposedly makes them automatically good and noble no matter what they do or say — , what is really ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in this world?

Anyway, it’s too simplistic to claim that whites — especially Northern whites — are genetically predisposed to be more moralistic than other peoples. While I wouldn’t entirely discount or reject such an argument, human nature is too malleable for a formulation so unambiguous. After all, the Vikings were pretty terrifying in their day. And Russians, though genetically close to Northern Europeans, are a pretty rough bunch.
Of course, when Alternative Rightists mention the genetic predisposition for higher morality among (especially Northern)Europeans, they do so with a mixture of pride and despair. Pride because it suggests whites are innately of superior moral character but also despair because it implies white morality can be milked by Jews and others to turn against itself. Susan Sontag may have said ‘white race is the cancer of history’, but Jews are the cancer of white history. Just like cancer cells pervert the natural process of cell multiplication to destroy the body, Jews manipulate the moral nature of whites to turn against and devour the white body. Morality teaches, guides, and sanctions people in their dealings with others, but a sound moral system must also serve to protect and ensure the survival and interests of the members of a group.
So, if moral development has made white people interact with non-white nations and peoples in a fairer and more decent way in accordance to international agreements and laws(and rules of basic human rights), that’s a good thing. But when morality is perverted to the point where white people are made to feel their moral worth is incumbent on surrendering their territories, women, wealth, and very survival(as a race/nation) to other races and cultures, that is morality as a cancer. Morality is about good-and-bad, but good vs bad is irrelevant when you can’t even survive. What’s the point of being a good white person if you aren’t even allowed to survive as a white person? Though there are matters of higher morality, there is also the matter of basic morality, and the first moral rule of a people is survival, and to survive as a people and culture, you need borders and power within the hands of your own people in your own nations. This is why Jews hate the White Right. Jews want the power in the West in their own filthy hands. And to make white people surrender more easily, Jews have spread the notion that there is no such thing as the ‘white race’ on the false premise that ‘race is just a social construct’. So, even if all of Europe were to be overrun by Muslims and Africans, it doesn’t matter since people are just people. On the other hand, whites are told that they must always be mindful of their ‘white privilege’. Now, any sensible white person would say a white person should be privileged in a white land because it’s his homeland. After all, if you can’t be privileged in your own land, where can you be? Isn’t a Japanese more privileged than others as a citizen of Japan? Isn’t a Jew more privileged as a citizen in Israel because he’s Jewish? But ‘white privilege’ in white lands is seen as evil. This is all just a Jewish ploy to undermine any possibility of white pride in white lands. According to Jewish morality, white people are responsible for the evil of the social construct of race. Jews are hopeful that most whites today have rejected notions of racial identity and pride. But Jews still see old racial power structures to be alive and well in the West. White ‘racism’ is dead as a conscious ideology but still alive as subconscious biases and structural way of doing things. Jews are not entirely wrong as it’s true enough that the very fabric of society and life in the West does prefer whites for success. But why should this be a problem when Japanese favor the Japanese in Japan and Israelis favor Jews in the land of Zion? According to Jewish morality, the main problem of whites is that they still exist as a power bloc. As long as they exist, they shall rule the world as the ‘privileged race’. But then, this is rich coming from Jews since they are the most privileged among whites and most intensely aggressive in their tribalism and nationalism.
Now, if like Buddha, Jews were to argue that the problem of morality is that the very nature of life is evil, they might have a good argument against whites, but then it would apply to everyone else as well. If, as Buddhism says, life is about life devouring life — life can only perpetuate itself through violence done to other living things — , then one could argue that every moral system is really an illusion. How can we be truly moral where even the ‘best’ of us depend on the destruction of other life-forms for survival? We can be good to some people and things, but we must still disregard the interests of others. We can be good to dogs and cats, but we still have to feed them by having other animals killed. We can win the ‘good war’, but we must still kill a lot of innocent civilians. So, according to Buddhism, life itself is the problem. As Jews would have us believe, whites don’t deserve to exist since no matter how good they try to be, their power, wealth, privilege, and advantages derive from exploitation of non-whites in the past, present, and future. As the world system was created by Western imperialism, whites will continue dominating everyone even if whites today are sincerely committed to ‘equality’. Even if committed to ‘equality’, whites inherit more power and privilege from the past into the future.
(And of course, as affluent white Liberals in big cities do inherit lots of money and privileges from their successful high IQ parents, they have a tendency to project their own advantages on the entire white population. These affluent white Liberals are more likely to be aware of and bitch about ‘white privilege’, but they, of course, maintain and expand on their inherited ‘white privilege’, all the while pretending to increase awareness of it to end it. Their shtick goes, "Look, I’m a privileged white person and am nobler for admitting it unlike you white ‘racists’." This might carry some weight when these white Liberals address rich people in Hollywood, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley, but more often than not, their main political targets are whites living in trailers in the South. You see, the rich urban Liberal gentry tends to be well-protected from ‘leftist’ ire because they are for ‘gay marriage’. With homomania being the main moral hysteria of the age, it’s just how things go. And even when ‘leftists’ do raise a stink about Hollywood and Silicon Valley, they mention ‘too many whites’— and even ‘too many Asians’ — but never ‘too many Jews’ or ‘too many homos’.) The flaw in this argument is that parts of the non-West have risen very fast, and they are no different from the West — or even more fervent — in their pursuance of power and advantages. And this is especially true of Jews, the most powerful and privileged people in the world. So, Jews need to shut the hell up.

Jews have bio-engineered the mind and body of the white race. Bill Clinton has become little more than a Jewish agent of white destruction. When he extolled before a graduating college class the vision of the future where whites will become a minority in the very nation founded by white people, the mostly white students and faculty erupted in applause and cheering. Such a response is unthinkable in Mexico, China, Turkey, Japan, Kenya, Russia, etc. Imagine if the Chinese minority in Russia took control of the government and other elite institutions and persuaded Russians that Russia will be more intelligent, more beautiful, more wise, more moral, more redemptive, more vibrant, and more etc IF white Russians allowed massive immigration from China. Suppose a white Russian politician went to a Russian graduating body and said in a few decades, Russia will be majority Chinese and/or Muslim. Can you imagine white Russian students erupting into cheers? And yet, that is precisely the kind of moral mentality that has spread like a cancer all across Western and even Central Europe thanks to the dirty influence of toxic and hideous Jews. Today, if a politician in Sweden told a graduating class that Sweden will be majority Muslim/African in 50 yrs, the students will cheer wildly as if Sweden must fulfill its moral mission through radical ‘diversity’. Hardly surprising since Swedes have been persuaded and indoctrinated by Jews that the preponderance of blond hair and blue eyes in Sweden means it’s inherently a Nazi state. So, no matter how Liberal and ‘progressive’ Sweden may be, it’s still regarded as a Nazi-lite state since too many people are not only white but the wrong kind of white: the kind that Hitler liked best. So, the cancerous suicidal form of morality has taken hold among Swedes to expunge their own whiteness. If old ‘racism’ was about whites feeling superior to non-whites, today’s Jewish Racial War on Whites has whites believing that the purer forms of whiteness are more evil. The more mixed one’s whiteness is, the better it is. So, Latins are better than Northern Europeans. So, Latin American whites with a drop of Indian or black blood can pose as ‘people of color’ whites. Of course, when they are deemed to have done something objectionable, they are attacked for their ‘whiteness’. So, George Zimmerman was denounced as a ‘white Hispanic’. And the psycho-killer Elliot Rodgers, who is half-Asian, was attacked for his ‘white privilege’ and ‘white male misogyny’ by the Jew-run media. Jews don’t try to convince blacks that they must mix blood with other races in order for them become better — though in actual practice, Jews do prefer lighter-skinned ‘black’ like Malcolm Gladwell and John McWhorter than dark-skinned ones with blacker expressions, demeanor, and personalities — , but Jews push this on the white race. Jews don’t go to the Chinese and Kenyans and say they must mix blood with other races in order for them to be morally improved and cleansed. Jews don’t tell Africans and Chinese that they will become more beautiful, more intelligent, and more wise only if they mix with other races. But Jews stress this point to whites all the time. Indeed, Jews often berate a lot of whites for still preferring the sexual company of their own kind that mixing with the rest of the world.
Obama-supporting Nasty Jew who welcomes the demographic demise of the white race. But the punk loves Israel.
Just as cancer cells imitate the functions of healthy cells while causing illness and death to the host, the ‘new morality’ as pushed by Jews may imitate certain characteristics of morality, but it’s really a form of poison-morality(that is really immoral) utilized by Jews to weaken and destroy the white race. Jews use terms like ‘equality’, ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’, ‘white privilege’, and ‘white guilt’, but it all comes down to fiendish Jews fooling whites to undermine and degrade their own power so that Jews can secure their own supremacism over whites. No matter what whites do, the quackery of the diagnosis and treatment is fixed so that whites will never feel sufficiently redeemed or cured in the eyes of the Jews who will milk ‘white guilt’ forever so that whites will end up in a Sisyphus-like condition, rolling the boulder up the hill only to have the Jews roll it back down again so that whites will have to heave it up again, only to have it roll back down. It’s obvious that Germany will never be forgiven. But it’s not just Germany. Jews are no less ‘morally’ aggressive against Great Britain, Holland, Sweden, and France. And notice how Jews use all sorts of nefarious means to destroy Russia as well. Jews are a cancer. Only Jews would have promoted something like ‘gay marriage’. The entire homo agenda has been sold to the unwitting public in moral language of ‘equality’, ‘happiness’, ‘inclusion’, and ‘fairness’, but what is so moral about equating sexual perversion with healthy and naturally normal sexual behavior? What is so moral about degrading marriage so that it has to bow to and serve the ridiculous sexual relationships between homo men, lesbians, and transvestites, many of whom have their sexual organs mutilated? What this madness illustrates is that immorality can be sold as morality. Just like Wall Street sold toxic derivatives cooked up by dirty Jews as AAA-stamped investment opportunities to nations around the world, Jews packaged and sold the toxic perversion of the homo agenda as the ‘new morality’. Just like toxic derivatives were wrapped in shiny packaging, Jews wrapped ‘gay marriage’ in rainbow colors, happy parades, ‘gays know best’ TV shows, and ‘gays as saints’ movies. Jews who sold the toxic derivatives and made killer profits were not investigated but got to keep their ill-gotten loot, especially as their mulatto puppet monkey-boy Obama was shooed into the White House as the ‘change’ candidate who was supposedly going to do something about greed. And Jews needn’t fear the GOP because all the ‘anti-Semites’ have been purged long ago and replaced with neutered graduates of the AIPAC goy-dog-obedience school. So, Jewish Liberals blamed Bush and the Republicans for the economic fiasco, and Jewish Neo-Conservatives blamed Big Government for having ‘forced’ Wall Street to make all those loans to risky house-buyers. But no one dared to mention the Jewish Hand in all this.
Lest we forget, recall that even the housing boom(made possible by toxic derivatives) had been sold as a moral imperative since both Liberals and Conservatives agreed for a time that every American — and even illegal aliens — had some God-given right to ‘own’ a house. There was ‘ownership equality’ before ‘marriage equality’. When it comes to morality, people too often confuse the packaging for the product. As the ‘gay’ agenda was packaged in moralistic wrapping and propagated all across American, countless Americans — especially the impressionable young — just gobbled it up. It’s not surprising that Wall Street is among the biggest donors and backers of the homo agenda. It has long been in the business of packaging garbage into something of value. How did the creep Jordan Belfort in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET rake in so much so fast? How did Bernie Madoff get away with the loot for so long? Because both mastered the art of packaging shit in gold wrappers. Of course, powerful Jews treated Madoff as the goose that lays the golden egg as long as he robbed goyim and made his rich Jewish clients richer. But when the scheme finally blew up, the Jew-run media spun the Madoff scandal as one where Jews were the main victims of his dirty deeds. In fact, Madoff had stolen for as long as he did because he served as a cash cow for Jews. As long as Madoff was robbing the world and plowing the profits to his rich Jewish clients, he was part of the Jewish Boys’ Network and well-protected from regulators(who are under the thumb of their Jewish bosses). But when the thing went bust, Jews turned on him and made themselves out to be his poor-poor primary victims when, in fact, they’d enabled him as long as he was robbing the world and making fellow Jews rich. Wall Street packages garbage in gold packaging, and Hollywood packages the ‘gay’ agenda toxicity in moral and spiritual packaging. And stupid Americans just buy it up as they’re addicted to either mindless celebrity culture or ‘radical-bohemian’ culture. The mainstream dummies get their values from Oprah & Ellen Degeneris and the so-called intellectual types get it from academic radicals who are funded, promoted, and protected by the Jewish elites like George Soros.
Bernie Madoff. I'll bet this guy supports 'gay marriage'. Selling shit as gold.
It’s not so much that Northern Europeans are innately more moralistic but that they are emotionally harder, sterner, and colder. This is partly reflected in the Germanic languages that are heavier than Romance languages. French is airy, Italian is oily, and Spanish is so oh-oh-oh-y. There’s a starker sense of light and dark among the Northern Europeans whereas much of Latin-Romance life exists in grey areas and in the shadows. Among the Germanics, the Anglos may be something of a outlier, partly because English language was so deeply impacted by French language. It’s like some people say that English language has Germanic skeleton but French flesh. Though largely settled by Germanic peoples, England has been culturally closer to France than to other Germanic and Nordic nations in many respects, not least because the two competed for so long as to be the premier imperialist power. Thus, there’s something about English that is less heavy and instead airier than other Germanic languages, some of which still sound pretty Teutonic. It’s as if the English got the best of both the Germanic and Latin characteristics. They got the hard-and-cold characteristics of Teutonism and the soft-and-stylish characteristics from the Latin-Romance-ism. Maybe as an island nation with proximity to both France and Germanic lands, they could pick and choose the best of what they wanted from both cultures. And that may have been why the English could be as straight-and-narrow as the Germanics when it came to their duties and obligations but also keen-and-subtle when dealing with thorny issues. British politics, at home and abroad, generally knew when to push things without pushing things all the way. British have been defined by dedication and determination, but the English DNA is allergic to fanaticism, burning passion, extreme dogmatism, the cult of the irrational(especially in non-verbal forms), and etc. So, the English knew when to call it quits when it seemed the America was lost. The English didn’t throw everything into the war like the French monarchy did(and later Napoleon did against Russia).
So, even though England lost something epic in its failed war with the American colonies, the English system remained intact. In contrast, the French invested so much into the defeating the British in the American Revolutionary War that the French monarchy was soon bankrupted and toppled soon after. After WWII, the English exited from their empire more gracefully than the French did. The English naturally felt a bad omen about Napoleon. And the English found the Germans too extreme in their sense of destiny and mission. No matter how much Hitler admired the English, Anglos couldn’t return the favor because they found him so unhinged, extreme, and rabid. Also, the class snobbery of Britain was allergic to mass demagogic passions unleashed by Fascists and Nazis. To the British elites, Hitler was gutter trash who’d gained control over the proper ruling elites of Germany. And it was the Englishman George Orwell who wrote the most compelling indictment of Stalinist-communism. Of course, Old England has been lost forever with the arrival of American Rock n Roll in the British Isles, whereupon the Brits lost their sense of moderation and balance, paving the way for something as degenerate and ugly as Punk Rock culture, soccer hooliganism, vulgar materialism of neo-yuppie-ism, the mindless fanaticism of political correctness, and the cult of obscene interracism that seeks to impregnate millions of white British women with the jigger-jiver sperm of black African and Caribbean men. This is what happens when the elites of a nation submit to Jewish influence.
In some ways, Political Correctness is useful to UK elites in regaining control over the white lower classes who’d commanded political legitimacy during the Age of Punk. As the great evil of U.K. history was thought to be class snobbery and exclusion, the children of the white working classes gained the kind of moral legitimacy that blacks have in the US. Unfortunately, the working class yobs trashed their opportunity and advantage by indulging in drugs and foul youth culture, and things began to fall apart. It was then that both the British Right(represented by Margaret Thatcher) and the British Left(represented by New Labor Tony Blair) decided to use race/culture issues to morally browbeat the white working classes and rob them of their moral currency. Thatcher praised immigrants for being so hard-working unlike useless and lazy white natives, and Blair celebrated ‘diversity’ as adding color and vibrancy to British society. As issues of race, culture, and sexual orientation came to usurp issues of class/economic oppression, the white working class went from the morally advantaged to the morally disadvantaged as they were more likely to be ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, and ‘homophobic’. Though the British ‘left’ loves to attack yuppies and the like that gained economic prominence in the 1980s, the fact is the rising urban classes were very much on the side of Political Correctness. Thus, the elites in the UK, as in the US, used a new kind of ‘leftism’ to undermine the principles of the Old Left premised on economic divisions.

Rest of Northern Europe was somewhat different from Britain. Germans and Scandinavians tended to be heavier, simpler, thicker, harder, and denser in their way of thinking. Such qualities could manifest themselves in a low manner or high manner. Among the low, it meant blind obedience, excessive discipline, harshness(without irony), and etc. Among the high, it could mean labyrinthine philosophical ideas with turgid terminology and winding sentences that seemed to go on forever about who knows what? Has anyone understood BEING AND TIME by Martin Heidegger? I couldn’t get past the first page. Who else but a German would write a 400 page tome about ‘is’ and ‘when’? I’d rather ask "when is lunch?" Some people say it’s mighty profound stuff, but I can barely get my head around the Wikipedia entry. If someone tried to pull that stuff in the Anglo world, critics would have either called for empirical proof or made a cutting remark and brought down the house of cards. Of course, the downside of the Anglo way was that the insistence on dry facts & proper form and over-emphasis on irony/wit sometimes had the effect of making Anglos allergic to matters of depth. Indeed, as brilliant as much of British literature and culture are, they tend to glide on the surface and only dip into depths beneath. Brits like things that can be seen, sensed, and analyzed with a degree of clarity. They don’t like to grope or sink into the dark and imagine/ponder the meaning of things that can only be vaguely sensed. But sometimes, it takes such leap — or plunge — of faith and imagination to gain deeper knowledge(even if it may turn out to be factually wrong in the end).
Shakespeare was a deep writer, but even in many of his works the meanings exist on the conscious level. It’s like Hamlet is intellectualizing and rationalizing everything with the ‘To be or not to be’ yammering. Such culture of alertness made the British relatively moderate and cautious, certainly more than the French who could be swept off with passion or the Germans who could become obsessed with a vision or idea. But it could also make the British snobby, smug, and sneering in their arrogance that refused to get ‘wet’. Like a bird always cleaning its feathers. No wonder the Brits got so tutti-fruity. For a people who mastered the seas, the British were ironically very good at remaining culturally (high and)dry. Brits were less likely to take off their clothes and run in the woods and go swimming in the lakes like some German nature cultists. British had their Romanticism, but it was mostly verbal.

But it was different with Germanic and Nordic peoples. Scandinavian languages sound coarse, clumpy, and stony compared to English, which had been softened by the invasion and influence of Latin-Romance peoples. (Paradoxically, Roman influences were both harder to penetrate into and easier to preserve in Britain. Because Britain was an ‘island nation’, Romans had to cross the sea to invade and settle there. But because of its separation, once Roman influences were planted there, they were more protected from Germanic barbarian marauders than other parts of Europe. Though Britain was later hit by waves of Germanic/Nordic invaders upon the decline of the Roman Empire, the effect was intermittent than total.) I guess it’s like Hong-Kong-ese have become more sophisticated and ironic than Chinese in Beijing who were less influenced by foreign elements. So, the Nordic and Germanic peoples are more purely Teutonic. And qualities of Teutonism is heaviness, hardness, narrowness, coldness, ardor-ness, somberness, seriousness, and such. Do such qualities make the Teutons naturally more moralistic? No. It all depends on how those qualities have been shaped, nurtured, and manipulated. Thus, Teutons can become the most moralistic people or the most amoral people — though, to be sure, one’s man’s morality is another man’s amorality or immorality, e.g. Nazis thought they were actually behaving morally against evil Jews. The contrast between Germans during the Nazi era and Germans during the postwar democratic era is striking but perhaps not too surprising. In both cases, most Germans led lives of seriousness, dedication, and civility. It’s just that during the era of the Third Reich, the Nazi elites laid down the rules of what was good, whereas after the war, it was the democratic elites under pressure from the Americans(and Jews) who set the political agenda. In both case, most Germans went along — as East Germans conformed to communism — out of a sense of civic duty and social harmony. And this is why Jews are still afraid of the Germanic/Northern-European peoples. Teutonism can be very philosemitic or very antisemitic depending on how it’s directed and led. Of course, it would be best if Germans were encouraged to think as free individuals, but Americans and Jews haven’t wanted that either. After all, if Germans thought as free individuals, they would not only denounce the Nazi past but also intelligently examine why the Germans came to hate the Jews, and such inquiries would unearth some unpleasant truths about vile and vicious Jews as well. (When we consider what Jews have done to Russia in the 1990s and recently — and of course Jews played a major role in Russian communism until the 1950s — , it’s worth looking into the Jewish responsibility for the economic hardships of the Weimar years. If Jews can act so utterly crooked toward Russia and rob American blind via control of Wall Street, media, and government, why wouldn’t German Jews during the Weimar yrs acted otherwise?) Also, a free-and-individualistic thinking Germany will not only denounce what was bad about Germany but what is rotten about America and the Jews. America, especially as it’s come under the influence of Jews, doesn’t want Germany to be critically and intelligently anti-American. Today’s anti-Americanism is often a form of anti-Jew-ism because many people know that Jews run America. When America had been Wasp-ruled following the end of WWII, there was some degree of tolerance for the development of German individualism and contrarianism, and that accounts for a good amount of anti-Americanism in West Germany during the Cold War years. But since the end of the Cold War, Jews have taken total control of America, and they want Germany to just bend over to the dictates of Jew-run America, and therefore Germans have come under ever greater pressure to promote political correctness and clamp down on any kind of dissent, especially from the Right of course.
Anyway, Germans can be fearfully & fearsomely good AND fearfully & fearsomely bad. This is why German totalitarianism — rightist or leftist — is far more dangerous than, say, Latin totalitarianism. The Teutonic mind takes orders & obligations with seriousness, diligence, and punctuality. The Teutonic mind believes in common faith, common agenda, unity of forces, and the cult of trust. It could mean a well-functioning capitalist economy under a democratic system or it could mean well-trained warriors gunning down Jewish men, women, and children with cold-blooded efficiency. In contrast, the Latins make bad totalitarians. By their very nature, either cultural and/or genetic, the Latins tend to be sly, sneaky, snaky, and the like the Paulie-character in THE GODFATHER. Paulie looks at the bridal money bag and says, "Twenty- Thirty-grand. In small bills, cash. In that little silk purse. Madon', if this was someone else's wedding, sfortunato."

Germanics have spines of steel whereas Latins have spines of spaghetti. The Teutonic-Latin contrast was wonderfully illustrated in Lina Wertmuller’s SEVEN BEAUTIES where a big fat German officer calls an Italian prisoner-of-war a ‘worm’. The courtroom scenes in 4 ½ minutes captures the essence of the Latin character: the childishness, corruptness, buffoonery, venality, opportunism, deceptiveness, clownishness, cravenness, cowardliness, mamamia-ness, shadowiness, spinelessness, style-over-substance-ness, superficiality, vulgarity, and shamelessness. (Another film that colorfully illustrates the difference between Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans is BREAD AND CHOCOLATE.)

Latins — especially Southern Italians — may talk big and put on a grand show about honor, but when it comes to saving their own skin, they’ll just run, hide, cheat, and swindle like a mothafuc*a. Greeks are sometimes even worse though they aren’t Latin. (Remember the two Italian soldiers/deserters who joined the American for food in Ernest Hemingways’ FAREWELL TO ARMS but just took off and ran when things got rough. Or consider the Italian family in THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING STARS who partake of the food but then slink off without joining the group.) Perhaps repeated humiliations by other peoples, domestic divisions, and culture of corruption have made everyone family look out for itself. Furthermore, because of the discrepancy between the grandeur of Roman/Italian history and the depths to which the Roman/Italians sunk and were defeated, a kind of neurosis pervades the Latin heart. They feel as the highest and the lowest of peoples, indeed especially low because they’d been so high. Greeks have the same kind of neurosis. They are inheritors of the greatest civilization as a tomb.
Jews are hideous cretins, but at least they are very good at various tasks. They steal a lot but they also produce a lot, and much of the wealth of the modern world owes to Jewish enterprise and genius. In contrast, many Italians, Spaniards, and Greeks can sometimes be as headache-inducing as Gypsies and Albanians. Their main export products seem to be excuses and more excuses and blaming others — mostly Germans and Americans — for their own problems. The great Lina Wertmuller — oddly an Italian film director with a Germanic name — courageously delved into the Italian character, as well into issues of sexual politics that went against the dogmatic feminist grain. SEVEN BEAUTIES strives for personal-and-individual meaning between the greasy venality of the Latin character and the brutal hardness of the Teutonic character. Many Italians supported Fascism because, being all too aware of the dysfunction and disorder of their own society, they wanted order and efficiency. But Germans had order and efficiency, but that didn’t stop them from acting like lunatics. In one of the exchanges, a Spanish anarchist prisoner in the German concentration camp explains his view of things:

Pedro: But soon, very soon, a new man, a new man will be born. He’ll have to be civilized, not this beast who’s been endowed with intelligence and obliterated the harmony in the world and brought about total destruction just by disturbing nature's equilibrium. A new man… able to rediscover the harmony that’s within.

Pasqualino: You mean, put things in order?

Pedro: Order? No, no, the orderly ones are the Germans. No, a new man in disorder is our only hope. A new man… in disorder.

Dystopianism as a new kind of utopianism?

Personally, though the character of Pedro is clearly courageous and conscientious, he also seems to be half-crazy, so I cannot share Wertmuller’s enthusiasm for him. Though preferable to totalitarians, his vision of humanity seems to be far-fetched and utopian in its own way. We know, deep in our hearts, that most people can never become this idealized ‘man in disorder’. His courage seems to be superhuman but also reckless and pathological, indeed against the very instinct of man for self-preservation. But then, self-preservation itself can be problematic in relation to morality. All organisms seek to preserve themselves and reproduce in order to ensure the survival of themselves and their own kind. Thus, the very essence of life has nothing to do with morality. Morality is an illusion of the consciousness. The very basis of life has nothing to do with morality. Microscopic organisms devour other organisms and reproduce not for any moral reasons but because the very ‘logic’ and mechanism of life are about survival, dominance, and reproduction. And life feeds on life. Even life that doesn’t feed on life — like green plants that feed on sunlight and water — compete with other plants for supremacy. A forest covered with trees makes it difficult for new trees to grow due to lack of sunlight under the shades. Self-preservation means an organism has to out-compete, destroy, and devour other organisms, and this is carried out with utter ruthlessness in nature. And before the rise of consciousness, all of life acted in this manner without awareness. It’s like yeast do what they do without knowing what they do and why. But higher animals with consciousness know what they are doing. They don’t ‘think’ and ‘understand’, but they are aware of the fact that they must compete to survive. And even though they don’t know about reproduction, they go into heat, and once they have offsprings they protect their young with ferocity. And to ensure the survival of their own offsprings, they kill other animals and their offsprings. So a grizzly bear mother will kill a moose calf and feed it to her cubs. There is no morality in any of this — though the bond between mother and offsprings could be seen as a form of proto-morality since the mother risks her own life to take care of her young; the mother animal at least FEELS she must live for something other than herself. In that sense, motherism could be seen as the mother of morality. Generally, the basic rule of life makes organisms ‘amoral’. Lions ‘steal’ from hyenas and vice versa. A leopard will attack a wildebeest that is giving birth. There is no mercy. It’s tough enough to give birth, but imagine being attacked and devoured during the process. Thus, 99.99% of life exists in the amoral universe, and indeed, most life-forms have to be utterly amoral in order for them to survive. If lions and hyenas — or savage Negroes — began to have moral doubts about what they’re doing, they would have less to eat. We say that it’s immoral to take a life, but the very essence of life is for life to take life and reproduce most of its own kind. And behind the facade of civility, we humans act in accordance with the natural dictate of life. We have cleared away most wilderness to make way for farmland and industry to make stuff that we need. We have fishing vessels to haul countless tons of fish from the sea for our eating pleasure. We’ve set up slaughterhouses that destroy millions of animals every day so we can have meat. In order to have farmland, we must clear away wild animals that may pose harm to man or livestock. We like to flatter ourselves that we at least have tried to minimize cruelty, but the reduction of cruelty has made for greater efficiency, and that means we can kill many more animals. Killing a cow with spears may be more cruel, but it will take a full day for a bunch of men to kill and slaughter a wild beast. Killing it with an industrial air gun is less cruel, but we can kill many more in a single day on an unprecedented scale. One could argue that the Nazi way of killing Jews and other undesirables was less cruel, but then, many more could be killed via ruthless efficiency. If Nazis acted like wild savages, they might have managed to kill dozens a day. But they were so efficient that they could sometimes kill thousands per day.
Nothing seems more moral than the preservation of life, but preservation of certain lives entails the destruction of other lives. Is mercy a mere weakness of nerves? What if one tribe spares another tribe, but the latter returns to destroy the very tribe that spared it? Stalin came very close to being shot, but he was spared by some Tsarist officer, but look what he did later to the counter-revolutionaries. As we are social beings, we live in groups and organizations, and it means we must follow orders in order to survive and make a living. But what if following such orders for our own survival, self-preservation, and happiness necessitates the destruction of other peoples? This is one of the questions raised in SEVEN BEAUTIES. The main character, Pasqualino(Giancarlo Gianinni), will do anything to survive, and in that sense, he is the very incarnation of the life force. But how does it square with morality, with the higher sense of right and wrong? The question is especially confused since the spirit of sacrifice — that we like to associate with morality — is no less evident among the Nazis. If morality means to rise above individual interest and be willing to give of oneself for the higher/greater/common good, one could argue there was a moral component — however perverted — to the Nazi enterprise. So many Germans were willing to work long hours and fight & die on the battle-fronts for the greater glory/defense of the nation, the race, the Fuhrer, the future, or whatever. They didn’t run and hide like Pasqualino. To be sure, one can run and hide for moral reasons. Pasqualino’s Italian companion seems to have deserted for reasons of conscience than out of cowardice. As a deserter, he seems like a stereotypical cowardly Italian. But he morally justifies his desertion as a defiance against Mussolini. It’s also redemptive because he’d failed to resist tyranny in the past. But talk is easy and cheap, and one might mistake his reasoning as mere self-rationalization. So, for him to truly prove the worth of his newfound conscience, he feels he must prove it by action, and so, despite all his fears, he rises against the Germans and is willing to die as a form of protest/penance. (Moral anxiety of sacrifice is also at the heart of MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE and THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY, both of which revolve around flawed saints.) But moral heroism is always easier said than done. To the last, he confesses his fears and begs Pasqualino — acting as stooge of the Germans — to shoot him quickly lest he shit his pants and shame himself. So, the friend isn’t like the lousy Italians in Ernest Hemingway’s FAREWELL TO ARMS. (Wertmuller used to be a big name in America in the 1970s. Her films, SWEPT AWAY and SEVEN BEAUTIES were shown on PBS uncut repeatedly, which is how I was introduced to her. Since then, she’d fallen out of favor in the film community for several reasons. For one thing, her output was artistically far less impressive following SEVEN BEAUTIES, her masterpiece. As Tyrell said of Batty Roy in BLADE RUNNER, "the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long." Wertmuller was too intense to sustain her inspiration for long. She continued to make ‘crazy’ films, but the mania turned into mannerism. In this sense, she was comparable to Fellini who wasn’t much good after 8 ½, his masterpiece. But the other reason she fell out of favor was ideological. After all, even her less good films far out-classed anything by the likes of Jane Campion, Sally Potter, and the dreadful Chantal Akerman. Feminists who were gaining in power in the 70s denounced her, and a new generation of film critics disdained her style as gimmicky showmanship. Also, her view of humanity didn’t fit into any neat ideological mold and was bound to upset the left as well as the right. Indeed, given the paucity of the right in the arts and cinema, Wertmuller, like Camille Paglia, was bound to please certain elements of the right more than of the left. Though being independent-minded isn’t necessarily rightist, it still challenges the orthodoxy of the left and thus can be used as ammo by the right. Consider how unorthodox leftists like Albert Camus and George Orwell came to be much appreciated by the right for their dissension from leftist dogmatism. After all, the most that the right could hope for in cinema was counter-leftism than rightism, and Wertmuller was a counter-left leftist, or a contrarian-leftist. Her films are bound to confound a lot of people who prefer a neat categorization of characters, issues, and themes. But things are never so easy in a film like SWEPT AWAY. It will upset feminists who want to see women as victims since the conflict is between a rich woman and a poor communist male. But it will upset Marxists too since the communist male is brutish and tyrannical. Feminists said the ‘personal is political’, but SWEPT AWAY shows that the political can also be personal, i.e. the poor man seems to use communism as a crutch against the rich who look down on his kind; it’s more about resentment and envy than a sense of social justice and high-minded idealism. So, various issues intersect in ways that are bound to make a lot of people uneasy when watching Wertmuller films. It’s never so simple as victims vs villains. A rich woman can be an oppressor of men in class terms, a poor man can be a tyrant over rich women in sexual terms, and so on. Given the death of classical leftism and the rise of sacro-decadent UGLE — urban globalist liberal elite — neo-‘leftism’, one might say Wertmuller’s films were prophetic, but she’s still out of favor since she stuck her finger into the nerve centers of leftist anxieties, hypocrisies, and neuroses. So, the likes of Jonathan Rosenbaum would have us believe that Wertmuller is akin to Leni Riefenstahl — not least because John Simon has been an admirer of both — and that we should pay attention to Chantal Akerman instead. And unsurprisingly, all the gnomic drones of political correctness, the products of our colleges, feel obligated to sing praises to Akerman even though most of them are deathly bored to death by stuff like JEANNE DIELMAN.) From the perspective of the life-force and its need for self-preservation, there’s nothing more natural than deserting from war. Why risk fighting and dying when you can run away to safety? (Of course, many choose not to desert since the long-term chance of survival and well-being upon desertion may be endangered if one failed to stick with the unit. Desertion may save oneself from a battle, but where does one run to? How does one return home? What will happen if one is caught and tried by a tribunal? In this sense, both desertion and loyalty are partly motivated by fear and cowardice. Deserter fears the battlefield. The loyal soldier fears the courtroom — or the commissar willing to shoot anyone who won’t obey orders in the back of the head.) This is why the militaries around the world used to have severe punishment for deserters via the firing squad and social stigmatism. Even big and powerful animals will take flight than fight when the going gets tough. But if desertion seems craven and despicable to most people, the mindless marching into war is no less crazy. Consider the story of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Consider the ending of KAGEMUSHA. While’s one’s sense of honor — a form of ethics — may insist on the willingness to sacrifice one’s life for the common good, it can also become insane and even immoral when it’s a lost cause, a pointless waste of life.

In a way, both the Italian and the German modes shown in SEVEN BEAUTIES have a moral logic of their own. The very Italian Pasqualino is all about his own self-preservation. Though craven and cowardly, he also has good sense. It’s like the scene at the end of THE GODFATHER PART II when Sonny reiterates his father’s sentiment that "only saps die for their country... your country ain’t your blood." It’s a very Sicilian sentiment. We can readily see the ugly aspect of such a view, but it has some value too. After all, what is a ‘country’? Who controls it? When a country calls upon its sons to fight for ‘national interests’, whose interest are they really about? So many Americans were all rah-rah about the Iraq War but was it really in the country’s interests to invade a nation that didn’t attack the US? Or did Jews merely use nationalism to make gentiles fight other gentiles for the interests of Israel? Of course, Sonny’s view is lousy because he thinks Sicilian-Americans — who owe so much to America — shouldn’t fight EVEN WHEN AMERICA WAS ATTACKED BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY. Surely, even clan-centric cynics can see the value of fighting when the nation itself is attacked. But we must keep in mind that ‘country’ is controlled by the elites, and the elites have often used nationalism and bogus issues to drive a nation to war. In that sense, Pasqualino isn’t entirely despicable. Indeed, why should he fight for the Italian Fascist elites when the top guys are themselves so lacking in moral character? And why should Italians fight and die in a war cooked up by madman Hitler and Mussolini as his sidekick? Even though Pasqualino didn’t desert for any higher sense of moral duty — indeed, he would likely have deserted even if the war were entirely justified and necessary — , we can understand why he wants to look out for #1. It’s just the default setting of the life-force. And when we contrast him to the Germans, many of whom were willing to give their lives to the very end — as shown in the film DOWNFALL — , we can see where he’s coming from. Germans are surely more ‘conscientious’ in their willingness to fight and die for the common good and in keeping their vows — morality is, after all, a matter of keeping promises and fulfilling contracts — , but collective conscience isn’t the same thing as individual conscience, something sorely lacking in too many Germans during the Nazi era — but then, it’s generally lacking in all societies; after all, a society where individual conscience is powerful would NOT have submitted to the homo agenda of ‘gay marriage’ and to the foul abuses of Jewish power. Most Americans today are as mindless as the Germans during the Nazi Era. Of course, the current American elites aren’t sending us to kill millions of people, but the ultimate agenda that the Jews have for the white race will be, in the long run, as damaging as the Nazi German agenda for the Polish and Russian Slavs. Even though the Jewish agenda is being pushed under the rubric of ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’, the end-result will be the permanent crippling and demise of the white race that had once rightfully ruled the West.

Paradoxically, one of reasons for Nazi immorality was that Nazism was a form of hyper-moralism. The whole point of morality is to distinguish ourselves from the animal world. We say that animals are incapable of morality, and therefore they are mired in the world of tooth-and-claw struggle. In contrast, we humans are capable of better, and therefore we deserve to create and maintain a world of our own. Unless we separate ourselves from the animal world and wilderness, we can’t be truly moral since we will be competing with amoral animal-kind in a semi-beast-like manner(like all them savage Negroes in Africa). The point of Nazism was that the highest and purest race, the ‘Aryans’, should have a world of their own in order to maintain their highest standards. If ‘Aryans’ were to mix socially and genetically with the ‘lower’ races, their high standards will be diluted and degraded. Such attitudes have existed in all high civilizations to some degree — indeed, they even existed among primitive tribes who consider themselves to be the ‘real humans’ compared to everyone else who is less human. Jews generally chose not to mix with others since Jewish blood was seen as special. Chinese shut themselves from the rest of the world because they felt that the Middle Kingdom had to be protected from contamination by the foreign devil barbarians whose influence and presence might pollute their higher(even highest) standards. All such views, though deemed ‘arrogant’ and ‘xenophobic’ today, were moralistic since they sought to preserve what was deemed ‘superior’ and ‘higher’ from the lower. Morality is hierarchical as it judges people and the world as ranging from noble-of-heart-and-mind to rotten-to-the-bone. The paradox of universal morality is it says (1) we must uphold the highest standards and (2) we must love everyone. Christianity and Buddhism are both highly elitist in morality(as the principles preached by Jesus and Buddha are near-impossible to live up to) and generously inclusive in humanity(as all people are welcome to the church or monastery). Both religions say anyone is welcome but everyone must undergo rigorous moral/spiritual cultivation to attain salvation or illumination. But few people can live up to standards put forth by Christianity and especially Buddhism. In the modern world, we have a kind of debased form of neo-Christianity that says the West must embrace everyone without judgment. This mind-set puts all the moral burden on white folks in the West but none on the ‘people of color’, Jews, and homos. White people must embrace everyone without judgment while non-whites, Jews, and homos can do as they please(that go against the moral values of most white folks)but still demand to be treated as moral paragons. It’s like homos want the freedom to bugger each other and spread HIV, but they also all the love and compassion of the Christian community. An inclusive/tolerant Christianity that can no longer judge humanity with a set of moral/spiritual precepts is useless and suicidal. For any worthy universal system to work, it must defend and enforce its higher standards of truth. For all people to be part of a single humanity, all people must transcend their petty lowliness and ascribe to higher morality. Tribal communities can be flawed since they’re all about the tribe. But universal communities must rise above tribal loyalties and prejudices, and this calls for higher ethics. If Greeks want to act bad in Greece and if Irish want to act bad in Ireland, that is their local/provincial problem. But if Greeks and Irish were to live as one people, Greeks have to rise above Greekness and the Irish must rise above Irishness. Otherwise, we have petty tribalism vs petty tribalism, and there is nothing uglier than that. It’s like you can act like a lout in your own house, but if you want to share public space with others, you need to act in accordance to higher standards of behavior; you can’t treat public space like it’s your private den. In America, we no longer have higher standards. We have universalism that celebrates childish and destructive behavior. It encourages blacks to act like rapper thugs and ho’s. It encourages young girls to act like Lena Dunham. It encourages Mexicans to illegally cross the border. It encourages Jews to act like weasels and sharks, and etc. The New Tolerance is about the white majority having to tolerate, forgive, and even celebrate the bad behavior of non-whites, homos, feminists, and Jews.
When universalism caves into the degraded standards of the lowly and crazy, it becomes corrupted and falls apart. Consider the concept of the ‘university’. It is a sanctum of knowledge open to all but in accordance to its high standards. Anyone can apply to Harvard and Yale, but in order for Harvard and Yale to remain as the leading institutions, they must only admit those who aspire and ascribe to the highest achievements. Thus, elite universities are both universalist and elitist. If universities were simply to become universalist without the elitism — on the basis that any kind of elitism is ‘judgmental’, ‘exclusive’, and ‘intolerant’ — , they would be no better than community colleges rendered worthless by barely literate Negroes.

The current social order tends to associate morality with equality, but the essence of morality is hierarchical since morality arose as mankind consciously formulated a conceptual self-image as being superior to the animal world. Also, morality was linked with spirituality, another form of hierarchical thinking. If human morality says that man is superior to man, religious morality says that God or gods(of the spiritual realm) are superior to mankind(of the fleshly and material realm), and so mankind should aspire to be godly in spirit or beauty. If morality says mankind is equal with animals and that gods are equal with mankind, morality would have little meaning. It would mean that gods, mankind, and animals are all equal. How can one have morality if one believes that all gods, men and women, aardvarks, and worms are all morally equal? Morality inspired and pressured mankind to rise above animals and aspire to the higher standards of the gods — or to highfalutin ideologies(in the secular era). So, the notion of equality is problematic to morality. We can agree that people should be treated equally under the Rule of Law, but morality always reminds us that certain values and characteristics are superior to others. One thing for sure, we know people are not equal morally. Some are more honest, some are more conscientious, some are more loving, some are more caring, while some are more like hideous Jews, cruel Chinese, drunken Irish, craven Italians, bitchy homos, or savage Negroes. If we use the blank slate argument, we can assure ourselves that all people are POTENTIALLY morally equal if raised with the proper values and instruction, but the power of nurture only goes so far. Some argue that we should treat everyone equally EVEN IF differences really do exist because it’s simply humane to do so. So, we should treat mentally retarded people the same as we treat normal people. While I agree that everyone should be treated as humanely as possible, we all know that, for all practical purposes, such people are not and cannot be treated the same. Consider how we officially pretend that Paralympics — insulting label if you ask me — has the same value as the real Olympics, but almost no one watches them. We put on the Paralympics to feel good about ourselves while ignoring the actual events that aren’t even broadcast on TV.
How many companies are willing to hire a mental retard to be CEO? How many Liberals wanna be treated by a doctor with an IQ of 85, especially if it’s something like brain surgery?

There is another problem with morality, perhaps most eloquently argued by Nietzsche. Morality, though the basis of so much human progress, can also hold back progress since common morality is a ‘slave morality’ that disdains the superior man of greater genius, vision, and awesomeness. And such fascination with power accounts for the popularity of movies like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS where the audiences willingly allow themselves to be seduced by the genius ubermensch Hannibal Lecter. Is he evil or is he simply on a higher plane of consciousness? Are we to him what sheep are to us? If indeed he is so intelligent and so superior to us, isn’t he above and beyond our ‘slave morality’? Doesn’t he have a right to eat us just like we have the right to eat sheep? And notice how Clarice is drawn to him — almost as much as Bella is to Edward in TWILIGHT — as he fixes his genius-visionary gaze upon her. Lecter seems to take a shine on Clarice as a kind of cute pet he’s grown fond of. It’s like the farmer in BABE spares one particular pig. And though we kill and eat sheep, we don’t kill dogs and cats. And consider the fascination that so many viewers have with Roy Batty in BLADE RUNNER. Though a ruthless killer, people get a kick out of his higher intelligence, greater beauty, and awesome strength. And of course, his ‘slave status’ gives him something of a ‘moral’ cover for his violence. But I suspect he would have acted the same even if he hadn’t been ‘exploited’ as a slave. He was created with the hyper ‘will to power’, so he looks upon most ugly weakling humans as toys.

Anyway, the moral paradox of Nazism can be glimpsed in what the fat female Nazi officer says in SEVEN BEAUTIES:

"In Paris, there was a Greek who made love to a goose.
He did it for money, he did it to survive . . . and you,
you subhuman Mediterranean larva,
you even find the strength to get an erection. . . .
That’s why you will end up the winners of this war . . .
you will be the ones who are left . . . you tiny slithering worms . . .
no ideals or ideas . . . and us,
with our dreams of a . . . .superior race . . . it’s far too difficult."

In her view, the Germans will lose not because they are too immoral but too moral. In trying to be too human, too lofty, and too glorious, they waged war on the lesser humans of the world, but there were too many untermensch. And these beastly creatures will eventually overrun the world since they are driven only by animal instincts. It’s like the tragic failure in Werner Herzog’s AGUIRRE: THE WRATH OF GOD. The Conquistador’s dream of creating a great new empire cannot withstand the power of dark and powerful nature with all its torrents, muck, and savagery. Nazis used industrial savagery to rid a large part of the world deemed as overrun with ‘subhuman’ savagery, but they were outnumbered... or so the female Nazi officer in SEVEN BEAUTIES seems to think.

In some crazy way, Nazism was the biggest medical experiment in the world, and one of the great ironies is that so many German doctors joined the Nazi party and aided-and-abetted, directly or indirectly — consciously or unawarely — , in the destruction of so many people. After all, doctors are supposed to save lives. And yet, there’s a perverse logic to medicine for its essential mission is to save certain lives by destroying other lives. In a way, just about everything mankind has done to improve the survival and well-being of humans have been a kind of ‘medicine’. It’s like American Indians called any potent stuff ‘powerful medicine’. Agriculture is a form of ‘medicine’ in the sense that it clears the wilderness and wipes out dangerous animals so as to make the land fertile for growing food so that more humans can live. The military is a form of ‘medicine’ in killing or fending off invading forces in order for the nation to survive. Or, the military may invade other lands, clear it of its original inhabitants and make the land available for new settlements for the people on the conquering/winning side. Wipe out the sickness of dark savagery, make way for healthy civilization. So, quite often, what is good for the well-being of one side is bad for the other side. Much of medicine has to do with killing germs. Hospitals improve the survival rate of humans through sterilization and antiseptics of as much germs as possible. For patients to have a better chance of recovery, the hospital must be a hostile place for non-human life-forms. Of course, killing germs isn’t the same thing as killing humans, but both share an underlying logic: the ‘foul’ and ‘filthy’ must be destroyed in order to improve the chances of the ‘clean’ and ‘pure’. This is why humans have long loathed certain kinds of pests and insects that carry disease. And humans have come to associate certain peoples with certain animals. Jews have been compared with rats for their resilience, adaptability, toughness, resourcefulness, tenacity, and stealth. Though Jews resent this, some Jews have felt sort of pest-like because they looked different and even thought & acted differently from the goy majority. It’s not by accident that Franz Kafka wrote about a man who wakes up to find himself an insect. And there’s the famous Jewish comic book MAUS where the use of Jews as ‘mice’ — than rats — both refers to how gentiles perceived them and how Jews perceived themselves. Mice can be regarded as pests but also the hapless prey of all sorts of bigger and stronger predators. We hate rats but we feel some degree of sympathy for mice. After all, the most famous cartoon character was Mickey Mouse, not Ronald Rat. Some Jews subconsciously feel that they have a Mice-as Touch. If everything King Midas touched turned to gold, everything Jews touch become contaminated. Jews have conflicting attitudes about this, and not every aspect has been delved and analyzed by Jews. There is no denying that Jews were much impressed by the beauty and magnificence of Western/Christian/‘Aryan’ culture, arts, ideas, and peoples.
Alberich the 'Jewish' dwarf in Richard Wagner's NIBELUNGEN
It’s like Alberich the dwarf at the beginning of DAS RHEINGOLD(by Richard Wagner) wanting to love and be loved by the Rhine maidens who are blonde and lovely. So, in a way, Alberich is to be lauded for his eye for beauty and his desire for love. But he is ugly and is rejected by the blonde beauties. Alberich thus hates himself, but then, no one wants to hate himself. People are egotistical and even narcissistic by nature, and so Alberich turns his self-loathing outward and comes to hate the world that won’t love him. Since he can’t love it and be loved by it, he seeks to gain control over it with money and power. Wagner had some extreme ideas about Jews, but he was a pretty good psycho-analyzer of the Jewish mentality. Though Alberich comes to hate the world, his hatred cannot be understood apart from his self-hatred, which happens to be repressed under his egotism. Alberich cannot face the fact that the world doesn’t love him because he’s ugly. If, like the Hunchback of Notre Dame, he’s willing to just find a niche in society, things might have turned out okay. But the Jew, being clever, smart, brilliant, and megalomaniacal — as the Chosen People of the one and only God — simply cannot accept the rejection of his kind by the world. The Jew must seek vengeance. Thus, the Jew blames everything on ‘antisemitic’ goyim. But suppose there were no white goyim. Suppose most races are uglier than Jews. Suppose in this alternative universe, most races are so ugly and repulsive-looking that even Woody Allen is considered a relatively a good-looking guy. Suppose Jewish men are conscious of the fact that Jewish women are the most desirable in the world.
Now, suppose a non-Jewish nomadic tribe arrives in the Jewish community. Suppose this tribe has a lot of people who are deemed gross, ugly, and repulsive by Jews. Suppose this tribe — called ‘chingchongfingfongs’ — has a lot of people who are even smarter, cleverer, and nastier than the Jews. How would Jews react? Wouldn’t a lot of Jews become a bunch of anti-chingchongfingfongites? Anyway, a lot of Jews appeared to Germans what chingchongfingfongs might appear to Jews in our alternative universe. And deep down inside, Jews agreed with Germans and other antisemitic Europeans about the nature of Jews, but being egocentric Jews, they were loathe to admit it — though some did. After all, why did Jews have this great desire to gain entry and even control of the Western World? If Jews hated the ‘antisemitic’ West so much, why didn’t they just pack their things and all go off to Africa, Latin America — which was starving for immigrants and settlers — , Asia, or Muslim Middle East? Why did Jews insist on remaining in the West? And why did so many Jewish men have the hots for ‘Aryan’ and European women? If Jews really felt that all races are the same, why weren’t Jewish men content with Jewish women? So, deep down inside, Jews wanted to gain possession and control of the more attractive European peoples and world. It’s like Woody Allen’s romances are mostly about himself as the ugly Jew bedding all sorts of attractive white women. His choice of sexual mates seem to be ‘antisemitic’ as his whanker never much seems to be interested in Jewish pooter. So, Woody Allen’s sexual preferences aren’t much different from that of the ‘Aryan’ anti-Semites. Indeed, lots of Jewish men feel that way. Not long ago, I was watching a wedding where some nebbish Jewish guy was marrying a woman who looked like a classic blonde ‘Aryan’ type. I’ll bet the Jew made some serious money in finance or high-tech or something. Why didn’t he marry some ‘nice Jewish girl’ — though the idea of ‘nice’ and ‘Jewish’ together always struck me as hilarious? Deep down inside, Jews know that they will destroy the white racial ‘purity’ that they themselves want. If indeed Jews really hate the idea of ‘racial purity’, why are so many Jews obsessed with blonde ‘Aryan-looking’ women who look so racially pure? Why don’t rich Jewish men get it on with mestizo Mexican women and North African women? Jewish obsession is paradoxical because they love what they hate. They say race-mixing is good for the white race, but Jews prefer the ‘pure’ whites over the mixed-raced people. If mixed-races are indeed ideal or even superior, why don’t all the Jews move to North Africa or the Middle East where most people have mixed blood, certainly much more so than the peoples of Northern Europe or East Asia? But Jews prefer to bed pure-blooded blonde Europeans(or pure-blooded East Asian women). Suppose there’s a ‘pure Aryan’ woman and a woman who’s half-white and half-black. If mixed races are so wonderful, Jews should prefer the latter but Jews prefer the former. In mixing with ‘pure’ whites, Jews create new mixed-race people, but Jews will still prefer other ‘pure’ whites than the product of their mixing with whites. Blacks feel the same way. Tiger Woods may tell the world that he’s proud to of mixed-race, but notice that all of his preferred sexual partners are very white — and often blond Nordic — women. So, even as Jews promote race-mixing, they keep searching for ‘pure-blooded’ ‘Aryan’ women. So, Jews are more into race-mixing than with the race-mixed. Once the race has been mixed, it’s less enticing and appealing to Jews. Jews have to find new ‘pure’ blondes to mix with. This suggests a repressed sense of self-loathing among Jews. Though they bitch and whine about how ‘anti-Semites’ put them down as ugly and filthy, their behavior seems to suggest that Jews themselves prefer white ‘purity’. But every time non-whites take a white woman, they produce a mixed-race person that is somewhat less special to Jewish eyes despite all the politically correct BS Jews peddle about how race-mixing will make everyone more beautiful and wiser(because I guess Bolivia and Morocco are the most beautiful and wisest places on Earth). So, even though Jews want to lay their hands on ‘Aryan’ women and have children with them, they know deep down inside that the children will be less attractive than if the white women had children with white men. Jews feel that Jewish sperm will uglify white beauty though Jews are loathe to admit this on a conscious level. I mean if Audrey Hepburn had children with Robert Redford and Alan Dershowitz, which set of children are going to look better? To be sure, her kids with Dershowitz are likely to be smarter, but when it comes to beauty and even nobility(though not lately as most whites are acting like tards), whites beat the Jews(in general of course, as there are plenty of attractive Jews and plenty of pug-ugly whites, especially among the Scotch-Irish who sort of have that ‘white trash’ retarded look and the Poles with their fat-headed goofy faces).
Nazi Medical Experiment
Anyway, all forms of medicine, in the strict and broader sense of the term, necessitate a hierarchy of values. To save and favor certain lives, others must be destroyed or excluded/isolated. And it is in this sense that Nazism was a medical cult on a grand scale. Hitler combined art(as idealization of beauty) and medicine(as cult of health) together, and so, his world-view was about ridding the ‘germic’ races to make the world better and safer for the Germanic races; and this accounts for the antisepticism and lack of organicism in Nazi art. Some have argued that Hitler’s world-view was subconsciously formed upon observing the grueling agony of his mother as she was dying of cancer. And though a Jewish doctor did his best to treat her and though Hitler was very appreciative of his efforts, some theorize that Hitler subconsciously came to associate the Jew with the disease that killed his mother. (Personally, I think it’s ludicrous as speculation.) As Jewish life and culture had become deeply embedded into modern German society, Nazism required a kind of massive chemotherapy. The Jews couldn’t be attacked without damaging parts of German society as a whole, and indeed, the persecution of Jews did lead to decrease in the quality of German physics, German letters, and German cinema. But there were clearly certain advantages. Without Jews out of the way, Germany could create a new order where the leaders and the led were of the same race, culture, and identity, a condition that is generally healthier — except in cases where the majority masses aren’t capable of running their own society, as in Zimbabwe. While even without Jews, Germans could run a decent society, most Africans cannot run a healthy and functioning modern society without the management of whites or massive investment of the Chinese and Asian-Indians.
Medicine-as-metaphor has been essential but also deeply problematic for civilization and humanity. In some ways, we treat doctors as holy men. Even in primitive societies without what we consider as real medicine, certain sorcerers are seen as possessing magical healing powers. They are respected for their ‘powerful medicine’, like in those Westerns with Indians. In Africa, sorcerers and witch-doctors kill albinos and grind their body parts into medicine. In China, traditional medicine says rhino horns, tiger penises, and bear paws have magical healing powers, and as a result, many animals have come to the close to extinction. Medicine always favors some over others. People with diabetes have long depended on chemicals drawn from slaughtered pigs. There was once a controversy in the 80s when some doctors took a heart of a baboon and implanted it into a baby. Medical research has entailed horrific things done to animals in laboratories around the world. Things are still pretty awful even in the most advanced nations, so one can imagine the horrors that must be happening in Chinese and Indian laboratories of medical research.
There has also been an element of vanity in medicine because it had been hogged by the elites for most of history. Elites would order holy men and doctors to come up with some ways to ensure their longevity or even immortality. Today, we have transhumanists who want to fuse bio-engineering and medicine to create their idea of the ‘perfect’ person. And there is a branch of speculative medicine today where some people look for the ‘cure’ for death. If everyone could live forever and if death were to be seen as a disease to overcome, then what about all the new people who need to be born? Unless the living die and make room for the newborns, there won’t be enough space and resources in the world to take care of everyone. (But then, maybe the elites figure only a special select of VIPs should ‘live forever’ while most people go through the usual born-live-and-die.) As immorality is still way out of reach, there’s of course the ‘medicine’ of plastic surgery that ‘treats’ and superficially reverses the natural process of aging. And then, there’s the ‘medicine’ that uses radical surgery to change the sexes of men and women, which to me, sounds like a total perversion of medicine. For a man to become a ‘woman’, his manly organs must be mutilated and destroyed. What kind of medicine is that?

Though one part of medicine calls for basic treatment for all peoples with common sicknesses, another aspect of medicine is borderline narcissistic, utopian, and neurotic. This is especially true of mental health medicine today. Though mental health is largely about identifying neurotic problems among people, the fact is even medicine is controlled by humans who are all too imperfect. So, ironically, mental health medicine itself can become neurotic. One of the characteristics of neurosis is obsessive behavior, and it seems modern mental health medicine has become neurotic in identifying just about everything as a disease. The mental health community has a Compulsive Diagnostic Syndrome. So, if someone is more garrulous or more shy than normal, geez, maybe he or she is ‘sick’. Mental health medicine was used in the USSR to throw anti-Marxists into asylums because the official dogma posited that only a mentally sick person would fail to see the obvious and rational truth of communism. Denying the truth of Marxism would be like denying the existence of gravity. Today, the Jew-run media use the term ‘homophobia’ to describe those who oppose the homo agenda. According to Jews, you must be mentally sick to reject the obvious moral necessity of ‘gay marriage’. If you consider fecal penetration between men to be gross, you must be suffering some kind of obsessive fear of something that is perfectly normal and natural. According to Jews and homos, a fruitkin’s fecal-stained anus is the biological and moral equivalent of your mother’s vagina in the sphere of sexuality.
Michel Foucault was one of the major thinkers who grappled with the issue of how medicine-as-metaphor has long been a control mechanism by the state and the elites. Because medicine is a science and science is supposed to be objective, there’s a sense that medical authorities and doctors are always objective. (Needless to say, many administrative officials of the medical community aren’t doctors but ‘social scientists’ invested with a certain ideology.) And since most patients know nothing of medicine, they put their entire faith in the medical community that supposedly ‘knows everything’. Thus, the doctor-patient relationship is almost ‘spiritual’. Relying on doctors is not the problem; the real problem is cult of the perfect doctor. When it comes to broken bones, it’s entirely up to the doctor. But when it comes to more controversial treatments and the mental health issues — as the brains are incredibly complex and since mental health cannot be disassociated from the prevailing values of society-at-large — , the cult of the objective doctor is far more problematic. There was a time when the American psychological institutes used to objectively say that homosexuality was a mental sickness. Today, they are more likely to say homosexuality is ‘perfectly normal and natural and healthy’ and that those who feel uneasy about homosexuality are the ‘mentally ill’ ones. Especially as Jews control much of medicine and psychology, they force their agenda and pervert the sciences.
Indeed, this was done even in evolutionary sciences with the Jewish media and academia’s promotion and protection of willful deceivers like Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, a Marxist who once told a colleague that he’d happily falsify the truth in order to push the correct ideological agenda. (Of course, Jews in the media do the same thing. They will gladly falsify facts to keep waging the Jewish War on Russia. So, the Jewish-run media peddled the lie that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and invaded Crimea in 2014 when, in fact, Russia was merely reacting to crises provoked by Ukrainians and Georgians working in cahoots with World Jewry. More recently, the Jewish-run media tried to push the anti-white narrative that ‘blonde’ fraternity boys at UVA had a 30 yr ritual of raping freshman coeds. While there’s no denying that there were many great Jewish scientists in the 20th century, there’s a kernel of truth in the ‘antisemitic’ charge that ‘Jewish Science’ often deviated from true science so as to serve the Jewish agenda. Of course, all peoples and regimes have perverted science in similar manners, but as Jews have been more prominent in academia and media than most peoples, Jewish perversion of science needs to be carefully observed and studied. Incidentally, though many people decry the growing partisanship of the mass media, it is great for Jews as long as Jews control the narrative. Partisan news, after all, is more invested in pushing a narrative than looking at all sides and being rational/fairminded as to what really happened. If a society were openly and officially anti-Jewish, partisan news would be bad for Jews since anti-Jewish sentiments would be prevalent and encouraged. But as US is Jew-dominated, all partisan news on the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ have to be pro-Jewish. So, we have pro-Jewish ranting from Liberals, and we have pro-Jewish ranting from Conservatives. Since most news today is partisan, there’s no pretense of objectivity, rationality, and considering all sides when it comes to Jews and their enemies. While Liberal news attack Conservative news and vice versa, the official line that both sides must uphold is the sanctity of Jews and Israel. As long as Jews control nearly all of the media, the rising partisanship of the news has been a great thing for Jewish power. As anti-Jewish voices are not allowed in the media, partisanship only exists in the media in the form of Judeophilia.) Given the power of Jews, one would think it would be most normal, natural, rational, and healthy for us to take notice of it and discuss its ramifications on the world. After all, what was unhealthy about the USSR was that Soviet citizens couldn’t freely discuss and debate the power within the Kremlin. But Jews in the media have fooled us that we’re mentally ill if we were to notice any kind of Jewish power over us, i.e. if we notice Jewish power, we are like one of those Medieval ignoramuses who saw ghouls and witches in the wind. That Jews control both medicine and media in this country should be alarming to us all. The media and medicine are both shrouded in the cult of ‘objectivity’. The media are ideally supposed to inform us of the nature of power without fear or favor, the motto of the New York Times. And medicine is supposed to be about science than political or social agendas. But both have been taken over by Jews to drive their agenda. So, psychologist Cass the Ass Sunstein berates those who reject the Global Warming as mentally ill and deserving of being silenced... or legally sanctioned and punished. Some Jews even say that certain truths(despite or especially because of mounting facts about them) — especially about race — should be banned because they may be too much for most of us to handle. Or maybe too powerful in waking the goy masses up to the nature of racial differences and Jewish power. (The officially sanctioned morality of the Jews since the end of WWII preaches that Nazis were especially evil because of their belief in racial differences and that the Holocaust was the most evil horror in history because its crimes were justified on racial grounds. Thus, the narrative since the end of WWII insisted that any notion of racial differences is evil and that there’s only one way for the progress of humanity premised on the conviction that race is just a social construct and a myth. Even though new scientific research into genetics isn’t anything like Nazism, it nevertheless points to the differences among the races, and this could lead to increased racial consciousness, and that could lead to white gentiles uniting to defend their rights and interests against other races and groups, Jews included. Also, if race is real, then racial identity is valid, and that can lead to racially identified communities that are less willing to racially mix with other races. Jews want to mix the races not because ‘race is a myth’ but because they secretly believe that races are real and do exist, thereby could serve as a point of unity and pride for a people in challenging Jewish power. By making people believe race is a just a myth, Jews seek to mix all the races so that racial identities will be confused, thereby making it difficult for any group to rise up in racial unity. If the new science says race is real, then any race can argue for its own survival and preservation. That will slow down the Jewish interracist agenda. So, Jews keep pushing the notion that race is just a social construct, just an illusion. So, if all Europeans mix with non-Europeans and if all of Europe becomes non-white, no need to worry since mixed-race folks are no different from white European peoples. Or so the Jews would have us believe.) Ideally, both the law and medicine should be about objectivity and truth. But we know that laws are very often the tools of the powerful — the ideologues, the lawyers, the judges, the politicians, the rich people who buy the politicians. In contrast, medicine is a science, and so, ideally, it should not come under the pressure of non-scientists. Of course, this is true of certain areas of science. I’m sure both Democrats and Republicans agree on the need to trust the doctor when someone undergoes eye surgery. But there are areas of medicine that simply cannot be divorced from social, political, and ideological concerns. Take abortion. Is it ‘murdering the unborn’ or is it simply a matter of women’s health? Or lethal injection in death penalty cases. Is it morally justified or inhumane? Should less money be spent to spare the lives of the old in favor of lives of the young? Should foods and drinks that are bad for people’s health be classified as toxic and banned? But then, to raise the question of humaneness is antithetical to science since scientific truth is amoral. Indeed, even at its most objective, medicine is an applied science(than a pure science) at best because there is no objective law in the cosmos that says human lives should be spared and saved at the cost of other lives. Who’s to say it’s objectively right that laboratories should carry out painful experiments on animals so that humans can live? Pure science is about knowing the truth. Medicine is about using what we know from science to favor certain lives over others. It’s like the German film LIVES OF OTHERS which should be called ‘lives over others’ since it’s premised on the notion that the life and freedom of a bohemian artist is more valuable than those of others.
Still, because medicine is so closely wedded to science — in the way that law can never be — , there is a greater respect for doctors than for lawyers and judges. This is all the more understandable since doctors saved so many lives, but there’s a dangerous side to this since we may over-value whatever comes out of the medical community, especially because so much of the world of medicine is directly or indirectly associated with political pressures. For instance, all the money that went into AIDS research were diverted from other areas. Also, some medical theories can be very wrong, but because we think of medicine as a science, we are far more likely to trust the experts. At one time, many people believed that margarine with transfat is better for one’s heart than butter is. Recently, medical science is saying that saturated animal fat isn’t as bad as it’d been previously reported, and that we should be more wary of calories from carbohydrates — even from whole grain cereals. Worse, there’s a close association between medicine and big business, especially in the pharmaceuticals, which also has a close association with the mental health industry. So, mental health experts keep telling us of new mental maladies that need to be treated by new expensive drugs cooked up by Big Pharma, which, the way it’s going, should be called Big Harma. I sometimes wonder how all those people coped in the past when very few people had access to drugs.
Transfatty Margine. A health food once upon a time.
Though there are quacks who fake medicine to make a quick buck, the problem isn’t simply one of true medicine vs fake medicine. In many cases, genuine doctors have been swept up in great controversies. Also, most doctors must themselves rely on faith on the expertise of others. So, when generation after generation, doctors warned their patients to be especially wary of saturated fat, they were merely relying on the expertise of others. And over time, if something’s been said over and over so many times, it becomes a kind of truism that no one questions. When doctors tell us things, we are likely to believe that they really know what they’re talking about since medicine is a science. But even in science, so many professionals take on faith the research and findings of other experts whose experiments may have been flawed or incomplete.

The cult of medicine is especially dangerous in an authoritarian society in which people tend to have a knee-jerk respect for officialdom. This was one of the dangers of Germany with its authoritarian tradition. As National Socialism was promoted as a kind of national health campaign, even initially skeptical Germans got caught up in the excitement. They came to associate social and political order as relational to clean bill of heath. They came to see Hitler as a kind of sorcerer-doctor who was finally cleaning up Germany and restoring its national, economic, and social health. And things dramatically improved so much so fast that many Germans became convinced that treating Jews as a form of social-and-even-biological disease was indeed the necessary cure for Germany. And yet, the great irony was that Hitler was a mentally unbalanced individual and many of the men around him were pathological cases themselves. It was as if the lunatics took over not only the asylum but the world around it. But Germany had been so economically, socially, and culturally ‘sick’ during the Weimar years — during which Germans felt under occupation as French later did during the Vichy years — that many were willing to give a chance to political ‘doctors’ with a radical proposal. Hitler said Germany ailed from a Jewish cancer and the tumor had to be removed. To an extent, Hitler was right about the Jewish Problem — and in some ways, prophetic about the nature of the Jew, and we can indeed see its effect on both the US and EU today — , but he turned it into an obsession where everything about the Jew was terrible. Worse, as time wore on, it wasn’t enough for Hitler to focus on fixing Germany, and he began entertaining ideas of remaking the world around Germany, especially the landmass of Russia. During the Nazi era, it was difficult tell where the real medicine ended and quackery began. Many genuine doctors became Nazi Party members, and they thought it morally feasible to euthanize certain kinds of undesirables — even Germans. Or some might be perfectly fine doctors when it came to healing bones but have radical notions about racial science and how it applied to medicine. If indeed, some races were seen as subhuman or even anti-human, might it not be feasible to exterminate them like germs or carry out horrifying experiments on them? Even more disturbing is the fact that some medical knowledge of genuine value arose from these gruesome experiments, which further complicates the morality of medicine. In some ways, however, Nazi Germany went out of its way to be more moral. It was the first nation to ban vivisection of animals. Also, we should be mindful of the fact that the medical community is not the same thing as the medical organization that speaks in its name. A whole bunch of doctors could think in one way, but the organization, under pressure from powerful elites, could pursue a different path. It’s like there’s a huge discrepancy between rank-and-file Republicans and GOP elites whose priority is to appease the globalist Jewish elites.
The problem with medical-logic-when-taken-to-extreme is due the contradictory fact that we are ourselves a bundle of germs. Humanity is never about health vs germs, but useful germs vs hostile germs. And yet, even hostile germs are necessary to some degree in order to strengthen our immune system. One might say most forms of animate life are walking, floating, flying, or swimming sacks of shit. They eat, turn what they eat into shit and piss, and excrete the material. And the process — and many others — not only involve but require the existence of certain kinds of germs. Indeed, if our eyes could see the amount of germs that are really around us and in us, germ-freaks would flip out and go nuts. Though one way to characterize doctors is as humble practitioners who do their best to save lives — and there have been plenty of such doctors — , there is always an element of egomania in medicine. When a Western doctor goes to some part of the Third World, he or she deserves praise as a man of goodwill. But the fact that he or she knows that he or she has power of life-and-death over his or her prospective patients imbues him or her with an element of godly power. Though he or she is only trying to heal, the success or failure of the treatment will decide the fate of the natives. So, it’s not surprising that many in the medical community — of course, especially in the mental health medicine community — have used medical authority as a means to gain power and control over others. To be a doctor — or to even play the role of amateur doctor — is to imply that you are objective, imbued with authority, supported by knowledge, and possessing of truth, whereas the patient finds himself in a situation where he feels he must defer to the doctor, respect the doctor, trust the doctor, and even submit to the doctor. He comes under the mercy of the doctor who has thumb up or thumb down power over the patient’s life.
A movie like THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE is especially perverse because it’s the medical community — of the sinister communists — who use psychological techniques to gain control of the minds(and souls) of American prisoners-of-war. And it is a no-nonsense non-medical soldier played by Frank Sinatra who frees a fellow American from the mental hell instilled into him by communist doctors who serve a ruthless ideology. In MARNIE, Sean Connery’s character Mark plays amateur doctor in relation to Tippi Hedren’s eponymous character. Indeed, many of Hitchcock’s movies have the element of medicine and manipulation. In SPELLBOUND, Gregory Peck’s character was mentally manipulated by an evil doctor, and he’s cured by a woman doctor played by Ingrid Bergman. In LADY VANISHES, the woman is told that her encounter with a certain woman was all just an hallucination in psychological lingo fashionable at the time. Sinister people use the language of ‘science’ and ‘expertise’ to manipulate people into seeing what isn’t there and into not seeing what is there. The mind-game can result from someone playing amateur psychologist. The evil husband in VERTIGO is no professional psychologist, but he pulled a brilliant mind-trick on Scotty(James Stewart). He told Scotty that his wife is psychologically delusional, but it was all just a charade, but Scotty bought into her mental illness and even caught the malady from from her. He really comes to be ‘possessed’ by Madeleine in the way that she pretended to be possesed by the ghost of Carlotta. (In some ways, the evil husband was a brilliant mythologist, but in another way, he really didn’t do much. He understood that all he needed to do was provide a canvas and a few connective dots, and then, Scotty’s heart-and-mind-and-eyes-and-senses would do the rest by connecting the dots of their own accord. It’s like the theory of ‘universal grammar’ that says children are hardwired for language. Children don’t have to be taught how language works because, as they go from babyhood to childhood, they naturally ‘pick up’ and circuit-intuit grammatical logic. Similarly, a kind of universal mythology exists in the mind. The evil husband needed only to provide Scotty with a few ‘motifs’ about beauty, allure, and mystery, and Scotty’s mind would naturally connect the dots and complete the mythology. It’s like a poem can consist of a few lines, but it can evoke of cosmos of suggestive imagery and emotions in the mind of the reader. It’s like a science-fiction movie can be rather primitive in its production values but its visual cues can provoke the imagination of the audience into hyper-overdrive by having pushed just the right buttons of the ‘emogenous’ and ‘evocatogenous’ zones. It’s like the original BUBBLEGUM CRISIS 2032-2033 series has very limited production values, but it sparked the imagination of its fans. Or consider the notion of ‘epic film’. A single mundane day is 24 hrs whereas most ‘epic films’ run around 3 hrs. So, the ‘epic film’ is far shorter than any ordinary day, and yet, great epic films push just the right buttons to create the impression that we’ve experienced a story spanning across many years, decades, or even centuries over vast expanses.
3 hrs can feel like the passage of 30 yrs. So, if you know which buttons to press, you don’t have to do much since the person whose buttons were pressed will do the rest through the process of ‘universal mythologizing’. And the evil husband sure pressed the right set of buttons in Scotty. Scotty filled in the blanks. Also, there’s something about the power of spell that is addictive. Scotty is spellbound with Madeleine, and it grows into an addiction. Even though he plays the role of rational/skeptical/cynical detective who’s trying to break Madeleine out of her (paranormal-suicidal)spell, he’s also fallen into the spell, and there’s a subconscious part of him that doesn’t want her to break out of the spell since he himself has fallen into romantic fascination/fixation with her ‘illness’. Indeed, we wonder if he would have fallen into such mad love with her if not for the fact that she was ‘sick’. The ‘sick’ part of her makes her vulnerable, thus allowing him to step into her life as hero and savior. But the ‘sickness’ adds shades of mystery to her pretty face so it’s not just a pretty face but a tragically beautiful face; if hypochrondriasis is fear of non-existent illness, maybe something like ‘hypochrondrophilia’ could mean an obsessive love for someone or something for his/her/its ‘sickness’, as with the case in MARNIE where the Sean Connery character falls in love with the Tippi Hedren character precisely because her ‘sickness’ turns him on. So, even as a part of Scotty wants to talk Madeleine out of her ‘madness’, another part of him savors the fact that her soul is in another world, an impression that imbues her with mythic/goddess-like dimensions. Indeed, consider the scene where Scotty spies on her as she lays flowers at the grave of Carlotta Valdez; the scene, shot through soft filter, looks like both the Garden of Eden and Hell. It’s like remembrance of paradise gone forever and yet revived through myth. Pretty face and biology aren’t enough for a crazy romance like the one that envelopes Scotty. They must be fused with myth.
VERTIGO - Carlotta's Grave
It’s like the spiral graphics of the opening title sequence show slits that look like a vagina, and maybe VERTIGO should be called VAGINAGO. And there’s a reference to a ‘Coit Tower’ in the film, and ‘coit’ remind us of ‘coitus’. And we wonder how far Scotty went when he removed Madeleine’s wet clothes after she jumped into the harbor below the Golden Gate Bridge. Did he even remove her panties or underwear? Or did he leave that on? And if he did remove her panties, did he avert his eyes from her privates, or did he take a peek at her vaginal slit? Whatever happened, the woman was fully cognizant of what he was doing to her since she was only faking her unconsciousness. If Scotty did take a peek at her pooter, maybe this was when she got excited and began to fall for him. [James Stewart denuded a woman, albeit accidentally, in another movie, Frank Capra’s IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, where Donna Reed had to hide behind a Bush.] To fully appreciate Hitchcock’s complex perceptions of the vagina, we need to understand the socio-sexual framework of America prior to the so-called Sexual Revolution. Though promiscuity and debauchery were hardly absent prior to the 1960s, there was a clear-cut separation between private life and public life. So, whatever questionable or ‘perverted’ stuff you might have done in privacy, it was expected to be kept separate or hidden from public purview. You had to avoid scandals, especially as they could destroy your position in elite society or reputation in the community. So, the rich and famous — even the morally loose ones — kept things under the lid. And most Americans were raised to believe in things like the sanctity of marriage and sexual morality. Thus, the vagina was no ordinary piece of flesh. It was a very private place that was only meant for the special person a woman loved and opened herself to. It wasn’t just a pleasure hole but a private keyhole, ideally only for the penis of the true lover/husband. And Hitchcock grew up in such a social universe. Though he made movies about spies and sleuths, the protagonists were nothing like the 007 James Bond of the 1960s who slept around with lots of women. Usually, the spies and agents in Hitchcock thrillers fall in love or learn about the meaning of true love. To be sure, there’s usually a bit of naughtiness involved. Consider how the heroine of THE LADY VANISHES switches her amorous affections to a man she met on the train and vanishes from her finance waiting at the station. The tennis player guy[Farley Granger] in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN wants to divorce his wife, but then, it’s not to screw around but because he found the true love of his life[though, to be sure, it certainly helps that she’s better bred than the current wife from whom he’s estranged. Though the wife is a no-good bitch, he might have wanted to leave her even if she was good and decent. It’s interesting how finding the True Love of one’s life leads to infidelity and all kinds of betrayal. We like to believe that a husband and wife have are each other’s true love, but many people marry out of horniness, need of company, and affection, emotions that aren’t as powerful as romantic love. So, when a married person meets someone who seems like the True Love of his/her life, it means trouble. The wife in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO is a good decent woman, but Zhivago cheats on her anyway because his true love is Lara. Marriage is a blessing but also a curse as one might find one’s true love after marriage. The spouse finds himself/herself locked in marriage but really in love with someone else, like what happens in THE HEARTBREAK KID. Movies usually give us the fantasy of the ideal man falling in love with the ideal woman, but reality is otherwise, with most men marrying the adequate woman and most women marrying the adequate man. Woe to the married person who finds true love after marriage.] So, in the Hitchcock movies, a woman has her honor in making sure that her vagina is for the right boner. Hitchcock’s movies uphold this sexual-moral ideal, but Hitchcock was also frustrated with it because he lusted after his female stars and wanted to stick his penis into their pooters. [But then, the main reason his women refused to spread their legs to him was because he was fat, old, and ugly, not because they were so virtuous themselves. Because Hitchcock had little luck with women due to his ungainly physique, sexual idealism could serve as a crutch. Without such idealism that fused beauty and fidelity, the only game in town would be men and women screwing all over the place, and then, the only explanation as to why Hitchcock got no action would have been he’s too fat and ugly. But if ideals did exist, women, as paragons of beauty and poise, wouldn’t just put out to anyone, and Hitchcock could make believe that he couldn’t get any action because the women were too good for him or for any man.] Hitchcock could work on their faces. He could take a full measure of women’s figure; he even got Janet Leigh naked in the shower set. He could gaze at their legs. He could have stylists work on the women’s hair. He might even hold their hands. He could order his actresses about and even put them through ordeals of violence. But he couldn’t spread their legs and get at the vagina. So, when Scottie undressed Madeleine out of her wet clothes in VERTIGO, it makes us wonder what really happened. Did he remove the panties? Did he take a peek at her pooter slit when she seemed to be unconscious? In a way, his denuding of her is rather like a doctor examining a woman’s breasts and other private areas. He was just being ‘professional’ and gentlemanly to make her more comfortable until she comes to her senses on his bed. And yet, we know there was something more. Taking a peek at a pooter in our age would be nothing special as so many women are hussies who ‘hook up’ with any bunch of men and spread their legs and use their vaginas as semi-public pleasure holes to be pumped by any horn-boy. Some women even post their pooter pics all over the internet. But in the 1950s and earlier, the pooter was some seriously secretive territory. Perhaps, the most pooter-centric of all Hitchcock movies is MARNIE, a film that would have been difficult to pull off prior to the 1960s. The character of Marnie is very easy and loose in using her sexual wiles and charms to lure men but utterly frigid in her control of her pooter that’s sealed off to any man. She may unlock and violate the safes of banking firms, but no one will unlock her keyhole. She wants to remain frozen and dry in her pooter. Though a woman gets wet when her vagina begins to get excited, the feeling can be unsettling because she’s surrendering her self-control to wild animal impulses, and prior to the Rock n Roll era, women were raised to find such emotions to be nasty and dirty. It’s like all those shrieking white girls at Elvis Presley concerts wetting their panties before the antics of the white guy who ‘sings and dances like a nigger’. They might have felt orgasmic pleasure while acting even crazier than Nazi Germans shouting ‘Heil Hitler’. It was as if their pussies were screaming ‘Hail Elvis’. Though Jews often reviled the ‘irrational’ impulses and manias of white gentiles, they encouraged hysterical eruptions of sexual energy among young white gentiles because Jews figured such would eventually lead to the miscegenation of the white race. First, white girls would scream like crazy for the ‘white nigger’, but eventually they might come around to screaming for the real ‘nigger’, and when we look at the current musical landscape where black rappers sing about little else but fuc*ing white girls, Jewish sexual prophecy has come true. Of course, not all leftists were happy with Rock n Roll, but Jewish radicals were quick to see its value in shaking and weakening the moral controls of the white gentile order. Youth culture centered around Rock n Roll and Rap made white boys and girls racial-sexually surrender to the Negro. Hitchcock instinctively understood where such socio-sexual dynamism was going. Though a fat horny bastard who wanted to get into the panties of beautiful women, he believed in the necessity of poise, control, and dignity — the sexual borderlines. Besides, what would be the allure of women if they all acted like a bunch of loose skanks? Women are alluring only if they’re elevated and hard-to-get in style and manner. A woman goes through the trouble of dressing herself to be worthy of being undressed by the man she loves. There has to be a kind of a mating game between men and women for sexuality to be something other than merely an animalistic orgy. In the case of Marnie, she became so soaked with the trauma of sexuality in her childhood that she chooses to remain on dry land. She fears storms and thunder. Perhaps, it’s fitting that she loses her virginity in the high seas and then tries to kill herself in the swimming pool after Sean Connery’s character tears off her clothes and penetrates her. She’s finally taken the plunge. And THE BIRDS also take place on an island surrounded by the sea. And the woman’s first violent contact with the bird is when she’s on a boat crossing from the mainland to the island. It’s like the waters between the two pieces of land are like vaginal/menstrual fluids.
[When the seagull strikes Tippi Hedren’s character in the forehead, it’s as if she’s slipped into the mood of ‘that time of the month’. The blood on the tip of her glove looks like blood on a tampon. She’s a libertine woman who knows what she wants and goes after it/him, but she’s also into decorum and hides her sassiness behind classiness. Also, she enters a tightknit small island community where people tend to be more conservative and conventional about sexual mores and the like. So, she has to restrain her desires. But she’s under the power of Luna. Consciously, she tries her best to be a good decent woman, but her repressed sexual passions roil the entire community in the guise of aggressive birds that defy gravity and fly through/over all demarcated boundaries. Though she is the opposite of the pathetic plain-faced girl in CARRIE, the horror elements in both films begin with menstrual flows. Carrie, innocent about sex, freaks out when she notices blood from her vagina on her finger. Things begin to go wrong in THE BIRDS when the woman sees blood on her gloved finger. And the final part of both films tend to be similar in violence. The woman in THE BIRDS feel a mix of agony and ecstasy as her moral ego tries to fend off the birds in the bedroom from bypassing her to kill others in the house. It’s like she’s holding back her own aggressive sexual passions, and yet in the violent war between repression and release, there’s a kind of rapture more powerful than either. A similar kind of violence engulfs Carrie’s mother as she is driven with kitchen knives and other utensils by her daughter’s telepathic powers. On the one hand, it’s Carrie committing matricide, and her mother dies in great agony. And yet, there’s also sexual ecstasy as the mother is penetrated by phallic objects all over her body. It’s like the image of St. Sebastian shot full of arrows, one that Yukio Mishima first ‘came’ to in his youth.] Anyway, there’s something about the power of the spell that just won’t let go or just won’t bet let gone. Just like Scottie can’t let go of Madeleine even after she ‘dies’ — and just like he embraces the new ‘Madeleine’ even upon realizing the truth of her role in the murder plot[she is both Madeleine and the co-murderer of Madeleine] — , David in A.I. cannot let go of ‘mommy’ and the dream of the blue fairy no matter what he learns about himself and the world around him.
A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - Imprinting of David. A Blessing and a Curse.
He’s spellbound with the dream of ‘mommy’ to extent that even when facts contradict his narrative, he clings to the myth, and when myth fails him, he switches to another myth, all in order to fulfill his spellbound longing to be reunited with ‘mommy’. And in his mad love for ‘mommy’, he is pretty oblivious to everything and everyone else around him. Though he becomes friends with Gigolo Joe who did so much for him, he doesn’t seem sad in watching Gigolo Joe captured by the police to be destroyed. And David doesn’t seem to care that Teddy will be left alone as he goes off to sleep with ‘mommy’. Similarly, Scottie’s love for Madeleine becomes so absolute that he’s oblivious to the love and affection showered on him by Midge, the fashion designer. Midge is to Scottie what Teddy is to David. The great love for one thing/person blinds one’s love to everything else. Scottie is so besotted with Madeleine — even or especially in her death — that he’s entirely indifferent to the genuine tenderness Midge feels for him. Indeed, Scottie and Midge make an interesting pair. In the beginning of the film, they seem to have much in common. Both are rational, skeptical, cynical, and independent modern urban characters. They have no illusions about anything, and even though they’d once been a pair and even thought of marriage, they never acted on it and decided to lead independent lives; they decided to be ‘alone’, as if love is just a four-lettered word for suckers who still believe in all that. Both share a similar kind of sensibility and humor, as if they can read each other’s minds. And yet, there are hints even in the beginning of the film that Midge really did have a kind of crush on Scottie. (But it was just that, a crush. It is really the tinge of envy upon watching Madeleine leaving Scotty’s apartment and then later sympathy for Scotty’s tragic loss that really intensifies and deepens Midge’s affection for him that really does turn into a kind of love. Paradoxically, Midge falls more in love with Scotty just when they no longer speak the same emotive language. In the beginning of the film, they communicate with dry wit and easy irony. But once Scotty falls for Madeleine, what he and Midge might have found amusing earlier is no longer a laughing matter for Scotty. He even finds Midge’s little prank mocking and offensive. And yet, it is this side of Scotty that really brings out Midge’s stronger emotions for him. She loves him more as she loses him. And when he’s in the hospital locked within his own despair, she really feels for him. But there were shades of this in the beginning of the film. When Scotty tries to cure himself by stepping on the chair and then falls unconscious, Midge holds him close and pours forth with affection just when he is unawares. It anticipates Scotty’s saving of Madeleine from drowning and taking care of her when she is presumably unaware of what is happening. Of course, the difference is Madeleine was just play-acting. Whereas Scotty’s illness — phobia for heights — is real, Madeleine’s phantom-philia about Carlotta is a charade.) And despite Scottie’s cynicism and rationalism, his illness with acrophobia — the fear of heights — suggest that no amount of rationalism can withstand the power of irrational/emotional. When Scottie jokingly tries to cure his acrophobia by standing on a stool but then grows dizzy and falls to the floor, Midge hugs him in an earnest motherly-loverly emotions that she usually kept repressed. (Though the conceit of modernity was to free individuals of emotional repression and allow them to be libertine and free, such hip and glib ‘impersonalism’ had the effect of repressing sincere emotions that came to be considered ‘old-fashioned’, ‘simplistic’, and ‘maudlin’.) Midge is no beauty but not ugly either — being in fashion design, she knows how to make herself look better than she really is — , and she knows it. She knows she could never have wowed Scottie, and Scottie knows it too. Though Scottie is no Cary Grant, he is presumably more attractive to Midge than the other way around. Scottie, as a detective, has led a life of reducing mysteries into solid/sordid facts, and Midge, as fashion designer[who gave up on her art career], is an expert about the cynical manipulation of the image to sell stuff to all the ugly women out there who want to look beautiful. When they discuss a certain bra that is supposed to use the same dynamics as the cantilever bridge, it’s suggestive of how even the allure of beauty is a matter of mechanics, manipulation, and engineering. Behind the myth and magic are the method and machinery. The motif of bra-bridge also reminds us of how the evil husband is into the ship-building business but is also a master-builder of myths — and it sure fooled Scottie. And of course, Scottie too becomes a kind of engineer of beauty as he masters the method of reconstructing Judy into the mythic ‘Madeleine’. The decisive break between Scottie and Midge comes when Midge pulls a prank on him with a painting of herself as Carlotta Valdez. It is funny, and Scottie would have laughed at it earlier, but he doesn’t find it funny in the least; he responds as if it’s a work of desecration. It’s as if, all through his life Scottie never understood the meaning of the sacred; he was never a believer, the one to have faith. And yet, he finds such faith and belief through Madeleine, and she — and the myth of Carlotta — become sacred to him; the Madeleine/Carlotta myth(or his faith in it) is not to be mocked, belittled, or profaned, but Midge profaned it, the very thing that had become sacred to him. Of course, she had no way of knowing the extent of his transformation; she had no idea that a kind of conversion experience has taken hold of him. And yet, ironically, the thing that has become most sacred to Scottie is actually the most profane of all as it was all just a sham concocted by the evil husband to murder his wife. But then, one could argue that the profanity of this fake myth was redeemed by Scottie and Madeleine because they really did fall in love, because they both came to embrace the myth. It’s like what Harry Dean Stanton as Saul/Paul says to Jesus in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST — the film as I haven’t read the book. When Jesus, who’d come off the cross to lead a family life, tells Saul/Paul that the gospel he’s spreading if false, Saul/Paul answers that it doesn’t matter as the myth has become bigger than the fact; the myth, if taken with faith, has a way of justifying and redeeming itself; and yet, Jesus comes to feel that he must redeem the myth by being worthy of the faith that is spreading like wildfire among all the people looking for hope, and so, his return to the cross is like a second crucifixion and he painfully crawls on the ground to be put back on the ghastly pedestal. We can understand why Scottie feels the way he does. We’ve all had experiences where all of us used to share in laughter and mockery at something, but then, we realize that someone among us no longer finds it funny and ‘has found religion’, and the thing has become sacred to him. I recall a Jewish kid in middle school who always used to mock Jewishness, religions, and all that, and both of us in our youth considered ourselves universalist atheists. But later in life, Israel and Jewishness became very sacred to her, and I couldn’t joke about that stuff with her anymore — though she still enjoyed a good laugh about dumb ‘Polacks’, the ‘muzzie’ savages, the dog-eating ‘chinks’, and etc. And I also recall some Wasp kid in college who always used to make fun of the Holocaust and Jews in general, but some odd reason, he became a born-again Christian when he returned to his roots in the south and was all about supporting Israel and praising Jews. When we met up again, and I tried to remind him of the outrageous things he said in high school for a good laugh — because they were funny as well despite their offensive nature — , he put on a grim face and said that was all in the past and he regretted all that. So, he ‘found religion’ too. And of course, there’s the homo thing. Back in middle school and high school, everyone — and I mean everyone, even the Jewish and homo kids — used to love telling homo jokes, making fun of homos, and calling everything ‘gay’. But today, try that with a lot of people — even older people — , and they act like you’ve insulted holiness itself. Like Scottie upon looking at the Midge-as-Carlotta painting, they complain, "it’s not funny" and get all offended. This goes to show that just about anything can be made ‘sacred’. And ‘desecration’ of the ‘sacred’ isn’t funny in the least to the people who behold it as sacred. It’s like some Muslim guy I got to know on facebook as we both liked to bash Jews and Israel, but I also like to make fun of Muhammad, but every time I did so, he begged and pleaded with me to stop because it was oh-so-terrible to his sensibilities. LOL. But I can sort of understand where he’s coming from as I can get pretty offended at those who mock Priss of BUBBLEGUM CRISIS, which, for me, isn’t a laughing matter.
Priss - No Joking Matter
Anyway, the strange thing is that even though Midge loses Scottie, his manic melancholia infects her also, and in a way, she comes to love him in the way that he’s come to love Madeleine.
It is illness that makes people weak, vulnerable, and dependent, and this is when one can make the moves on someone. But Scottie has been claimed by Madeleine whose tragic essence has been ‘imprinted’ onto him. Midge can’t find a way in to take advantage of his illness. He’s possessed by another. But when the illness is still virginal, one can make the move to possess it with passion. It’s like the Sean Connery character slips a secret kiss on the Tippi Hedren character in MARNIE when she freaks out from the storm and falls half-unconscious into his arms; similarly, it is when Scottie falls off the stool near the beginning that Midge is able to hug him without holding her emotions back. As these Waspy characters are into control of emotions and coolness, they are uncomfortable about being overly emotive(like Katy Jurado in HIGH NOON who says it like it is), and therefore, caring for illness is a useful excuse to get ‘fresh’ with someone, like what happens in FAREWELL TO ARMS. And in this, Hitchcock may have appreciated the methodology of Freudianism that got intimate with the patient — often female — on the pretext that the rational scientist was trying to ‘cure’ her. It’s like if you want to see the boobies, one way is to become a doctor so that you can pretend that it’s purely clinical and nothing else, indeed as Bill Harford tells his wife in EYES WIDE SHUT. At any rate, if a physician can only denude the physical part of the woman, the psychoanalyst can probe & penetrate into her mind and soul that are indeed more private and intimate places; Jews sure are experts at ‘mind-fuc*ing’ people. Anyway, Scottie’s illness gives Midge an opening for her to become more intimate with him, but his illness about Madeleine is a barrier she can’t break. In the end, he’s ‘sick’ for Madeleine, and Midge is ‘sick’ for Scottie, but there isn’t anything Midge can do about it. Oddly enough, it’s as though Midge falls most in love with Scottie just when she realizes he’s fallen in love with Madeleine. Part of the reason is jealousy, and jealousy makes a person more competitive. But it’s also because she is touched that someone as cynical and rational as Scottie could gain such total faith in something. Since Scottie and she seemed so alike as bosom buddies, she wishes for herself the kind of emotions that Scottie has for Madeleine. So, in a way, she’s jealous with Madeleine for stealing Scottie’s heart, but she’s also jealous with Scottie for he has gained a sacredness of emotions that has always eluded her. And yet, in losing him forever, she sort of gains that kind of sacredness for herself as she is filled with a profound love for him as she walks down the corridor of the hospital out of his life.

Myths take on a life of their own despite seeming fixed in their eternal sacredness. At their core is an instability that may inspire the imagination to sprout off new narratives. For example, when Scottie was with Madeleine, he wanted to be with her forever; nothing would have hurt him more than losing her. But lose her, he does, and it’s as if he’s lost his sacred love forever. He is thus condemned to be eternally unconsolable, or so he feels. And yet, the myth inspires him to create a new ‘Madeleine’, and the obsession is so absolute that the resurrection of ‘Madeleine’ becomes as sacred or even more so than his sacred love for Madeleine before her ‘death’. So, when he embraces the newly resurrected ‘Madeleine’, would he have been willing to go back to the old Madeleine if someone like the blue fairy appeared to him and said he could be transported back in time to be with old Madeleine again and even prevent her death? (It’s like the Disciples were heartbroken to observe the death of their master Jesus. As they’d dearly loved and respected Him, they felt nothing was more sacred to them than the time they’d spent with Him while He was alive. But when Jesus returns to them, they come upon something even more precious and sacred. While Jesus was alive, He was a great man and teacher, the stuff of myth-making. In His resurrected form, He is a myth larger than myth. He isn’t merely the stuff of myth-making but myth-made.) Though ‘Madeleine’ isn’t Madeleine — though both are myths pasted upon Judy Barton — , in some ways, she(the second ‘Madeleine’) has become more than Madeleine since Madeleine, despite her alluring ‘sickness’, was only a person named Madeleine — at least to Scottie’s mind — whereas ‘Madeleine’ is truly a creation of Scottie’s fevered imagination. But then, Scottie didn’t so much create ‘Madeleine’ as model her on Madeleine, in which case, we wonder who was the true author or ‘auteur’ of ‘Madeleine’. Scottie? The evil husband? Judy Barton as Madeleine? Or the real wife Madeleine who was the model that Judy Barton imitated to create the double. But then, did Judy Barton really imitate the real Madeleine[the actual wife], or did she create her own Madeleine based on her assumptions of how a rich socialite woman talks and walks? And how much was she coached by the evil husband in working on her accents and the way she moves? The evil husband is a rather odd character; he seems urbane and sophisticated — a natural born aristocrat — , and yet, he says he wishes he could live in the pioneer days of California when things were rougher, tougher, and more free — presumably more free take what one wants with a six-shooter, whereas in the modern world of law-and-order, it’s much more difficult for a man to get what he wants as he can’t wield his power like a conqueror. To gain possession of power in the civilized world of law-and-order, one needs to be more creative and devious, like the devious general in PATHS OF GLORY who, like the Neocons and Liberal Zionists, pull the strings but then snip them off when things go badly, claiming no responsibilities and pushing all the blames on others who were sucker enough to have fallen for their manipulations. Though we despise the evil husband for his thirst for ‘power and freedom’, something of his character exists in all of us, indeed, even in Scottie and Judy. Though Scottie is not a killer, he sort of ‘murders’ Judy — or buries her alive beneath the facade of Scottie’s fantasy — to have what he wants, which is ‘Madeleine’. He ‘forces’ her into becoming what she isn’t in order to realize the dreams of his own ‘power and freedom’. And Judy, a poor girl who came to San Francisco from some nondescript small town, was willing to conspire with the evil husband to get what she wants. And then she ‘conspires’ with Scottie to give him what he wants so that she can have what she wants: his love and attention. In some ways, what Scottie does to her is more ‘violent’ than what the evil husband did. The evil husband didn’t make her surrender her identity and true self. He merely coached her into putting on an act. In contrast, Scottie really wants Judy to abandon her true self and become this ‘Madeleine’. And yet, in having played Madeleine and then ‘Madeleine’, Judy herself isn’t sure what she really is. After all, modern identity isn’t merely about the culture or place we are born into. It is about every individual creating his or her identity by imitating/emulating certain images and styles sold to the public by the fashion and entertainment industries. Before Judy Barton became Madeleine, was she really her true self? But what was her ‘true self’? If she was happy being what she really was, why did she leave her hometown and come to a big city? She obviously wanted to be something else, someone more glamorous. When Scottie meets Judy Barton in the street, she is heavily made up and fashion-conscious(though in a rather tasteless manner). It makes us wonder if she really is so lacking in taste or if she made herself look especially tacky to avoid being identified by Scottie. So, even before she was remade into Madeleine, she was already unsure of what she was; or she was displeased with what she was. Was she a small town girl? A big city woman? A hick? A city slicker? If we can switch from one identifying image to another, is there a stable meaning to the concept of ‘I’ and ‘myself’? In traditional communities, the chances are you were born into a culture, religion, and a stable set of customs; and as they were likely to define you and remain with you for your whole life, you had both a weaker and stronger sense of ‘I’. A weaker sense of ‘I’ since your identity was given to you and reinforced by the community whether you liked it or not. But also a stronger sense of ‘I’ since your identity remained fixed and stable for your entire life. In the modern world, one’s sense of ‘I’ is stronger in the sense that each person gets to choose how to define himself or herself. But the sense of ‘I’ is also weaker since you could be one thing at one time and then another at another time. Consider how the hippies became yuppies. Consider how some people juggle various identities: new age spiritualist, urban professional, cynic, globalist-cosmopolitan, libertarian, ass-tattooer, Christian, etc. Besides, fashions change all the time, and as fashions change, sense of identity also changes. When Americans today look at photos of Americans partying in the 1920s, there’s a sense of disconnect because the fashions were so different then. If image matters in defining what we are, then was there any stable and certain person named ‘Judy Barton’ to begin with? In a way, doesn’t the fashion/cosmetic/entertainment industry Madeleine-ize all women by make them want to be something other or more than what they really are? Every look, style, and manner of modern womanhood have an element of affectation shopped from the wider world dominated by advertising conglomerates and shopping outlets. At the most basic level, one might say that a woman is just an animal, and her drives are wild and sexual, like with the winged creatures in THE BIRDS and the black horse in MARNIE. But in a civilized setting, a woman must lure men with colored feathers than with beaks and talons.
Scottie and Judy’s ‘selfishness’ may seem more sympathetic to us because they fall in love, but both are willing to break rules of conventional morality and even decency to get what they want. It’s like Negroes often say they ‘gotta have me’ something, and they’ll willing to do anything to have it. Consider how Michael Brown the Clown of Ferguson just had to ‘have me’ some free cigars. And even though the evil husband is one nasty son of a bitch, maybe he too is a dreamer who felt trapped by his rather staid, stuffy, and all-too-respectable life, and maybe his wife, the real Madeleine, was just a cold-hearted bitch who didn’t show him any love(like the first wife in REBECCA); maybe he too had a great love in hiding and wanted to get away and be with her. Often, it is the most beautiful dream that makes us blind to all the evil that we do. This is true politically as well. Hitler did have a glorious dream of a great German nation, but it blinded him to all the evils he would have to commit to build it. The notion of Manifest Destiny was grandiose, uplifting, and inspiring, but it turned a blind eye to all the suffering of the American Indians. Zionists had a great dream of a new Israel, but the beauty of that vision blinded them to all the injustices that would be meted out to the Palestinians. And think of the great dream of waging war on wicked Saddam Hussein to liberate the Iraqis and spread democracy all over the Middle East. It appealed to me too, and despite my knowledge that WMD scares were totally baloney, I supported the war with a blind spot to all the horrors such a war might unleash. And think of the wonderful dream of the Civil Rights Movement and the building of the Rainbow nation in South Africa with the end of Apartheid. They both sounded very nice, but then, they sounded TOO NICE, for reality is never very nice. But the power of such dreams blinded us to the horrors that would be unleashed by the rise of the ghastly Negroes who are naturally stronger and more aggressive. Beauty blinds us to ugliness. We like to believe beauty = truth, but more often than, beauty is an opiate or mask over the ugly face. Indeed, all creatures are ‘ugly’ and all faces are masks of beauty. Rip off the face-mask of the most beautiful person in the world and you find a mangle of tissue, bones, veins, and etc. — the ugly stuff of inner organs so prominently featured in David Cronenberg films. Since complex organisms must mate in order to produce new life, evolution created pretty outward appearances that effectively mask and hide all the real ugliness within. I mean what person would want to mate with another person whose skin has been torn off and whose flesh, veins, and organs inside could be seen from the outside? It’s why the guy in THE FACE OF ANOTHER by Kobo Abe and Hiroshi Teshigahara needs a new face. The odd thing about beauty is it’s both generic and particular. There’s a general set of rules that determine what is attractive and what isn’t, and indeed people all over the globe prefer certain facial types over others. So, in this sense, there are general markers for beauty. And yet for something to be truly beautiful, it has to possess certain unique characteristics — visual signatures — that might even be considered a kind of defect if not so piquantly placed in the beauty in question. Such ‘defects’ add character to a person. For example, the slightly droopy lips of Jeanne Moreau might be deemed as a defect in most women, but, in combination with her other features, they lend her beauty a peculiarity lacking in generic beauty.
Jeanne Moreau
Catherine Deneuve
Lauren Bacall
Patricia Neal
This is why some ‘defective’ beauties can be all the more alluring than ‘perfect’ beauties. Catherine Deneuve is a perfect beauty but somewhat ‘boring’, whereas Lauren Bacall and Patricia Neal, though ‘defective’ in some ways, are far more alluring. This is why some Jewish girls, though less ‘perfect’, can get guys more excited than any blonde ‘shikse’. They have an exoticism lacking in ‘generic shikse babes’, which is why, back in high school, some guys had the biggest hots for certain Jewish girls.

One thing that I never much cared for in Hitchcock’s films is Hitchcock generally had the hots for perfect beauty, especially Nordic/blonde types like Ingrid Bergman and Grace Kelly(whom I could never stand, except in HIGH NOON). And yet, VERTIGO is special because Kim Novak, though pretty, was no great beauty, and the film is about molding imperfection into a thing of perfection. Novak as Judy Barton — even the name Barton sounds blah — looks sort of attractive, but everything about her face, makeup, hair, and dress looks wrong, indeed so wrong that most people would never think she could be sculpted into a woman of beauty. And yet, the evil husband saw something in her that resembled his fancy wife, and Scottie notices the same thing upon seeing her in the street and indeed goes about remolding her into ‘Madeleine’. This suggests there are two layers to beauty and/or obsession. For those who are really obsessed with a certain kind of beauty, they can notice its vague presence in ways no one else could. It’s like some miners see specks of gold where others don’t. Though Judy Barton looks like some cheap tart indistinguishable from countless other cheap tarts, there was something about her that piqued Scottie’s attention instantly, and later he chiseled away her extraneous features and added polish to bring out the glimmer. Of course, it turns out Judy was really Madeleine, and therefore, the job is made all the easier for Scottie, but it’s still something of an inspired miracle that he noticed her right away, because a lot of people, including myself, would never have noticed that Madeleine and Judy are the same person. Judy’s dilemma becomes ironic. Usually, when people want to hide something, they take on another personality/identity. But Judy is hiding in her own self from her incarnation as Madeleine. And yet, in another way, she never felt so real, alive, and beautiful than as Madeleine. So, paradoxically, she’s hiding everything(beautiful) by not hiding anything(mundane). As Judy, she is simply herself, but she is hiding that mythic side of her that fell in love with Scottie who fell in love with it, and in hiding this side of her from Scottie when they meet again, she is hiding everything. A part of her wants Scottie to her love as she is(as Judy), and yet, another side of her wants to be Madeleine again because she was never so classy, beautiful, alluring, and mysterious — and never so admired and loved — than as Madeleine. In turning into ‘Madeleine’, she is both betraying her real self that is Judy and claiming her dream self that is a goddess. So, which is truer? One’s biography or one’s mythology? But in some ways, even every biography has an element of myth. After all, Judy put on makeup, wore dresses, and exuded a style that she borrowed from fashions created by the larger society. Even a cheap tart tries to make herself look alluring according to fashion, and what is fashion but mass-marketing of the myth of beauty? So, even though Judy might seem like a cheap tart in a big city, she might impress someone as a goddess-type in a small town of simpleton rubes. To a hillbilly, she might seem like a real classy lady. It’s like female country music singers of the 1960s and 1970s look rather cheap, but they were much admired as classy by good ole boys who ain’t never seen anyone so purty and dressed up. It’s like the country singer Barbara Jean(Ronee Blakely) in NASHVILLE is like a goddess to the simpleminded soldier(Scott Glenn) who came to watch her perform.
It’s like some of the rough/illiterate men are much impressed by the ‘fancy’-dressed whores in MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER. So, even Judy is something of a made-up myth since all women try to ‘elevate’ themselves to the standards of beauty peddled by the fashion/cosmetic industry. Even before Judy came to play Madeleine, she’d remade herself from a small-town Kansas girl to a big-city girl. In this, she is somewhat like Holly Golightly in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S who is a ‘phony but a real phony’. (Incidentally, both BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S and THE GRADUATE are about young men who ditch older female lovers for true love with younger women. BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S also has something in common with MIDNIGHT COWBOY as both are about people from some rural or small-town nowhere who venture to the big city to make it as prostitutes — and both movies have a pretty wild party scene. Interestingly enough, Truman Capote was a small-town boy who made it in the big city and probably identified with Holly Golightly at least on that level; the friction between small-town origins and big city thrills fueled his fantasies. And perhaps, it was his connection to small town America that he could never shake off — even though he was glad to have escaped it — that made him empathize so much with the small-town killers of IN COLD BLOOD. The difference was that the killers wrote in blood while he wrote in ink. Today, as small-town and rural America is pretty much defunct — especially with most people with any talent having moved to cities long ago — and because even small communities have lost their cultural flavor as just about every house is connected via cable or internet, a creative person who wrestles with the clash of rurality and urbanity is probably much rarer. Also, due to political correctness, even very creative people from small-town communities might be rejected and blacklisted because of their ‘reactionary’ views. Indeed, imagine someone like Ken Kesey trying to make it in college or American literature in the currently politically correct order. Even before his first story were published, he might be attacked for ‘racism’, ‘misogyny’, and who-knows-what-else in our ‘micro-aggressive’-obsessive world where college towns freak out over even fictional KKK, as happened at Oberlin College. He might be denounced as KKKen KKKesey.)
One can remake onself without changing one’s identity. Consider how Arianna Huffington went from a ‘conservative’ to a ‘progressive’. Consider how many times Clinton and Obama changed their stripes despite not having changed their identities. Indeed, all politicians in a democratic system must be whores who change things about themselves in order to serve the truly powerful men of the world — who happen to be mostly Jewish in America. Such changes can be idealistic or corrupt, but then, idealism and corruption often go hand in hand, indeed without even being noticed by those involved. The great ideal of tranny men is that they want to ‘change’ into women, and they may see the transformation as something beautiful, like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, but the notion of cutting off perfectly healthy organs and pumping someone with tons of artificial organs is pretty corrupt. Again, it goes to show that beauty blinds us to perversion and evil. It’s like the serial killer in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is so transfixed by his dreams of metamorphosing into a beautiful woman that he’s blind to all the horror he’s causing to the woman he’s preying on. (To be sure, even genuine love/affection can blind one to one’s own humanity. Consider the father in EYES WITHOUT A FACE who loves his disfigured daughter and tries to give her a new face so that she could lead a healthy normal life, but he goes about doing so by murdering other women for their facial skin. A father’s love for his daughter leads him to coldly kill the daughters of other fathers.) When Bella wants to be beautiful and immortal forever as a vampire in TWILIGHT, to what extent is it a romantic ideal and to what extent is it a corruption of narcissism? It certainly doesn’t do much for humanism, which is all but dead in the modern West. A real pity as I believe the West will dearly pay for the ultra-narcissistic cults of homomania that cannot morally and spiritually sustain a civilization in the long run.

Anyway, Judy becomes confused as to whether she is Judy-hiding-Madeline or Madeline-hiding-Judy. Besides, in the end, aren’t we what we make ourselves to be? (In contrast, Steiner — James Coburn — in CROSS OF IRON says a man is what a man really FEELS himself to be.) After all, isn’t Holly Golightly really ‘Holly Golightly’ and no longer Lulu Mae? People change religions, ideologies, manners, nationalities, and cultures. If a deeply conservative Muslim Turk comes to America and become a liberal Christian American, is he pretending to be someone else or did he genuinely change into someone else? Though Judy can never be truly Madeleine in identity, if some cheap tart goes out of her way to become a classy lady, who’s to say it’s all fake? If some ignorant small-time rube studies hard to become a person of knowledge, hasn’t he truly become a person of knowledge? And what is classiness but a manner of style? No one is born classy. Classy people are brought up to be or learn to be classy. To the extent that Judy learned to be classy as Madeleine, didn’t she imbibe some of that classiness and really become someone like Madeleine? If so, her need to become Judy again is less a case of returning to her true self than hiding her ‘truer self’ — as classy Madeleine — and pretending to be what she isn’t anymore. Suppose you went from an ignoramus to a person of knowledge but was forced by circumstances to act like an ignoramus again. Are you returning to your true self or repressing your ‘truer self’ that has become a person of knowledge? To be sure, Judy’s stint as Madeleine didn’t last too long, and it was all an act, but maybe she really got into it and, at some point, stopped seeing it as an act but the kind of person she really wanted to be and could be, especially as it was so well-done that it drove a handsome detective crazy and made him fall deeply in love with her. Anyway, Judy’s dilemma with Scottie is that the more she becomes ‘Madeleine’ to make him lose his senses and love her more, the more he may come to his senses. On the one hand, her transformation into ‘Madeleine’ will make his mind fly off into the la-la-land of dreams, and yet if she looks so absolutely like Madeleine, Scottie might realize that, wait a minute, Judy IS Madeleine. And yet, paradoxically, by becoming more and more like Madeleine, she could hide the fact that she was Madeleine because Scottie will be so swept up with the miracle of having recreated Madeleine that he will be blind to the simple fact that he’s really with the same woman again. Truth can be the best lie. Scottie is so overwhelmed by the myth of re-creation that he fails to see fact of the matter, i.e. that ‘Madeleine’ looks so much like Madeleine because they are the same person who is Judy. Thus, the truth becomes her most effective mask. When she is finally found out, it wasn’t her looks but a piece of jewelry that, like a whole bunch of Queens in MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, finally breaks Scottie out of his spell and restores his rationality. Once again, he becomes the Scottie that Midge once knew.
Anyway, returning to the theme of the romantic allure of sickness, in UNDER CAPRICORN there are no doctors(as in SPELLBOUND), but the maid of the house who’s in love with the master(Joseph Cotton) secretly drugs the wife to disorient and debilitate her. As the wife is made sick and woozy, she comes to depend on the maid ever more, and of course, the maid drugs her even more. The maid plays a sort of sinister amateur doctor with the use of drugs. She seems to be helping out but is really undermining the health of the master’s wife. Hitchcock was often interested in the manipulations of mental-medical-psychological science, and he often chose to work on stories and scripts that involved romance, mystery, and medicine. Maybe the genre could be called ‘romysterine’. Unlike most mysteries that are about discovering who-dun-it, there is the redemptive and saving power of love in Hitchcock’s films. Ingrid Bergman’s character in SPELLBOUND and Sean Connery’s character in MARNIE aren’t merely trying to help a sick person but deeply in love with him or her — and perversely drawn to him or her partly because of his or her problem. And mystery isn’t merely about who might have done what but who might have played with whose mind and how. In PSYCHO, the mind-manipulation was done by psychopath himself, a kind of psycho-masturbation. But in the other films, the mind of the afflicted is messed up by others, as happens to the woman in LADY VANISHES. Like so many men of his time, Hitchcock was fascinated with the power of modern medicine — especially in relation to mental health — to control and manipulate as well as to heal. If indeed psychology or psychoanalysis could make an expert enter into the minds of others, who’s to say he will only do it only for medical reasons? Why not for personal, criminal, or political reasons to gain control over others. When someone is sick with a flu, we know what needs to be done. But what does it mean to be mentally sick? The mind is so far-ranging that one’s man(or culture)’s craziness is another man(or culture)’s sanity. After all, the Hasidim think it looks normal for boys to go around with ridiculous-looking hair-cuts and strange beards. And Chinese, for thousands of years, thought it was perfectly sane to ‘bind’ women’s feet. Sam Peckinpah was hailed as a great ironist by some, as a lunatic psychopath by others. And there’s the matter of lying. How much is lying normal(and necessary) as a lubricant in social relations, and how much is lying abnormal? And how much truth can ‘normal’ society can take? If indeed everyone was honest all the time, mightn’t civilization fall apart? For sure, most marriages would break up in no time. In medicine, it used to be common practice not to inform a cancer patient that he or she had only so much longer to live. And today, some patients will sue their doctors if the latter tell them they’re too fat and should exercise more and eat less than keep going to doctors with a host of complaints that are mostly associated with obesity. And even though ‘universal healthcare’ is hailed in many quarters, if the state is seen as ‘saving your life’, won’t you become more slavish and dependent on the state? Is that necessarily a good thing? Indeed, there seems to be a correlation between the rise of the mega-modern state and political correctness. The more we become dependent and appreciative of the state that does more and more for us, the more we are likely to respect the agendas of those who control the state. Both communism and National Socialism provided universal healthcare. Now, this isn’t to suggest that socialized medicine will lead to mass killings and statist slavery. But we need to be mindful of the fact that even in a democracy, there’s bound to be psychological effect of us becoming ever more reliant and appreciative of the state. What is lost is a sense of individuality and independence. What is promoted is the cult of officialdom. And since the state and big business are so closely aligned together in America, even statist policies often have the impact of subsidizing and protecting big corporate interests, which may be one of the reasons why so many private companies in health care supported the new health care policies in America.

Hitchcock, of course, wasn’t the only film director fascinated by the darker implications of modern medicine. One of the most frightening psycho-medical horrors is THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE by Fritz Lang. A funny one is THE PRESIDENT’S ANALYST with James Coburn. In pre-modern times, sinister figures sought to gain control over others through sorcery and witchcraft, which were the ‘powerful medicine’ of their day. But why bother with bat-wings and such when there are drugs and advanced methods of gaining control of others? Medicine is the modern sorcery, a theme pursued in Ingmar Bergman’s THE SERPENT’S EGG. Medicine begins by searching for cures for simple diseases, but as it advances, it is no longer content to deal with diseases and begins to prefer the ideal over the normal. It used to be that the best that we could hope for from medicine was to save us from illness and pain. Thus, medicine was for restoring normal health. But once normal health became a given for most people — with ever-dwindling number of abnormally diseased people — , medicine began to focus on promising the ideal over the normal. Thus, normal was no longer good enough for mental health. Medicine turned from normative to narcissistic. This is one of the themes of Kobo Abe and Hiroshi Teshigahara’s THE FACE OF ANOTHER. When the film begins, a plastic surgeon/doctor fashions an artificial face for a man with a disfigured face. But the twist is that the man doesn’t get his old face back but obtains an ideal face of a handsomer man. If such an ideal could be attained for everyone, wouldn’t normality itself become a kind of disease? Normal would no longer be good enough as everyone would demand the ‘fantastic’ or ‘ideal’. It would be the end of humanism and the coming of idolism as everyone tries to remake oneself in the image of the gods(or at least celebrities). Today, people look to plastic surgery, but in the future, it could be done at the genetic level. Suppose some lunatic suggests a whole bunch of guys should be tweaked to look like Pierce Brosnan(especially in NOBLE HOUSE) and a whole bunch of girls should be tweaked to look like Ashley Greene(especially in the first TWILIGHT). FACE OF ANOTHER was a pretty prophetic film as to where the culture would eventually go. (The far less successful is John Frankenheimer’s overly obvious and preachy SECONDS.)
MARNIE is a very interesting example of ‘romysterine’, or maybe ‘romedistery’ — romantic medical mystery — is better. And yet, something is missing that makes the film fall short of greatness. It’s because the Sean Connery character is presented as too straight when it’s clear that he’s as obsessed and perverse as Marnie. Though his obsession is addressed, he seems to have it all under control, indeed as if he has every right and credential to play amateur psycho-analyst. MARNIE suffers from the same thing that mars THE ROPE. Though the James Stewart appears to possess a dark side — something that has at least an indirect emotional link to the thrill-murder of a young man by his two ‘friends’ — , we are led to believe at the end that he was really just joshing and didn’t mean any of it. So, in the end, we are left with Stewart as teacher-preacher full of moral outrage and with the two killers who are shamed and denounced. THE ROPE would have been psychologically more interesting if the Stewart character came to realize there is indeed a sick connection between what the killers did and what he’d been pontificating about in Nietzschean terms. (In a way, the moralization in THE ROPE rather disingenuously abets the official line of America of the WWII period and its immediate aftermath. While films like THE ROPE and THE STRANGER — by Orson Welles — explore and flirt with nihilism, narcissism, and megalomania, they all-too-conveniently pretend, as Allan Bloom did later in THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND, that the real sickness was with the Continental Europeans, especially the Germans. You see, reading too much Nietzsche made these characters lose their mind and carry out a mindless act. It’s as if the American way is to be decent, normal, moderate, and sensible, whereas the Continental, especially the Germanic, way is to be arrogant, grandiose, know-it-all, radical, and nihilistic. Real Americans have too much horse sense not to fall for the allure of intellectualism-over-moralism. Indeed, even in a movie like STRANGERS ON A TRAIN where all characters are American, the killer seems a bit alien in his homo-ishness and dandy neo-aristocratism. It’s an especially dangerous kind of aristocratism since it’s oblivious to conventions & obligations and instead obsessed with egotism and privilege. It’s not noblesse oblige aristocratism but a wanton infatuation of the self. One might see it as a comment on a certain kind of haute English class snobbery as Hitchcock drew much of his inspiration from his British background. In a way, the killer in all the more dangerous because his Old World snobbery and New World vulgarity are rolled into one. But even British-like snobbery was supposedly nothing compared to the darker implications of the Germanic soul, and such suspicions of Teuton-ism was intensified as Germany was the enemy of the Anglo/American world in World War I and became an even bigger threat during World War II under the sorcerer Adolf Hitler. And as Hollywood was Jewish-run, it was willing to make a bunch of movies during wartime that heightened awareness of the especially sinister character of the German culture, politics, and philosophy. To the extent that Germany under Hitler had really become insane, the dark fears and fascinations about Germany were understandable. But what was disingenuous was the overly neat and convenient conceit that THOSE GERMANS monopolized the darkness of the soul whereas WE AMERICANS were all about moderation, decency, and common sense. But in fact, America wasn’t only a nation of moderation but also a nation of extremes of grand ambition, wild egotism, excessive violence, megalomania, hyper-individualism, and even nihilism. It’s somewhat fitting that Harry Lime in THE THIRD MAN the film is an American. He represents the devil-may-care Americanism in contrast to the common sense humanist Americanism of the Joseph Cotten character. And in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, we see two sides of George Bailey. One side is the decent and caring small town lad who respects his father and cares about his community. But another side is egotistical, contemptuous of his humble origins, and wants to ‘lick the world’. Indeed, the great tragedy of Bailey’s life is the great divergence between what he really wanted and what he ended up with. When his Savings-and-Loans loses $8,000, Bailey isn’t merely distraught over financial/legal problems but by the realization of all the things he’s had to abandon and sacrifice in the name of doing the ‘right thing’. So, he goes into a kind of MULHOLLAND DR. daze where he imagines another reality in which he was never born. And yet, his fantasy is disingenuous since his main gripe isn’t really that everyone else would be better off if he were never born but rather that HE HIMSELF would have been better off if he’d been born elsewhere and could have had the chance to pursue his grand ambitions. To be sure, having grand ambitions isn’t the same thing as having dark fantasies of Wagner’s operas and invading Poland, but there’s a logic to grandiosity that tends toward nihilism and megalomania. Indeed, there’s always been a contradiction in the heart of Americanism. The American Myth spiritualized the settling of America in humble moral terms. We’ve all heard of the narrative of how simple religious folks — Pilgrims or Puritans — sought refuge in the New World. They wore simple clothes and prayed to God all the time. We’ve also heard of how the Founding Fathers were different from the radicals of the French Revolution and Napoleon who made himself emperor. Unlike the highfalutin kings and radical revolutionaries of Europe, the founders of America were sensible and moderate men of reason and common sense than of intellectual arrogance or megalomaniacal ambitions. And most American folks were hard working farmers idealized by Thomas Jefferson. And with the westward expansion, most Americans were God-fearing folks who built towns with schools and churches and did what they could to do away with the outlaws, gamblers, and hussies. And American conservatives love to wax romantic about small town values, the kind seen in THE WALTONS and LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE. But there was another side to Americanism, one of boundless egomania, ambition, extremism, hedonism, and even nihilism. As there was so much money to be made, it gave rise to the hyper-tycoons in the late 19th century who were called ‘robber barons’ or ‘captains of industry’. Social Darwinism was very appealing to the American elites in the late 19th century. America fought brutal wars of conquest and subjugation against non-whites & non-Americans and between Americans during the Civil War. American morality could be pragmatic and common-sensed, or it could be highfaluting, extremist, and absolutist. It goes to show that even moral righteousness could take on a nihilist tinge. It could become enraged and even orgasmically ecstatic with its absolute sense of God-given truth. Though Americans scoff at the French for messing up the French Revolution with extremism, Americans had their own French Revolution moment with the Civil War, an orgy of mutual destruction that was, in some ways, more damaging and horrific than the French Revolution. Because the North won, the Union was preserved, and slavery ended, we tend to remember the Civil War as a great triumph that somehow redeemed the tragedy, but it was a war that could have bee avoided if Abolitionists in the North hadn’t gotten so out of hand with their rhetoric and influence. Instead of working towards a common sense approach as to how slavery could gradually be phased out, Abolitionists were willing to risk an all-out war that would destroy innumerable lives and properties for the sake of their rapturous self-righteous glory. It was a case of righteousness turning downright nihilistic. John Brown took it even further. The same happened with the rise and spread of communism as the Reds were willing to use any amount of violence to make a ‘better world’. And the madness continued after the Cold War with the US bringing ruination to the Middle East in the name of ‘spreading democracy’ and ‘fighting terror’. Though the sheer recklessness of American efforts — driven by Jewish supremacist Zionist agenda — has done little but spread misery throughout the Middle East and encouraged even more terrorism throughout the region, American self-righteousness aided and abetted by the Jewish-controlled media had made most Americans blind to their nation’s terrible impact on the world. And yet, US accuses Russia of being a bully nation and invading other nations. It isn’t even remotely true that Russia wants to reconstitute the Soviet Empire, but Jew-run US wants to create a New World Order in which all nations would have to follow the dictates of Jewish globalism. Jews look forward to a day when even Russia and China have ‘gay marriage’ and imprison bakers for not baking ‘gay wedding cakes’, as is already the case in Jew-run USA. In some ways, the styles of American leaders have misled us as to the real ambitions of Americanism. Abraham Lincoln ruled as a semi-dictator but had a down-to-earth homegrown personality. So, we like to think of him as ‘Honest Abe’ who didn’t mean to cause all the havoc but just stumbled into the mess. Because FDR didn’t rant like Mussolini or Hitler, we’re likely to remember him as some nice guy who took on evil forces in defense of goodness and decency. In fact, he was a devious and cold-hearted bastard who played the imperial game almost as aggressively as anyone else. As for the American military-industrial complex, it’s been the dominant war-mongering force in world affairs since the end of WWII. During the Cold War, its influence was somewhat justified as the threat of communism was real enough around the world. But its tentacles that spread and groped for more war have led to all sorts of horrors during and after the Cold War. Though America has been known for its small-town values and nice green suburbs, it’s also been the nation of larger-than-life personalities, and of course, Orson Welles CITIZEN KANE was about one such American as it was based on William Randolph Hearst.
A key difference between US and Nazi Germany was US could have lots of power-mad Hitlers whereas Germany could only have one. As a bunch of ‘Hitlers’ in business, government, and culture in America competed with one another, there was far less danger of a single Hitler taking power in the US. In that sense, US was better not because it had no ‘Hitler’ but because its system allowed so many of them. Indeed, if Nazi Germany had allowed many ‘Hitlers’ — strong-willed characters struggling and fighting to ‘lick the world’ — , it could have avoided World War II. Other ‘Hitlers’ would have stood up Der Fuhrer and told him to bugger off because most Germans don’t want a war. As each ‘Hitler’ insists on his own rightness, he is unlikely to bow down to other ‘Hitlers’. Indeed, consider all the Jewish ‘Hitlers’ in America. They took on the Wasp elite and rose to the top. And a Jewish ‘Hitler’ like Norman Finkelstein refuses to take shit from other Jewish ‘Hitlers’ like Alan Dershowitz. As a political liberal, Orson Welles pretended to be critical of megalomaniacal personalities, but like Oliver Stone, he was a larger-than-life personality himself fueled by his own grand ambition. There was a reason why Ayn Rand was especially appealing to Americans. And in the 1980s, Donald Trump was the hero of the New Reaganite Capitalism. America has also produced the biggest music and sports stars in the world, not least because it has a lot of loud, crazy, and brash blacks and their white imitators. Also, Hollywood became the mega-dream-factory for the entire world. In the past, when America was more moralistic and when famous people could have their reputations destroyed by scandals, famous people were more mindful of how they were perceived by the public. They might be rather excessive and debauched in their private lives, but they were careful to maintain a decent public image. But as American moralism gradually fell by the wayside and then was dumped altogether in the late 60s and 70s, famous people and big name stars could brazenly indulge all their fantasies out in the public, and so, American Culture today is one of shameless excess, trashiness, and wild abandon. Big name rappers, sports stars, kids with vlogs on youtube, celebrities[people who are famous for being famous], and ordinary ‘shoppers’ during Black Friday sale all act like stupid louts. There’s the moral righteousness of Political Correctness that idolizes the Civil Rights Movement and the homo agenda, but it’s mostly useless since its brand of morality tends to be hysterical, hyperbolic, narcissistic, and crude. While moral outrage is sometimes necessary, much of genuine goodness derives from the virtues of caution, responsibility, and accountability. In other words, it does no good to a community if everyone praises MLK and Mandela to high heaven but doesn’t have the sense to be neighborly, polite, honest, and mindful of others. Indeed, consider all the louts at Ferguson who rioted and looted but howled moralistically about how they be so ‘oppressed’. So much hysterical hollering about moral righteousness but so little moral self-governance in their daily lives. A viable moral society is built of small virtues practiced daily by the largest possible number of people. But too many blacks listen to rap, act like loutish thugs, and commit all sorts of crimes, BUT they think they are morally superior because they make the loudest and most obnoxious noises about how morally outraged they are. Moral hysteria is the last refuge of scoundrels. It’s like the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution in China made a lot of noise of moral outrage, but none of them knew how to be good decent people as individuals. Instead, they ran around pillaging and destroying stuff as if moral hysteria is the same thing as moral responsibility. People who are morally most hysterical are generally morally most lacking. They’ve turned morality into a noise since they lack a sense of morality as everyday behavior. Twerk, steal, and invoke MLK who, by the way, was a moral degenerate in real life. That’s the Negro way of morality. It’s like Neil Degrasse Tyson is better at making noises about being a scientist than being a real scientist of any worth. His idea of science amounts to politically pressuring the scientific community to ‘believe in him’. Whoever heard of such nonsense? Imagine a student of science failing to do quality work but then bitching that his professors don’t ‘believe in him’. Anyway, because America was a nation of great potential and power — especially following World War II — , it wasn’t easy for Americans to maintain the conceit of being all about small down values, moderation, and decency. Indeed, some Jews and Negroes — as well as Italian-Americans — began to suspect that the Anglo-American ideal of moderation was just a sneaky way to keep the power in Wasp hands since Anglos were known for their ‘blandness’ and ‘colorlessness’. Besides, if extremism of meritocracy and ruthless competitiveness were to be favored over ‘community values’ and the norms of Anglo-Americanism, certain races would beat out the Anglo-Americans in certain fields. It’s like the Winklevoss Twins in SOCIAL NETWORK invoke the principle of gentlemanly virtues in their case against ‘Zuckerberg’ who has no use for such drivel in his drive to win and take it all. If Negroes were allowed to fully express their racial nature, they would run wild and win in sports and sing and dance like they wanna have sex like gorillas all the time. If Jews were allowed to fully express their ethnic nature, they might out-compete Anglos in business, take over all the media and academia, and overly sexualize America through their control of Hollywood and entertainment, even porn. If Italian-Americans were allowed to do as they please to the hilt, they might spread organized crime all over and act like a bunch of Joe Pescis in GOODFELLAS, and that’d be no good. So, there was an element of social control in Anglo-American moral-decency-ism. By insisting on the virtues of moderation and self-control, Anglo-Americans would not only control their own impulses but would also pressure other groups — especially those that might pose a challenge to Anglo-Americans in certain key areas of pride and power — who tended to be more energetic or more skilled in gaining dominance. In this sense, Ayn Rand’s philosophy, though seemingly pro-Americanist, is very anti-Anglo-American-ist. Though Rand idealized the tall and handsome Anglo-American hero, the social logic of her philosophy obviously favor the over-reaching Jew with a radical personality and high IQ over the more moderate Anglo-American who was more keen on compromise and accommodation in the name of moderation and goodwill. Rand hid the ‘Nietzswicz’ Will to Power behind the mask of the Anglo-American character. Anglo-Americans were both very pragmatic/moderate and supremely ambitious in their conquest and settlement of America. Indeed, so very ambitious that they settled and built the continent with breakneck speed, and by the late 19th century, Americans were looking to gain control of the world as well and indeed easily defeated what remained of the Spanish Empire to attain Cuba and Philippines as trophies. But because America was a liberal democracy and no single ruler or dynasty hogged all the power, Americans could pretend that their empire-building wasn’t really empire-building but a generous sharing of freedom and liberty so that benighted peoples who came under American protection could learn to be like good decent Americans. In contrast, as European empires generally had a king or emperor behind them, they had an air of overweening grandeur and pomposity lacking in the American mythology of global expansion. If Europeans justified their empire in terms of glorifying God, King, and Country, Americans marketed their imperial ambitions as one of spreading liberty and chewing gum. But American goals couldn’t be achieved by moderation and temperance alone. They needed men of great ambition and overreaching vision in politics, diplomacy, economics, and culture. It’s just that Americans, by invoking the rights of the common man, were better at masking their ‘ethnomania’ with abstract principles and consumer goods. Take the recent fiascos in the Middle East and Ukraine. They were essentially engineered by radically ‘ethnomaniacal’ Jewish-American Supremacists, but they’ve been sold in the media — also owned by Jews — as sterling examples of good ole decent Americans spreading ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ to ordinary folks around the world aspiring for rights that Americans enjoy. Recent American bad behavior has made me question some of American tactics during the Cold War. While there’s no question that communism was a tyrannical system that had to be countered and destroyed if possible, it’s now becoming clearer that the Cold War was far from a simple struggle between freedom and tyranny or between good and evil. And this truth has become starker as Jewish-Americans ever since Jewish-Americans gained elite. If Wasps had some sense of honor and higher principles, Jews only have ethnocentrism as their agenda despite all their highfalutin yammering otherwise. Also, as America has become the home to many races and nationalities, we are seeing a great divergence between the moderate peoples and extreme peoples. Most Northern European types tend to be moderate peoples. It also goes for Asian-Americans, though one could argue Asian-Americans can be extreme in their mania for test scores. Mexican-Americans are a mediocre people who are generally happy with tacos and tequila. Mexican drug gangs are vicious, but oddly enough, they’ve gained great power precisely because most Mexicans are so mediocre and not extreme. Because most Mexicans are rather timid and prefer to mind their own business — instead of socially organizing for reforms and progress — , the bad guys in Mexico can brazenly do as they please. In Western movies where outlaws come terrorizing a community, white folks band together to do something about it. They either fight with their own guns or hire a sheriff to clean up the town. But if a bunch of criminals terrorize a town in Mexico, most Mexican men just keep their heads low and do nada. And the women act like Teresa in THE WILD BUNCH and go off with the hoodlums. [We are told that honor killing is bad, but maybe Angel’s killing of Teresa was halfway justified. Damn hussy whore.] The two most extreme peoples in America are Jews and Negroes. Homos are the third. Negroes are extreme in their ass-shaking, fist-swinging, dong-swagging, trash-talking, and acting apelike. Jews are extreme in their hyper-intelligence, ultra-ambition, cunning and ruthlessness, deviousness and nastiness. Too many Jews are like Jordan Belfort, Stephen Glass, Victoria Nuland, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, or Alan Dershowitz. Good or bad, brilliant or crazy, some of the most extreme American personalities of the 20th century have been Jewish: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Norman Mailer, Lillian Hellman, Susan Sontag, Philip Roth, David Mamet, Stanley Kubrick, Norman Podhoretz, Howard Stern, Lenny Bruce, Woody Allen, etc. Jews certainly got personality, which goes to show that intelligence and ability aren’t enough for the drive to fight and win, especially to win everything. But even before Jews became prominent in American life, there were two sides to Anglo-America. One side naively believed that the entire American enterprise was one of moderation. Sure, the founding and settling of America was an epic adventure and experiment, but the final goal of Americanism was to create nice little communities with small-town values. Or so the narrative liked to believe. But there were plenty of Anglo-Americans who became intoxicated with visions of greater wealth and power, not just in America but around the world. Jews who eventually gained elite power didn’t so much create the New American template as radicalize what had been laid down by Wasps. But if even ambitious and imaginative Wasps felt some measure of connection to the America of small town ‘community’ values, Jews saw all of it as ‘volkish’ form of reactionary ‘antisemitism’. Jews hated any notion of a cohesive and orderly white community since such would prioritize white interests and values, thus leading to the exclusion or excoriation of Jewish ways and power. This is why it’s so important for the Jew in THE HEARTBREAK KID to penetrate into the heart of wasp goy society. Jews saw this process in sexual as well as socio-economic terms since many Jewish men preferred the ‘shikse’ over the Jewish American Princess who couldn’t eat an egg salad sandwich without getting it smeared on her face. Anyway, the most disingenuous conceit of a film like THE ROPE or THE STRANGER was it projected American nihilism entirely on the Germans as if Germans monopolized irrational will-to-power whereas Americanism was all about goodness and decency. So, the two guys in THE ROPE committed a murder-for-play because they fell under the sway of evil ideas from abroad. Of course, the irony is that Germans during the Nazi era did the same by projecting their own power madness and deviousness on the Jews. Especially Hitler, despite all his railing against Jews for their lack of scruples, was one of the most unscrupulous, devious, and snake-like major politicians of the 20th century. Every person and every people like to see themselves favorably and therefore tend to repress and/or suppress their own dark thoughts & actions and project them entirely on another people. It’s like United States, in the aftermath of World War II, pretended that America was a nation of equality that defeated Germany and Japan that were nations committed to the evil of racial/cultural prejudice when, in fact, Americans also had their own history of racial discrimination and exclusion. And Jews bitch and whine about how this or that people are diseased with irrational paranoia and hatred of Jews when, in fact, Jews are among the most paranoid and hateful people on Earth who have little respect for most other races and peoples. Given the defeat of Germany and its horrible crimes against humanity, it was all-too-convenient to just BLAME IT ALL ON GERMANY. We can see this in the atrocious Stanley Kramer movie JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG where Spencer Tracy, in a rather smug role, passes easy judgement on the Germans as if it was a simple case of dark irrational Germans versus good decent Americans. Of course, Jews were patiently playing a dirty game. First, Jews had to convince white Americans that they were good whereas Germans were bad. If Jews at the outset had argued that white Americans are just as bad as Nazi Germans, white Americans would have been infuriated and told the Jews to go bugger off. So, Jewish-Americans in the immediate postwar era stressed how decent white Americans had stood up to evil Nazi Germany. But once Americans came to accept this narrative, Jews began to hint that, wait a minute, white Americans weren’t really all that much better than the Nazi Germans since America had been conquered through ‘genocide’ of the native Indians and had been built on slave labor of blacks. Jews first made white Americans feel proud and special for having fought and defeated the evil Nazi Germans. Thus, white Americans arrived at the conviction that there is nothing worse than racial prejudice since its radical form led to the Holocaust. But once this conviction became the core of the New American Morality, Jews could hold up the mirror to white Americans and accuse them of having been like Nazis too. This is how Jews play the game.) VERTIGO’s hypnotic power derives from the ways in which the madness and obsession go both ways, even triple or quadruple ways, among Scottie, Madeleine, Judy, and ‘Madeleine’. One could also argue that even though Scottie doesn’t change his name and identity, he also develops separate personality, one of obsession apart from his rational self. He doesn’t go completely nuts like Norman Bates of PSYCHO(though it could be argued that Norman Bates was born mentally sick/evil to begin with) and take on someone else’s identity, but he come to lead something like a double life(in a multi-dimensional universe as he’s fallen under the spell of power of ‘ghosts’; he doesn’t literally believe in ghosts but nevertheless feels their presence around him). On the one hand, he’s Scottie, the former San Francisco detective, but on the other, he becomes an intensely secretive individual with a mad hobby of recreating a dead woman by masking her over a living one who resembles like her. He has secrets in his own dark cellar — or bell tower, which is, in some ways, creepier than in PSYCHO because it’s part of a church. This vertiginous sensation created by the swirling two-way obsession between the male and female is what makes VERTIGO especially mesmerizing and spellbinding of the films of Hitchcock. Rather than a case of light/logic/reason wrestling against darkness/illogic/madness, it becomes a fever-dream of darkness stalking darkness, illogic merging with illogic, madness romancing madness. Scottie, who begins as a force of light and reason, becomes as or even madder than Madeleine because, after all, Madeleine was just an act pulled by Judy as a hireling of the evil husband. But Judy-as-Madeleine becomes possessed by the madness too because she falls in love with Scottie’s love for the role she is playing, and part of her allure as Madeleine is the aura of ghostly tragedy. And this madness returns to Judy when she meets Scottie again. Her rational self tells her to write him a letter of confession and leave town, but her dream-self wants to play along with the hope of gaining his love once again. In the first half of the film, Scottie tried to save Madeleine who seemed to be possessed by a ghost of Carlotta. In the second part of the movie, Judy tries to ‘save’ Scottie who is possessed by the ghost of Madeleine. Even when Scottie discovers in the final scene the truth of what really happened and emerges from his phobia of heights, he’s still locked within his fever dream. His rational self has reawakened, but his emotional self still craves for the myth and isn’t ready to set himself free. He’s fallen in love with the cage of obsession for Madeleine. (But then, even his rational awakening to the truth has an element of craziness. The facts as they emerge drive him into a frenzy of rage and fury. It’s difficult to be calmly and coolly rational when one’s privacy and pride are involved. In discovering the truth, he feels not only moral outrage over the murder plot but how his privacy had been violated all along. What he’d held as his most precious and deeply guarded secret had been implanted there all along by the evil husband and Judy Barton — it’s like the son of late tycoon in INCEPTION was implanted or incepted with a private/secret emotion via a conspiracy; what he guards as his deepest secret isn’t of his own making. The evil husband wanted Scottie to fall in love with Madeleine and become overwhelmed with guilt and remorse. And Judy-as-Madeleine pushed all the right buttons in Scottie’s heart to make him fall under the spell. There was much Scottie didn’t or couldn’t confess to the evil husband — he kept his romance with Madeleine a secret — and to Judy Barton, but both players knew all along what was eating away at Scottie. So, when he discovers what really happened, he’s not only angry but feels humiliated. He also feels betrayed, but Judy-as-Madeleine’s involvement in the evil husband’s plot was and wasn’t an act of betrayal. As Judy has been hired to trick Scottie, her role was simply to keep her end of the bargain, and she did. As she didn’t know Scottie personally and made no promises to him, she fooled and tricked him but didn’t betray him. And yet, in a way she did betray him because she really did fall in love with him. Therefore, her fulfillment of the contract did sort of become an act of betrayal of Scottie’s love and of her own love for him.
[It’s like the undercover cop played by Tim Roth didn’t mean to betray anyone in RESERVOIR DOGS but ends up betraying both sides because he’s both helpless to stop the criminals from killing cops/civilians and becomes the reason why the gangster who put his life on the line for him dies at the end.] It is for this reason that Scottie does feel a sense of betrayal when he discovers what had really happened. And yet, his love for ‘Madeleine’ is also a kind of betrayal because he fallen in love with a copy of Madeleine. After Madeleine died, Scottie was lost in despair because he couldn’t love another and could never retrieve the only woman he ever truly loved. And yet, he all-too-easily recreated and fell in love with ‘Madeleine’ and found his own peace... or piece. If his tragedy could so easily be assuaged with a copy/double, what was the true nature of his love for the ‘real’ Madeleine? In a way, he could be especially distressed at the end because Judy knows that Scottie betrayed Madeleine by falling in love with ‘Madeleine’. When Scottie fell in love with Madeleine, it was really Judy. And when ‘Madeleine’ was created, it was again Judy. So, Scottie spiritually cheated on Madeleine to go with ‘Madeleine’, but both women are the same woman who is Judy. And yet, Scottie can’t help but notice that, even though Judy/Madeleine/‘Madeleine’ betrayed him, she also feels great sympathy for him and truly loves him. After all, why did Judy decide not to flee and instead allowed herself to be remade by Scottie? It was because she had herself fallen into the spiral of his spell of having falling under the spell of Madeleine. Finally, the death of Judy seems both accidental and fateful. In the simplest sense, she freaked out and fell off the tower. Purely an accident. And yet, there’s also an element of fate, as if Scottie and Judy were indeed star-crossed lovers in a world haunted by ghosts who have the final say. Their love was doomed from the beginning. The final image of Scottie standing tall atop the tower shows him both cured and cursed. He’s no longer deathly afraid of heights, but he stares into the abyss of despair. Yet, his curse is also a kind of dark blessing because the myth of Madeleine/Judy/‘Madeleine’ shall live on through this second tragedy. There’s also an perverse element of dark justice. Judy, who’d taken part in a murder plot, finally gets her comeuppance. She is ‘punished’ by ‘fate’ for her part in the crime. And yet, this justice seems somewhat unjust because her love for Scottie had redemptive value. As stories of Eurydice & Orpheus and Romeo & Juliet demonstrate, love and death are a marriage made in hell. Death both intensifies love to the nth degree and turns it into a never-ending torment. Nothing is more certain and irreversible than death. So, when someone is lost, he or she is lost forever and there’s nothing that can be done about it. Only Superman was able to reverse time and save Margot-Kidder-as-Lois-Lane in the 1978 movie. Otherwise, when he or she is gone, he or she is really gone. It’s like in LOVE STORY and HAROLD AND MAUDE. Or, it could the love between friends, as in MIDNIGHT COWBOY, DUCK YOU SUCKER, and ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. When death is associated with guilt, the emotions of course grow even more powerful. Noodles was always close to Max, but it’s upon realizing that his action led to Max’s death that he sinks into chronic depression and his remembrance of friendship takes on mythic shadings. Max transforms from a dear friend to a sacred brother. In PSYCHO, Norman Bates’ macabre love for his dead mother cannot be disassociated from his guilt over having killed her. Same feelings pervade the character of Diane Selwyn in MULHOLLAND DR. It’s the death of Camilla — killed by an assassin hired by Diane in a fit of jealousy and resentment — that overwhelms Diane with a sense of loss and guilt and makes her love Camilla even more. When they’d been lesbian lovers, Diane lusted after Camilla. After Camilla is gone, Diane ‘sacralizes’ her into a fallen goddess.) Scottie becomes as drenched in obsession as the object of his fantasy is, indeed more so as Madeleine(who is really Judy) was only faking her obsession with the ghost of Carlotta. In contrast, MARNIE is about a man who remains dry as he goes about treating a woman drowning in her neurosis. Thus, though Sean Connery is very good in the film and very attractive, he more an observer than participant. He isn’t a partner-in-crime. To the very end, he never loses his head and is fully cognizant even of his powerful desire for Marnie, to whom he’s attracted largely because of her problem.
Perhaps, there’s something in the man that wants to play knight in shining armor. It’s like the fantasy of the prince who goes to fight and slay the dragon and save Sleeping Beauty from a tower surrounded by a labyrinth of thorns. There are no knights in the modern world, but the field of psychology allows modern people to mythologize their lives and dream up dragons of the mind. This is ironic since psychology is supposed to be a science and clarify our mental states. But in truth, psychology was steeped in mythology, not least because Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Bruno Bettelheim, and others resorted to religions, mythology, and fairytales to explain their theories and the problems of their clients — also, as the mapping of the mind was still in the future, the early psychologists had to resort to myth and metaphor to expound on their speculations about the mind; furthermore, the intrinsically mythopoeic realm of dreams became a fertile fields of study. So, Scottie is drawn to Madeleine in VERTIGO precisely because she’s like a psychological damsel in distress. It’s as if he has the power of the magic kiss to bring her back to life. It’s this sense of ‘saving the damsel’ that makes him love her intensely than if he’d just met her at a party. Similarly, Sean Connery’s character of Mark is turned on by Marnie’s malady because, via psychology he can play the knight in shining armor. The dragon ironically turns out to be none other than Marnie’s mother whod’ hidden the truth of what happened long ago to protect Marnie from the world of filth, which really was her own as she was a prostitute.
But there is also the element of the hunt or ‘cunt hunt’. For most of human history, the worth of male kind was defined in terms of warrior-and-hunter prowess. In the modern world, most men don’t have the means to find outlets for their hunter instincts. Since Marnie is a beautiful criminal, Mark sees her as a prize. Yet, he doesn’t so much want her as a trophy as a pet. A trophy wife would be boring: just some gorgeous creature nice to look at. But to turn a wild cat into a house cat, that takes some doing. And yet, it’s the taming process that really excites him. If he’d met Marnie-already-as-a-tamed-house-cat, he wouldn’t have been so interested. Paradoxically, what turns him on most about Marnie is what he wants to kill in her. It’s like a hunter wants to kill a wild and dangerous animal, not shoot at an animal that is already dead. He wants to shoot dead what is most alive. It’s the game in THE TAMING OF THE SHREW — the movie as I haven’t read the play. Does this mean that his interest in Marnie will wane once she is tamed? Possibly but then maybe not because his love for her will always be associated with the memory of his having tamed, conquered, saved, and redeemed her.
He must hunt her, capture her, and tame her. He wants a tamed Marnie but also wants to do the taming. The process is as crucial as the product. Though he works to free and liberate Marnie from her neurosis, he’s also gaining ownership of her as the man who freed her. Having been freed by him, she is also bound to him. It’s like nations ‘liberated’ by the US become, in more ways than one, the tamed servants of America.
Of course, there’s no final solution to the very complex problem of sexuality. MARNIE all-too-neatly reveals that Marnie’s neurosis was the repressed product of some sexually trauma in her childhood. In having repressed her sexuality — as something dirty and disgusting — all her life, Marnie found outlets for her sexual energies in thievery, deception, and attraction to well-hung horses. MARNIE uses a good deal of animal metaphors to suggest at Marnie’s problems. She’s like an animal that not only need to be tamed but humped. In some ways, she’s like a wild cat but not quite; she’s really like a puritanical wild cat, and it can’t get any more perversely contradictory than that. On the other hand, consider Hitchcock’s ultimate animal-metaphor movie THE BIRDS.
THE BIRDS - Feather as Vaginal Slit
In that film, the Tippi Hedren character is sexually adventurous and ‘liberated’, and yet the sexual energies unleashed from her through the metaphor of the birds are pretty frightening and threaten the order and harmony of a quiet little community. So, there’s no simple solution to sexuality whether it’s repressed or released. If overly repressed, it leads to all kinds of neuroses. If overly released, it leads to chaos and disharmony. (To be sure, the woman in THE BIRDS is sort of repressive of her sexuality in her own way. She’s not a frigid ice queen like Marnie, but she does mask her sexual passion with the mask of respectability. Though she goes to the island in pursuit of a man, she choreographs events so that they will seem as random accidents. If consciousness often premeditates actions but pretends they are random events, the subconscious unpredictably throws monkey wrenches at the coordinations of life. At any rate, it used to be women didn’t know what they really wanted because they had a sexual side but were also under the weight of powerful taboos. The final attack in THE BIRDS and the killing of the mother in CARRIE are similar in that both are heavy on sado-masochism. The violence is frightful and orgasmic/rapturous as the same time.) Sexuality will always be problematic because it isn’t easy to find the balance between freedom and control, between letting it run wild and shutting it inside a cage. And that balance is different in every person — and almost impossible with crazy Negroes — and may well be the most unstable thing about humans. Though there’s the meaning of love in terms of affection and brotherliness, romantic love is about obsession with beauty, and such obsessions can be amoral and even immoral. It’s because Bella finds Edward beautiful in TWILIGHT that she says, "it doesn’t matter" when he says he’s killed people. It’s because Arthur is madly in love with Guinevere in EXCALIBUR that he marries her even though Merlin warns him that she will betray him with his best friend. And it was the cult of beauty that drove Hitler and Himmler to their excesses. And it is the worship of black (mostly male)beauty that makes so many white Liberals want to commit racial suicide just to fulfill the destiny of the white race putting out to the superior, more masculine, and more masterful black race. Much of rap culture is like a degraded and savage form of Afro-Nazism with black ubermensch lording over dorky white guys and jungle-feverish white girls.

One of the uglier aspects of morality is that the moralizer or sermonizer is often hardly more moral than the people whom he judges or preaches to. We know this of many Christian preachers, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, Catholic priests, black reverends, Buddhist monks, Brahmin scoundrels, and etc. We also know this from the disingenuous yammering of many political pundits, columnists, intellectuals, professors, and etc. So many of them are full of it, preaching us endless sermons about right and wrong when, in fact, they are creeps in their personal lives and without a shred of moral character. (Especially those invested in the game of power will switch their positions on the basis of what will keep them in the game. They are whore-like collaborators than true men/women of principles and values, which is why they are especially insufferable when they drone on and on about right-or-wrong. Their only sense of right-or-wrong boils down to what they must do ‘right’ to steer clear of what is deemed as ‘wrong’ by the powers-that-be. Indeed, notice how most conservative thinkers and activists dropped the topic of ‘gay marriage’ since the ruling elites — Jews and homos — have bounties out on anyone who won’t toe the New Normal party line.) Paul Johnson in INTELLECTUALS pointed out all the discrepancies between famous intellectuals and their personal lives, and indeed Paul Johnson himself was hardly any kind of saint. Thus, most forms of moralizing are hypocritical and phony since we often accuse others of the very things that we are guilty of. It’s pretty funny for anyone to call anyone a ‘liar’ since everyone is a liar to some extent and indeed have to be. For most of human history, lying was necessary in order to survive. When we insist on the truth, we almost always mean others better reveal their secrets while we keep our own hidden. After all, the advantage is to those who keep their own secrets while exposing the secrets of their enemies.(But then, there are many cases where we want everyone to shut up about secrets. In many cases, our social order makes people confess not to make them talk more but to make them talk less. If someone is accused of ‘racism’, the social order forces him to confess what he really said, but it wants him to say nothing more after the confession. It wants the confession but not the elaboration that might rationalize and even justify the article of confession. So, when James Watson was thought to have said something ‘racist’, he was forced to confess his ‘sin’ but also soon silenced so that he would be heard no more.) This is why Christianity was somewhat novel in advising people to forgive others’ trespasses as others should forgive ours. Christianity also advises its followers to look into their own wicked hearts and accuse oneself as well as accusing others. Morality is necessary but tends to highlight flaws in others while blinding us to our own failings. Indeed, highlight flaws in others becomes a convenient way to overlook our own flaws. This is largely due to our physiology. Our eyes always look at others but are blind of oneself. In a way, we own others more than ourselves. If a man and a woman are lying together in bed and staring into each other’s faces, the woman will remember the moment in terms of the man’s face and the man will remember in terms of the woman’s face. Though the man feels his own feelings, they are associated with the face of another than with his own face which he cannot see. The same with the woman. On the other hand, because women spend more time in front the mirror than men do, they are more self-conscious than men are. Of course, many people don’t want to see themselves since they look plain or even ugly. Instead, they want to see attractive people, and this leads to the neurosis of ugliness fixated upon prettiness. Ugly doesn’t want to see ugly — especially of oneself — , so it fixates on the pretty, but the pretty sess the ugly as ugly, and the ugly is then rudely reminded of its ugliness, and then it comes to hate both ugliness and prettiness. It hates ugliness because it is ‘diseased’ with it but also hates prettiness because it rejects ugliness.

Anyway, another problem of morality is its selectivity and a means as a cynical ploy of power. After all, consider how the Jewish elites have convinced so many Americans that former terrorist Nelson Mandela was a great man, a saint, and a prophet, but similar accolades have been denied to Arafat. How come we wail and rant about the Holocaust but turn a blind eye to Jewish role in communist mass killing? How come white Southern historians underplayed the extent of black suffering in the South? How come Jewish historians overplay it and make white southerners out to be among the worst people that ever lived when southern slavery, if comparisons must be drawn, was more humane than most slavery around the world? How come Liberals have no problem with US destroying Libya and Syria but have conniptions about Putin annexing Crimea after over 90% of Crimeans voted to join with Russia? How come Israel can say nasty things about black Africans and have tight immigration policies, but if a small-sized European nation tries to preserve its own race and culture, it’s denounced as ‘far right’ and ‘racist’? How come Michael King — aka Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. — is hailed as some messiah-like figure when he was really a sleazy race-hustler who spent much of his free time banging prostitutes, badmouthing God — in one of his debaucherines, he howled that he was ‘fuc*ing for God’ — , and sucking up to heinous Jews who supported the black movement to undermine White America so that Jews could eventually take over — just like North Vietnam conquered South
Vietnam, a lesson that illustrates that ruthless fanatics will eventually win over the moderates.

Morality is also problematic because it is more natural, thereby easier, for some people to be ‘good’ than it is for other people. Can we blame those who were born to be less moral and more psychopathic for being ‘bad’? If they were born with ‘badness’ genes, couldn’t it be argued that they ‘naturally immoral’ in the way that some people are ‘naturally homosexual’? It’s like some dogs are born to be wild and some dogs are born to be mild. We may prefer the mild ones, but can we blame the wild ones for having been born the way they were? We like to think of morality as a conscious choice of conscience, but the fact is some people are innately more caring and mindful of others while others are not. It’s like some cats are naturally aggressive and nasty while others are naturally milder and kinder. Though I don’t care for wild-ass Negroes, there’s a limit to which we can condemn them on the moral level. They act the way they do because they are born as wild-ass Negroes. Baboons act like baboons because they are born as baboons, and Negroes act like Negroes because they are born that way. So, any attempt to find a moral solution between whites and blacks is bound to fail. The ONLY solution is separation of the races. If blacks want money, they should be given generous ‘reparations’, but they should be made to go their own way and live among themselves. Of course, even if equal numbers of whites and blacks split the land and wealth equally, whites will likely quadruple their wealth in 20 yrs whereas Negroes will be bankrupt in less than 10. They say Nigeria is now the richest nation in Africa, but most people there are as poor as they’d always been since the crooks who run the place just stuff themselves and since most ordinary black Africans lack the sense and sensibility to develop into modern peoples.
But even within a single race, some people are naturally nicer, kinder, and more considerate, and therefore, they are easier to bring into the fold of morality. We would like to think they are better for reasons of conscience, but no less is their predisposition to be more moral and fair-minded due to genetic factors. Also, what do we mean by ‘good’? What if what we deem as ‘good’ can become a kind of bad in the long run? Suppose a community genetically favors and reproduces a lot of ‘good’ people who are nice, kindly, and trusting. But wouldn’t such a society be rather dull and boring? Hasn’t much of civilization been driven forward by egomania, greed, will to power, and even madness? One thinks of Harry Lime’s remark about the Swiss and the Cuckoo Clock in THE THIRD MAN. Indeed, some of the greatest lessons of mankind have come from wars and tragedies. And some of the greatest men that ever lived were hardly driven by ‘good’ sentiments. Also, if ‘good’ people tend to be more trusting, might they not also be more conformist and subservient to the harmonious order? In this sense, Japan was a ‘good’ society, but was it really good? Didn’t such ‘goodness’ stamp out much innovation and individuality? (Also, genuine moral goodness needs the courage to offend. When faced against what is deemed evil, goodness must be willing to stand firm and tall even if it offends the social order saturated with officialdom of evil that passes for political/moral correctness. That’s the difference between true goodness and shallow goodness, aka ‘niceness’. Niceness is about wanting to be liked and approved by society. It wants to appear ‘good’ at the feet of the prevailing fashions at all times. Even much of ‘bad’ behavior is really a form of ‘niceness’. All those people who get tattoos, act lewdly, and binge-drink at night clubs may see themselves as ‘edgy’ and ‘badass’, but they simply want the attention and approval of their peers. This is why so many ‘nice’ girls go out of their to be act like sluts. Most of all, they want to be ‘liked’. In contrast, true goodness has a core sense of right and wrong, and it will not bend to social pressure or fashions. Even if society deems it outdated or offensive, it sticks to its own guns because it has true conviction in its moral principles. True goodness is about conscience and courage. Niceness is about shame and approval.) Also, if a society is too earnestly ‘good’, might it not be an easy victim of cunning tricksters who may seek to manipulate the naive psychology of ‘goodness’? Isn’t this what Jews have done with the Northern European morality? Italians and Latins maybe scummy and sleazy, but the one saving grace of their Machiavellianism has been the cynical disdain of do-gooders. After all, what if do-gooders are merely charlatans and hustlers trying to fool people with the cult of ‘goodness’ — like what the crooks do in Fellini’s IL BIDONE. It’s because a lot of white Evangelicals in the American South have a naive ‘good’ side that Jews find it so easy to manipulate them into supporting Israel(and increasingly even the homo agenda). Though many Italians were wild about Mussolini, they weren’t as earnestly trusting of him as so many Germans were of Hitler. Germans were more ‘good’, and that paradoxically made them worse in their mindless servitude as ‘good’ obedient minions of Hitler. Italians, on the other hand, cheered Il Duce when the war was going well, but the minute they realized things might go south, they were looking to squirm out of the situation. Today, Northern Europeans have become the worst because they are more ‘good’. More than any other people, they’ve earnestly swallowed all the PC crap pushed by Jews who guilt-bait white people with the Holo-cult. As foul and disgusting as the homo agenda is, it appeals to so many ‘good’ people because it’s been packaged as the ‘new normal’ with squeaky clean image of homos as respectable-and-hip middle-class folks. (No matter how spic-and-span the image, it can’t hide the fact that homosexuality is about men who like to talk like women and do fecal penetration on one another. But ‘good’ people don’t want to be disagreeable. They want to be ‘nice’, a quality as vapid as being ‘cool’, which is just an illusion. Notice that coolness wins as a form of fantasy but in reality has no value. Coolness implies effortlessness and aloofness in the mastery of the world, and it only works on the movie screen. Real world is about real talent, effort, and commitment.) To be truly good, one has to have the guts to be disagreeable, contentious, angry, and upset the situation. ‘Goodness’ too often seeks to make everyone feel good and happy, but that often means suppressing inconvenient truths because it might undermine the spirit of ‘goodness’. Too often, goodness is confused with ‘feel-goodness’. Liberals ‘feel good’ with their homo agenda because homos have been sold to them as the-most-wonderful-people. As a result, many straight people think they themselves are better for being associated with wonderful homos. It’s like so many gentiles find themselves more ‘good’ if they have Jewish friends, relatives, or something. It’s Redemption-by-Association, especially with key favored groups. Equality has nothing to do with this. After all, you get more points for saying you are friendly with Jews and homos than with Arabs, Chinese, Indians, or Russians. Jews, with their control of media-academia-entertainment, have rigged things that way. It’s like every American politician must show that he or she is one with Israel and the Jewish-American community, but his or her attachments(or lack thereof) to other communities don’t.

Another problem with morality is it often happens to be situational. Even if everyone were equal in moral nature/character, varying situations bring out different feelings and actions. This is why we need to think twice when we condemn atrocities committed in wartime. Though such abuses must be addressed and perpetrators must be brought to justice, the good-and-decent civilians who judge the soldiers might have done the same thing under similar stress in the same kind of situation. And the perpetrators, had they been civilians, might have been self-righteous in condemning soldiers who’ve committed ‘war crimes’. It was so easy for anti-war protestors to denounce Vietnam veterans of having been ‘baby killers’.
Psychology is different from morality, but it is hampered with a similar kind of hypocrisy. Just as a moralizer is immoral himself or herself in way he or she doesn’t want to admit, the psychologist addressing the mental disturbances of others could himself or herself be mentally problems. This was one of the themes in HOUSE OF GAMES by David Mamet, and the con-man hustlers played on that knowledge. Though the con-men in the film were only amateur psychologists, they understood her better than she understood herself — or them — despite all her book-learning and medical practice.
(HOUSE OF GAMES and SOMETHING WILD are interesting films about the Respectability of Knowledge vs the Revelry in Knowledge. Much of reality, be it natural or human, is dark and dangerous, but therein lies its power and allure. But we don’t want to get burned, so we’ve created an entire field committed to the respectable attainment and practice of knowledge. This knowledge comes from our study and analysis of dark reality, but because the process has been made intellectual, professional, and/or conceptual, our knowledge feels detached from reality. To study reality means to learn of all the bad things about reality, and indeed, much of reality is troubling, at least according to ideal moral standards. Nature has no morality, and even humans are driven by all kinds of ‘irrational’ emotions of hunger, lust, envy, resentment, egotism, rage, hatred, sadism, will to power, and etc. The conceit of modern civilization has been to study and understand the nature of man while remaining above the fray. To be sure, even primitive societies have powerful taboos and social checks on what is and isn’t permissible. Even so, the mind and body are essentially one and the same in primitive communities. In modern civilization, especially with the rise of the academia and intellectual pursuits, we tend to see the life of the mind as separate from the emotions of the heart and animality of the body. Indeed, even when radical academics on college campuses dress like ‘sluts’ and yell ‘vagina’, it seems more an act of conceptualization that one of genuine spontaneity. They are not being real sluts but making an ideologically charged statement about the new direction in feminism. To be sure, some things are easier to study dryly and dispassionately than others. For example, a study of the people in an accounting firm is bound to stir up less dark and dangerous emotions in the researcher than a study of a brothel given to sado-masochistic rituals. A study of kids taking Flintstone vitamins is likely cause fewer mental disturbances than a study of young adults using illicit drugs; indeed the researcher might be tempted to try the illegal drugs himself to understand the appeal and addiction, and in the process, he might become addicted to the dark reality. In HOUSE OF GAMES, the female psychiatrist studies and treats people with problems, but she herself keeps an emotional and intellectual distance between herself and her patients. Even as she tries to understand everything about them, she remains apart from them, as if they have problems beyond their self-control whereas she is a problem-solver with rational control over her own life and the world around her. She is respectable. But it turns out that she harbors certain dark impulses herself. As Joe Mantegna’s character says at one point, "She’s a born thief." We even see her stealing a lighter. Her professional calling[or conceit] is to see what’s wrong in others while maintaining her cool sense of her own rightness and respectability. But while reality may be dark and dangerous, that very feature is also what makes it so seductive. People want to be ‘bad’ because that’s where the thrill and excitement are. It’s like even a faithful spouse has fantasies of fooling around, as with Nicole Kidman in EYES WIDE SHUT. When the woman in HOUSE OF GAMES is drawn into the underworld of con-men, her fascination goes from intellectual curiosity to dark romanticism. She is turned on by it. She wants to learn more about it on the cerebral level — as a respectable upper-class woman, she’s accustomed to approaching things with her mind — , but she also wants to partake of the thrill of danger; she wants to be wooed by it and surrender to it. In a way, she’s betraying her professional ethics, but in another way, it’s the logical outcome of her interest in human psychology. The difference is that as a psychologist-or-psychiatrist she maintained a repressive/restrictive wall between her subject and her emotions, but as a participant she finally breaks through the wall of her own respectable inhibitions and indulges in the darkness and danger she’d only been studying and probing. Upon joining with the gang of con-men, she penetrates and is penetrated by the dark and dangerous world. The field of psychology makes the distinction between those with problems and those who solve problems. It makes a distinction between those who understand human behavior & have control over their own behavior AND those who lack understanding & have no control over their own behavior and moods. But it is a conceit to a large extent because even the most disciplined and responsible people have only so much control over their thoughts and emotions. The mind is too unstable even in the most stable person. It’s too much of a mystery unto itself even for the most erudite and intelligent. Consider how the cool-and-witty sophisticate in ALL ABOUT EVE loses his cool and strikes out at Eve like a hurt little boy when his weak spot has been pricked. Also, what is learned from books and lab experiments are far from the whole story. Even if what they reveal is true, reading about something cannot compare to getting burned by something. Indeed, whatever the woman in HOUSE OF GAMES may have learned from college and professional life pale in comparison to the lessons learned from the ruthless art of the con-men who are actually more perceptive about human nature since they have no respectable conceit about ‘helping people’ to justify their manipulations; they have no moral/ethical brakes and go all the way in exploring and messing with the mind. Their view is that people are greedy, lusty, hedonistic, and egotistical; and very delusional and easily fooled; and there are some simple rules by which to measure and manipulate people, even or especially the respectable ones who are both incredibly delusional and naive. Whatever value respectability has, it also has the effect of putting blinders on the truth of human nature. It is a ‘bourgeois’ crutch with which to buttress one’s socio-economic comfort zone from the darkness and dangerousness of reality. For respectable professionalism to be useful and effective in the world, it must address the dark dangers of the world and work at dealing with the problems. Or if professionalism profits from the darkness and dangerousness, it must build barriers to wall and cocoon itself from the very reality it is profiting from. Take a pork belly, dildo, and military weapons companies. All profit from what some would consider to be disturbing or disreputable enterprises. Making bacon necessitates the mass slaughter of millions of innocent and intelligent pigs. Dildo is a sex toy, and there isn’t much respect in that. Weapon-makers manufacture and market instruments of mass-slaughter all over the world. Yet, each of those industries has its headquarters and office buildings where well-dressed and well-spoken affluent professionals act like they’re engaged in respectable careers. In the case of the woman in HOUSE OF GAMES, her profession depends on the psychological problems of others. On the one hand, she could assure herself that she’s simply doing a job that someone needs to do. But on the other hand, the field of psychiatry is something of a fraud that milks the vanity of the kinds of clients with the money to pay for that stuff. Also, by playing the role of someone who cares, she stokes her own ego as a useful, even invaluable, member of a community. And by hearing about the sordid details of people with problems, she gets a kind of kick from her profession. She vicariously lives a fantasy life through her patients. She’s respectable but also privately revels in the details of the dark and dangerous reality she is analyzing. Of course, there’s no way an academic or professional can study something unless he or she maintains some degree of emotional distance/detachment between himself/herself and the subject at hand. It’s a tricky proposition since the academic or professional can neither agree with and participate with the subject NOR pass easy judgement on the moral failings and violations of the subject. The academic or professional must empathize but mustn’t sympathize[as he/she would become too partisan] nor condemn[as moral judgmentalism will stand in the way of understanding the problem]. Thus, the conceit of the academic or professional is he or she is above both agreeability and disagreeableness in relation to the subject. But this is like walking a tight rope. In SOMETHING WILD[by E. Max Frye and Jonathan Demme], the main character played by Jeff Daniels works at a more conventional job than the woman in HOUSE OF GAMES. However, he too is a closet rebel who is seduced by the dark allure of reality as a danger. He’s one of the yuppie office drones of the 1980s. He looks respectably middle class from head to toe. Everything about the way he walks and talks suggests professionalism. And yet, capitalism creates zones of respectability walled off from its operations that would not be considered respectable. If a company deals with beef products, millions of cows have to be rounded up and slaughtered every year. Someone has to do the dirty work. Others have to drive the trucks to take the meat from one place to another. Others must stock the shelves. Others must clean the floors, and so on and on, none of which is considered respectable. And yet, there’s a core body of well-educated professionals at the headquarters who put on suits & ties and act respectable. Is it all just a facade? It’s like soldiers have done most of the killing and dying, but the inner core of officers who generally don’t face the dangers put on nice uniforms, attend dances, and act so very respectable. Thus, respectability is a kind of facade. Though aristocrats had their own forms of facade, the manner of the facade became more pronounced with the rise of the bourgeoisie. Though one could argue that aristocrats didn’t deserve their power and privilege, they were people with lineage and pedigree. They were born to be snobs and acted the part. It was part of their cultural heritage to put on airs and act superior. In contrast, many of the bourgeoisie in the 19th century made their fortunes almost overnight. They had no pedigree to speak of, thus no cultural justification for their great wealth and power. Also, their privilege was the result of selling lots of stuff, often of dubious value. At the very least, there’s something essential about agriculture and the production of food. As aristocrats mainly presided over farmlands, they could at least claim that their wealth was derived from good honest labor involved in the harvest of essential goods, even if peasants did all the work. But the rise of capitalism meant the creation of ever new consumer goods and services catering to all kinds of vanities that weren’t so essential. Also, capitalism created sudden winners and sudden losers. Permanence was not a word in the capitalist vocabulary. If capitalism was so fickle, unstable, and tumultuous, what was the point of striving for respectability? How could anyone be respectable in such a fast-changing and unstable socio-economic order? And yet, the upper bourgeoisie put on respectable airs in the manner of the old aristocrats, and the lower bourgeoisie did their best to seem respectable despite their precarious positions in an unstable capitalist system that constructed and destroyed industries and overturned the entire fabric of social order every so often. Indeed, National Socialism’s appeal was due to the erosion of stable bourgeois respectability among many middle class folks during the Weimar years. Respectability and its accompaniments of security, position, and wealth are very nice, but they are gained at the price of separating oneself from much of reality that is dark and/or dangerous. The dark-and-dangerous is best avoided, but it’s also vital. Dark-and-dangerous can be criminal and pathological, or it can be legal and ‘normal’ but nevertheless be walled off from the respectability of bourgeois professionalism. In the case of Jordan Belfort and his gang, it seems they didn’t make much of an effort to be respectable as, at least according to the movie THE WOLF OF WALL STREET where the men of the company engage in open debauchery in their work spaces. Though Belfort named his company ‘Stratton Oakmont’ to make it sound respectable, no one at the company seemed to care about acting respectable. In contrast, most companies have professional code of ethics. Even so, despite the outward appearance of respectability, many companies rely on dark-and-dangerous ways of business and power. There are politicians’ palms to grease. There are all sorts of dirty tricks in finance and law that are within the bounds of the law, at least if you know how to navigate it. There are also all kinds of dirty tricks in journalism in terms of "who, whom", who-knows-whom, bending the truth[though some get caught as Stephen Glass and Sabrina Rubin Erdely did] to fit the Narrative, and etc. No one seems to get very far in anything just by sticking with the iron rules of professional ethics. To some extent, you have to play the game. Think of all the money Hollywood and the music industry have made by promoting and marketing tons of worthless but addictive movies and songs. Entirely legal but a dirty, dark, and dangerous game of manipulating the animal-zones of the masses to turn them into wild consumerist beasts. Hollywood and the music industry mainly sell barbarism, but their headquarters are filled with men and women[often products of elite universities] dressed respectably and putting on professional airs. And Las Vegas is the giant thieving den of America where Jewish moguls rake in hundreds of billions from suckers from all over the world, but it too puts on a show of respectability and professionalism. The people who run Las Vegas aren’t much different from the gangsters in THE GODFATHER who leech off a vice industry but wear nice suits and act respectable. Of course, as so many vices have become legalized, it could be argued that gangsterism itself has become respectable. Besides, the well-dressed and respectable moguls and their professional minions of the music industry promote and peddle the gangsta style of Rap culture without shame. If some businesses make money from unrespectable goods/services but maintain their air of respectability within the office setting — a company that specializes in cock-rings may have a headquarter that looks like any other corporate headquarter — , other businesses of similarly dubious nature have tried to persuade the public that the unrespectable is actually respectable. Perhaps, the most famous practitioner of such was Hugh Hefner whose idea was that his smut magazine was actually a classy men’s magazine with appreciation for female beauty and even intellectual articles & serious cultural reporting. Some have admired Hefner for his efforts whereas others have mocked Playboy for its dishonesty. According to the film PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT by Milos Forman, the founder of HUSTLER was more honest for he shamelessly accepted his role as a smut-meister and had no pretensions otherwise — except for a brief stint when he came under the influence of one of Jimmy Carter’s sister. Though the boho-yuppie is a far cry from the stuffy and uptight — even morally priggish — bourgeoisie of the 19th and early 20th centuries, he is no less insulated from the implications of the system he belongs to. Industrial capitalism that developed in the 19th century was made possible by big factories with giant smokestacks, railroads, mega-slaughter houses[not for nothings was Chicago called the ‘hog capital of the world’], and etc. The great wealth of the West as built on the shoulders of countless men involved in the toil and sweat of hard work. And yet, the bourgeoisie, as the owners and managers of the vast systems of tough labor, created their own economic zones — usually in the downtown districts of big cities — where they donned nice suits, put on airs, and carried themselves in dignified tones. Though their wealth was the product of the toil-and-sweat of millions of workers around the world, they erected and lived in a world of their own. It’s like the Fritz Lang movie METROPOLIS where the economy depends on the hard labor of factory workers and miners, but the ultra-bourgeoisie live in the upper world of privilege, leisure, manners, and dignity, which are all nice things to have, but how were they paid for? Then, with the fading of aristocratic ways, there was less pressure among the bourgeoisie to emulate the old elites consisting of noblemen. Also, with the rise of popular culture and loosening of social mores, the bourgeoisie became less uptight about proper appearances and more attuned to fashions of hedonism centered around celebrity culture where the glamour was. It went from the manner of dignity to the style of ‘glitznity’. But in some ways — at least for some critics — , the boho-yuppie was even more insufferable than the old bourgeoisie. At the very least, the old bourgeoisie had certain distinct cultural markers that carried some degree of conviction. They may have been hypocrites, but at the very least, they believed in the rightness of their moral system and values. In contrast, the boho-yuppies lack conviction in anything and are only about privilege. Boho-yuppies have cast off the stuffy high-toned manner of the old bourgeoisie, but they haven’t given up any of their wealth and privilege. If anything, they seem to be doing better and better while everyone else isn’t doing so great or getting worse. Right or wrong, at least the old bourgeoisie stood for something and stood up for what they believed was right. They defended their values and expected others to emulate their respectable manners and style as the model of proper behavior and success in life. As such, they could be admired & emulated as worthy social models or attacked & critiqued as worthy political enemies. In contrast, boho-yuppies lack the conviction of the capitalist class. Though affluent and getting ever richer through globalist capitalism, they leech off the ideas, attitudes, and styles of their class-and-cultural ‘enemies’. In doing this, they not so much lend support to their ‘enemies’ as appropriate bohemianism, leftism, radicalism, maverick-ism, eccentricism, rebellion-ism, and nonconformism for their own ‘hip’ cultural self-aggrandizement. By buying up and taking over places like Greenwich Village and Soho, they’ve turned once fertile artistic communities into prize real estates and haute culti-boutiques. They turned the art world into a hyper-market-place. They’ve turned homosexual alternative culture into a Wall Street brand. They’ve turned bohemian culture into a ‘playground for lawyers in love’. But even as the boho-yuppies appropriate all these ideas and cultures, they are really without genuine commitment. None of them would surrender their status and privilege to become a starving artist or intellectual/radical pursuing something to the end with courage and conviction. Their interest in bohemianism is as a brand. Their priority is all about status, reputation, connections, and being liked by the ‘right kind of people’. They lean toward bohemianism and ‘leftism’ as shallow and vain brands no different from some expensive ‘green’ coffee maker. As such, they are parasitic of both capitalism and subcultures. They reap huge rewards from serving as the elite class of capitalism, but they have no core set of values and principles of the old bourgeoisie that, however benighted they may have been, possessed and defended a vision of life and a social order. At the same time, the boho-yuppies have lots of fun by appropriating the ‘hipness’ and ‘radical styles’ of ‘leftism’ and ‘creative’ subcultures, but they are really samplers than true warriors for the cause. So, they enjoy the fruits of hyper-global-capitalism while pretending to be hip to Gramsci and Warhol. But at their core, there is no true conviction in anything. No spine... except for status-seeking and privilege, for which they are crazy-mad. Such lack of conviction marks the Jeff Daniels character in SOMETHING WILD. Same goes for his co-worker at the office who looks as bland as can be. They are not bad people, but they occupy a special world set apart from the rest of society that is more real in their darkness and dangers. Of course, it’s understandable why people of affluence and privilege would set themselves up in better parts of cities and suburbs apart from everyone else as it’s only natural for anyone to prefer nicer, richer, and safer communities. That in and of itself isn’t the problem. Rather, it’s the mind-set that accompanies the cocoon-ment of privilege. This mind-set soon gets to thinking that the dark-and-dangerous world doesn’t exist or exists as an abstract social problem or exotic theme park[dark Americana]. That the rich people want to live in their own world in METROPOLIS is understandable. What isn’t forgivable is that they make believe that the OTHER WORLD of toil-and-sweat of the under-classes doesn’t even exist. Indeed, the fact that homo issues[paid and promoted by Wall Street billionaires]are so central among today’s urban gentry elites goes to show how insular the upper classes have become. And of course, the super-rich Jewish elites want it that way since they are very chummy with homos. Better to have the urban gentry elites and their children mainly worry about the complaints of affluent urban homo elites than identify with the masses of people outside the fancy parts of cities who aren’t doing so well under globalism. After all, if the urban gentry and their children identify mainly with affluent homos who make up a small percentage of the American population, they will also keep with the habit of admiring and serving the small Jewish minority elite that rules America and keeps getting richer and richer. So, the problem is not making more money and having more per se. It’s that, with such means, one slips into the mind-set that sets oneself apart from the rest of humanity. This separation isn’t only geographical but psycho-cultural. Look at some of the ritziest parts of big cities today, and it’s like they separate worlds unto themselves disconnected from the rest of the world. And such elite communities in big cities are linked to other elite communities in other cities around the world. It’s like going from one gold bubble to another to another. But then, the denizens of these urban areas are so fabulously rich because of the global economic system that depends on the hard labor of many working class and poor people. If the professionals at an urban accounting firm are crunching the numbers for Walmart, think of how Walmart makes its money. Like Apple, it depends on drone-workers in China who work for a pittance. And how do goods go from one place to another? Think of all the working class Americans who work on ships, trucks, and railways. And yet, the rich urban areas, in Shanghai as in New York, have created communities where the elites and the affluent can forget about the larger pictures and just enjoy life in their cocooned world of social insularity. [And if such people ever have a ‘leftist’ or ‘radical’ thought, it revolves around nonsense issues like ‘gay marriage’ or ‘should men who dress up as women be allowed to use the ladies room?’] And even though their wealth depends so much on middle class folks, working class folks, and toiling poor folks all over the globe, they have no socio-cultural connection with the vast numbers of humanity and instead only care about what happens to be trendy in dining, fashion, and other ‘creative’ areas, especially dominated by homos. [To be sure, the mind-set of the lower classes is no less vapid. HUNGER GAMES would have us believe that the poor folks spend most of their time thinking about basic things such love, trust, family, loyalty, and survival, but that’s not the case with the poor today. Though many people are hurting economically, the welfare state has created a vast underclass of fatsos and lardasses. Also, as IQ tends to be lower and as family values have fallen apart among the poorer classes, the children of the underclass are more likely to look to trashy pop culture as their role model and mentor. It explains why even young poor people think ‘gay marriage’ makes sense. Many of them have no remembrance of stable family life, and they are slavish to the fashions dished out by their favorite celebrities. So, even though working class and poor folks should be thinking about more basic and essential things in life, too many of them are into junk culture, porn culture, drug culture, ass-tattoo culture, body piercing culture, and other idiocies. They are no less decadent in their own way. When even poor people whose minds should be on values and survival care most about ‘hip’ attitudes and getting tattoos on their asses, you know civilization is in trouble. What happened to the Joads in THE GRAPES OF WRATH?] In some ways, the setup in SOMETHING WILD is even more demented than the one in HOUSE OF GAMES. In David Mamet’s film, the female psychiatrist has a clear fascination with the criminal world of con-men, and the con-men play her for all she’s worth. People get burned, but it’s a game, and everyone is playing to win. But the dynamics of the relationship that develops between the Jeff Daniels’ character[Charlie] and the Melanie Griffith’s character[‘Lulu’/Audrey] is less obvious and clear-cut. It begins like a childish game that gets wilder as it goes along, with neither having any idea of how it may end. In HOUSE OF GAMES both protagonists — played by Lindsey Crouse and Joe Mantegna — are strong-willed characters with focus and objective, whereas in SOMETHING WILD both characters are ‘lost souls’ whose romp is really a diversion from their closeted wrecked lives. And though Lulu/Audrey seems to be leading Charlie on, it turns out he was playing along and was no simple dupe; he fools the girl like the stage actor fooled the circus girl in SAWDUST AND TINSEL by Ingmar Bergman, albeit without malice. He wasn’t so much being led on and allowing himself to be led on. He wanted her to think of him as her virtual hostage, a respectable yuppie guy whose life is turned upside down by a wild eccentric crazy woman as free spirit. In truth, his life was an emotional wreck after his marriage broke apart, and he’s been leading a life of a quiet desperation. [Both his respectability and her revelry are built on illusions. His life is far less stable than meets the eye, and she’s far less free than she lets on.] Whether his neurotic peculiarities are the product of or the reason for his personal failings is anybody’s guess. That said, it appears he spent most of his life in the rather insular, bland, and conventional world of the ‘white middle class’. He seems to have grown up ‘white bread’, gone to school ‘white bread’, and gotten a job ‘white bread’. And maybe he expected a ‘white bread’ life, the kind that his co-worker seems to have. But his marriage fell apart for whatever reason, and he’s looking for some kind of escape, and he gets little kicks through infractions such as skipping out on the bill at a diner. Griffith’s character notices this side of him and takes him on a road trip on the wild side where they keep breaking all the rules. [To be sure, the trip itself isn’t as wild as all that as they mostly drive through small town America. At one point, she even takes him to the house of her mother who leads a rather homely traditional life. And yet, even when things seem plain and normal, something is a little off. Partly, it’s because Lulu and Charlie do some oddball things. But even when they visit Audrey’s mother’s house, which is as placid as a place can be, there are intimations of an alternative universe. It’s as if every place isn’t just a place but a place of ghostly traces. Though Audrey, as ‘Lulu’, has chosen a wild life for herself in the big city so apart from her mother’s, we feel a strange connection between mother and daughter. And though her mother’s attitudes and values seem to be very different from her daughter’s, she doesn’t seem to be disapproving of her daughter’s ways either. And Audrey has sense enough to put on a different act when she’s home. In its own way, could her mother’s calmness be a kind of rebellion itself? It’s like Emily Dickinson didn’t go out into the big world, but she was master of her own little world as distinct as that of any maverick or rebel. And in MAKIOKA SISTERS, the third sister Yukiko seems to be the most traditional, and yet in her quiet demand to marry the man of her dreams, she is also the most resiliently romantic and individualist. Or maybe Audrey’s mother also acquainted with the ‘wild side’ in her youth and retreated to a quiet life in her old age. Later in the film, we see Audrey in the hallway of Charlie’s empty house, and her gaze passes over photos of Charlie’s wife and kids who are no longer with him. Again, there’s a sense of a place that ‘shines’ — to borrow from Kubrick’s film — with ghostly presence of the past. Thus, even a bland suburban home becomes strange and peculiar through a psychic connection with its stored memories. It’s sort of like the feeling when David in A.I. returns ‘home’ at the end. It’s seems both real and unreal, both normal and strange. It’s like the scene in Tarkovsky’s SOLARIS where the woman stares at a painting and hears the cries & whispers of the souls & animals framed inside. I wonder if SOLARIS partly inspired Kubrick to work on THE SHINING and A.I. Another film that touches on similar themes is EXOTICA by Atom Egoyan.] Lulu/Audrey plays the role of daring rebel who leads, dominates, and liberates the ‘white bread’ guy whose mousy excuse of rebellion at the diner was so pitiful. She shows him the true way of rebellion. Yet, she too is hiding something of her past. Though she may be a rebel vis-a-vis Daniels’ character, she’s a hapless prisoner upon falling into the clutches of her psychopathic husband[Ray Liotta]who’d recently been released from prison. A tigress with Daniels’ character, she’s a poodle with Ray. In SOMETHING WILD, the lack of authenticity of the ‘white bread’ world is accentuated by using blacks in the background as stark shadows of what is more real. For example, in contrast to the soulless whites, we see a black girl outside a church with an angelic demeanor. At the high school reunion dance, we see Daniels’ farcical imitation of a black guy who dances with more rhythm and sass. In one scene, Daniels’ character gets fashion advice from a black gas station manager/owner. It’s as if there’s no higher benediction of what is ‘right on’ than to win approval from a black guy. Daniels’ character is also able to pry Giffith’s character from the clutches of Liotta’s character because a black state trooper happens to be in the restaurant. But, blacks are not only more authentic as positive figures but as dangerous ones as well. For example, Liotta’s character says that in prison he used to be pushed around by tougher blacks, but he took up boxing and eventually gained the respect of the ‘brothers’. So, in both the realm of grooviness and badass-ness, it’s as if whites are pale imitations of the more authentic blacks. Daniels’ character imitates the dance moves of a Negro, and Liotta’s character learned how to box from black inmates. Even the opening song by David Byrne is a pastiche of Afro-Carribean influences, and the film ends with some fat black mama singing some reggae-like rap song. Though there are no blatant socio-political messages in SOMETHING WILD, the presence of blacks in the background suggest that the insular and virtually segregated white community enjoys its liberties, privileges, coolness, hipness, musicality, toughness, and etc. on the backs of blacks who worked as slaves in the cotton fields and who produced much of the styles of music and manner that came to define much of American ‘cool’. And of course, black prowess in sports came to be the standard of American macho manhood. Perhaps, this buried theme of SOMETHING WILD would have been more effective if blackness was presented with more edginess and danger, but Jonathan Demme was too much of a good-hearted Liberal. [Still, SOMETHING WILD, along with MELVIN AND HOWARD, is the very best of Demme, indeed one of zaniest, strangest, and most hauntingly evocative films of the 1980s. And unlike BLUE VELVET, it didn’t underline and put stresses on the dark material to drive home the point that there’s some really scary shit out there. Sadly, soon after SOMETHING WILD, Demme got to making sensationalist trash like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and social-conscious movies like PHILADELPHIA that used to be the domain of hacks like Stanley Kramer.] One thing SOMETHING WILD and BLUE VELVET seem to ultimately agree on is the need for a sanctuary of respectability. Sure, respectability is hypocritical and built on conceits, but all said and done, the world of reality is too crude, brutal, and harrowing. It’s the reason why birds build nests to lay their eggs. The world is filled with nastiness and predators. And yet, there’s a difference between only knowing the life inside the bubble and returning to the bubble after one has experienced the world outside. For those who only know the world of the bubble, there’s the naive assumption that reality either doesn’t exist, can be ignored indefinitely, or exists only as an exotic playground. But for those who’ve been outside the bubble and got burned like the characters in BLUE VELVET and SOMETHING WILD[or RISKY BUSINESS], the bubble takes on a special meaning as a precious shelter from the storm. Thus, through such a trial through fire, respectability is somewhat redeemed. At least one knows what one is hiding from.)
Mental health medicine is fundamentally different from physical health medicine in that the client must partly bare or even ‘surrender’ his or her ‘soul’ to the doctor. When a physical medicine doctor orders a client to undress, the client may have to show the doctors her boobies or his wiener. Also, even though physicians should ideally be fit and healthy themselves, it wouldn’t bother most people if a doctor was fat, unhealthy, and smoked too much. After all, a physician is only dealing with the mechanics of the body. You’re not trusting him for anything else.
One doesn’t have to bare one’s nudity to a mental health doctor or psychiatrist or some such. But one has to bare something more private: one’s secrets, fantasies, obsessions, etc. Since one is opening much of his or her private realm to the doctor, the doctor’s own character and mental well-being do become an issue. If a physician who smokes or is fat advises a patient not to smoke or overeat, we can accept the hypocrisy. But if a mentally disturbed psychiatrist or mental health specialist is in the position to give advice to others, it’s a problem because he’s prying into and even coming to ‘own’ the patient’s soul. In MARNIE, the woman is mortified when Mark denudes her. Even so, he only peeled away the clothing to see her naked body. It’s far more disturbing for him to denude her psychologically to see what lays hidden in her mind. And indeed, it is her hidden memory that is the key to her fears of being exposed to or touched by men. As it turns out, Mark — like the George Peppard character in THE BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S — is a decent guy whom she eventually comes to rely on and trust. But gaining the key to someone’s inner-self can be used in the most unscrupulous ways. Indeed, this is why both the National Socialist Germans and the Jews have became dangerous. Nazi elites thought they had the secret to mental health. For people like Hitler, psychology was almost synonymous with physiology. If Germans were exposed to healthy images of beauty-grace-strength, if they were racially purified in blood, and if they were drummed with virtues of duty and unity, then the physical well-being and beauty would somehow take care of the mind. On the surface, some of this sounds good, and indeed, the Boy Scouts and the Young Pioneers of Communist nations had more or less the same idea: healthy look will lead to healthy outlook. But there was a dark side to Nationalist Socialist view of psychology. Hitler didn’t merely want to guide people with reason and order but with sorcery and with the irrational power of art, music, and propaganda. They wouldn’t merely learn from National Socialism through the minds but surrender to Hitler’s superior vision of the future. He would be their ‘medicine man’ with the power of magic that would remake their nation and the world. It required a leap of faith, and therein lay the danger. National Socialism was a form of National Sorcerism. Hitler would play a kind of Svengali role. (Another A.H., Alfred Hitchcock, has beguiled and fascinated film enthusiasts with instruments of veiling and unveiling strangely interwoven in his works. All art is a form of revelation through concealment, show-and-tell through hide-and-seek. After all, most fictional works use alter egos of the artists. The artist hides behind his puppet-characters who may well exhibit aspects of his or her own personal attributes or those to him. Consider the controversy as to how much of Orson Welles was invested in the character of Charles Foster Kane. Consider how Woody Allen has always insisted that the characters he plays have almost nothing to do with his real self. The most honest way for an artist to reveal his true self would be to sit in front of a camera and pontificate on-and-on about what he’s really about. But then, there goes the element of mystery, cat-and-mouse gamesmanship, and showmanship that make art entertaining. We’d rather watch a fiction film by Oliver Stone than listen to him say really dumb things about history and politics. Also, art — and even entertainment — forces the artist to work in the mode of empathy, which makes the story and characters more interesting than if they were merely spoken of as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Hearing Stone put down Nixon would be just another invective against Tricky Dick, but watching Nixon as a tragic figure destroyed by his own demons and enemies makes for powerful drama. Thus, art is less about truth than about the game of truth. It’s like the maze in THE SHINING. Removing the garden maze would allow one to see everything, but then, there would no longer be any game. Truth made obvious is banal. Thus, art is a grove of lies leading to a glimpse of the truth. It’s like Plato’s philosophy was tantalizing through the ages because the metaphor of emerging from the cave to the light emphasized the process than the product of truth-seeking. In Akira Kurosawa’s THRONE OF BLOOD, the main character cannot see the truth through the dense forest of his mind. Or perhaps, he sees too many ‘truths’ as reality is rife with possibilities, and every possibility is a truth in its own right. To be sure, there’s a difference between obfuscating obvious truths to feign complexity and exploring complex truths that require real effort to get at some kind of deeper meaning. Hitchcock was perhaps the most intelligent and imaginative figure in film history who never made a serious ‘art film’ — though one might make an exception for THE WRONG MAN, though it seems to be me more like a typical Hollywood drama. Even Spielberg made some ‘art films’ like MUNICH. Yet, for an entertainer, Hitchcock obsessed over lots of sophisticated and complex psychological theories. Yet, because he was the Master of Suspense, he could never delve into them in the manner of Alain Resnais, Ingmar Bergman, Luis Bunuel, or even Carol Reed. He had to make all his films appealing to the mass audience, and that meant the psychological ideas had to be sufficiently simplified, moralized, and explained, which is why Hitchcock’s Freudianism is generally of the barbershop or, at best, Saturday Evening Post variety. Even so, if one looks past the popularization and moralization, there are visual clues to suggest that Hitchcock’s personal views were far darker and more perverse than suggested by surface conventions of his movies. This was surely true of many Hollywood movies than suspected at the time. For example, Charles Laughton’s THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER seems to end on an upbeat note, but the motif of the watch in the final scene suggests the dark evil of the Robert Mitchum character is the Mark of Cain on every child. And Anthony Mann’s WINCHESTER 73 suggests that childish jealousy and aggression are at the core of games that adults play. It prefigures DR. STRANGELOVE where grownups play war games with super big toys. [Another variation on this theme is SMALL SOLDIERS by Joe Dante.] So, it’d be simpleminded to dismiss even Hitchcock’s ludicrous movies dealing with psychological issues. They can’t be taken seriously as psychological truth, but there lurk suggestions and possibilities beneath and beyond the central one presented on the screen. [MARNIE’s dramatization of the childhood trauma theory was silly even by the outlandish standards of Freudianism of the time, but the ways in which it shuffles cold reason with spellbinding myth make for feverish cinema.] This was partly because Hitchcock mastery of form could make even the ludicrous seem hypnotic and alluring. But there were other considerations. Since Hollywood at the time was far more censorious, society far was more moralistic, and Hitchcock himself was far more ‘bourgeois’ than people and institutions of later generations, it was understood by all that certain things could not be said, or at least said outright. So, it’s possible that Hitchcock’s psychological simplicity was a kind of a put-on. He provided the ‘dumb answer’ — often in dialogue or speech or happy ending — that seemed to neatly tie all the threads and wrap everything together, but the shadows and traces that lingered in the mind suggested something far darker and more complex than was let on. It’s like the medical explanation at the end of PSYCHO seems to resolve all the issues, but as we gaze into Bates’ sunken eyes, we come face-to-face with a horror that is beyond understanding. We fear being sucked into the abyss of his soul like the woman’s car into the swamp. With some ‘serious’ film-makers, we know they really mean what they mean, but this makes their films limited or even dumb after awhile. [After all, no person or period can know everything about everything, and each era’s sense of truth is limited by its well of knowledge, social taboos, fashions, manners, and habits. Thus, a work that has lasting value generally is stronger on shades and traces of truth than in its core presentation of truth. It’s like there’s much about the social/moral assumptions in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE that no longer speak to many people, but its yearnings, anxieties, and dreams still ring true. In the end, art is more about what is suggested than what is said. What is said can be argued and refuted. If accepted, then it merely becomes banal. In contrast, certain suggestions provoke new thoughts, emotions, and possibilities through the ages. Instead of just telling us something — that we may no longer believe and accept — , it triggers something that allows old works to be approached with fresh insights.] And there are other directors who are clearly interested, even obsessed, with psychological issues, as if indeed they wear the obsessions on their sleeve, as with Bergman especially in the late 60s and early 70s. Such brazen density can sometimes be oppressive and suffocating. Hitchcock, in contrast, often played ‘dumb’ or philistine while slyly making artful films that were far more suggestive than people surmised at the time. If anything, his air of denial of ‘seriousness’ added another layer of meaning for us to ponder. The character of Cicci says in THE GODFATHER PART II that the Corleone family had a lot of buffers. Similarly, there were buffers or layers between Hitchcock and his films. He never made a film with the kind of total immersion of Peckinpah in films like PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID or BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA. Despite his on-and-off drinking problems, there’s a dryness and sobriety in his presentation, with the possible exception being VERTIGO and FRENZY, a very late Hitchcock movie in which he could indulge in levels of sex and violence unthinkable in earlier movies. The public persona of Hitchcock was that of a dry, comical, funny-looking, respectable, cool-headed, and technical craftsman who made suspense movies in the manner that Swiss artisans fashioned their world-famous watches. He was regarded as a mechanic than anything else, and Hitchcock himself was willing to oblige in conveying this image of himself. It was as if he was always above the fray despite all the murders and nastiness in his movies, as if he didn’t really share in the obsessions and thrills taking place on screen and was only orchestrating them like a symphony for a good show. One could see him as sort of like a funny and harmless version of the fat female Nazi officer in SEVEN BEAUTIES who manages a death camp with total discipline and without an ounce of emotional involvement. There’s filth and mayhem everywhere in the Nazi forced-labor camp, but she remains impervious as she just goes about doing her job with total professionalism. In the public eye, Hitchcock’s role in film-making was similar. He made so many movies about torment and murder, yet his persona suggested little more than a puppet-master or a chess player moving the pieces about. And this persona as ‘master of suspense’, purportedly with no overt message/agenda, probably protected him as a more controversial public figure might have felt more compelled to justify films indulging in darkness and nastiness. But since he became famous as a kind of fat funny guy — an institution unto himself not unlike Charlie Chaplin — , the public need not take his movies and the ideas in them too seriously. Since a fat funny guy made them, they were probably done in the spirit of fun and didn’t really mean anything truly dark and disturbing. And yet, Hitchcock biographers and co-workers have since revealed things about him that have uncovered and added yet more ‘buffers’ between Hitchcock and his works, thereby further complicating the meaning of his movies. As with Hitler or Jewish psychologists, Hitchcock may have projected many of his own darkness onto his movie characters and then proceeded to ‘find’ ways to treat and cure them as a means of repressing his own sickness. We can surmise as to why Hitchcock became interested in adapting the novel MARNIE into a movie. The character of Mark, played by Sean Connery, is a fantasy stand-in for Hitchcock, and he takes it upon himself to cure Marnie of her psychological problems. Though it’s suggested that Mark himself is an eccentric of sorts, he has his obsessions under control whereas Marnie does not. It helps that he was born into a wealthy family and is a man, presuming men are made of stronger stuff than women are. Though he had to work hard to restore the fortunes of his family’s company, he was born on the right side of town. Also, it’s a man’s world, and men are expected to be strong and firm. But Marnie was born on the wrong side of town. Her only ticket to privilege was to steal. Since she has the looks, the other option would have been to marry a rich man, but her psychological malady made her want to get inside men’s safes than have men get into her panties. Marnie also lives in a time when, following the postwar boom and social changes, women are freer than ever, with options to be careerists than wives. Even so, the top jobs are held by men, and women mostly take on secretarial roles. If one was born on the wrong side of town, there isn’t much a woman can do to get the big bucks. So, like the woman in PSYCHO, she succumbs to the temptation to steal. On the other hand, the woman in PSYCHO didn’t suffer from a psychological malady and simply gave into temptation, and prior to her murder, had decided to go back and return the money. She has a dark side, and in some ways, it’s suggested that there’s a Norman Bates in each of us. When she drives in the night in the rain and imagines all the voices of other people who may be suspecting her of embezzlement, her mind begins to splinter into different proto-personalities. Though not as looney as Bates, the process of paranoid empathy occurring inside her head undermines her mental stability and balance. Initially, she hears voices of her boss and others out of fear; she’s merely wondering what others may be thinking and saying about her. She considers herself a good woman who was driven by desperation to steal the money. But in her mind, she hears other people putting her down as a wicked villainess bitch, and she’s distressed by this. But as time passes, she slips into the mind-set of a villainess and seems almost proud of it. Just like Bates’ reaction after the murder gradually goes from panicked fright to fiendish delight, we see the same transformation in the woman as she drives through the rain. She sees herself as a good girl driven to do a bad thing, and she’s worried that others may see her as a bad person. But she gradually begins to take pleasure in being the ‘bad girl’. A kind of mild split personality takes place within her between the ‘good girl’ and ‘bad girl’. We begin to notice a perverse grin on her face. Fear and shame fade and give way to confidence and pleasure. She seems to have slipped into the mind of another person; it’s like a mild case of what afflicts Norman Bates, who has a full-blown case of going from not just one personality to another but from one identity to another. So, there’s a mild case of Bates-ism in all of us, but nevertheless, the woman — Janet Leigh — comes to her senses and decides to return the money; but then, it’s too late and she is killed. In contrast, Marnie has no such remorse or conscience about what she does to men. She thinks she has every right to steal from them, like Negroes feel they are entitled to steal for whitey forever. Men are dirty, evil, filthy, foul, and disgusting. Marnie feels she has every right to go on the hunt. And yet, it’s further complicated because it’s like reverse-predation. Marnie is like a prey-turned-predator. She preys on men because she sees them as predators of women who are the prey. So, she’s not a natural predator but a revenge-predator against predators. And yet, because her childhood trauma has been repressed and blocked, she isn’t really sure why she hates men so much. She was brought up to hate men by her mother. But in order to prey upon men, she has to come close to them. Since women don’t have a physical advantage over men, she can’t go around robbing men with a stick or knife. She has to fool men. But in order to fool men, she has to make herself attractive to them, so that men will hire her and trust her. And this means she has to be sexy. But being sexy means being sexually attractive to men and bringing out their predatory sexual instincts. And yet, Marnie can’t stand men and sex. She is aware of her own beauty and sexiness — and takes pride in them — , but she can’t stand whom they attract. On the other hand, there is a hidden side of her that really wants a man, especially as one as rich, handsome, and suave as Mark. Prior to meeting him, she’d been associated with less sterling-looking ‘ugly’ men with whom she played a cat-and-mouse game. But with Mark, it was different even from the start though she was loathe to admit it. There’s something about him that makes her tolerate his presence and feel ever closer to him as time goes on. She could never have felt this way about the previous men she’d swindled since they weren’t so tall, dark, and handsome. Even if they’d been nice guys, she wouldn’t have grown to like them since they were not her equal in the looks department. Given her ‘mission’ in her life, she chooses to rob Mark as well and run away, but robbing him couldn’t have been as easy as robbing the earlier victims because something about him sparked something within her. Similarly, though the woman in VERTIGO fulfills her job of fooling Scottie and moving out of his life, she did fall in love with him — and also in love with the love he felt for her, i.e. she fell in love with the part of him that fell in love with her, thus seeing herself through his eyes, suggesting an element of narcissism, but then, given what he sees in her isn’t really her but her pretense of being ‘Madeleine’, it’s both narcissism and not narcissism; it’s like some actors play roles and grow narcissistic of their fictional personas that are not their true selves. The Mark/Marnie affair is complicated because they are opposites and reflections of one another. They are male and female, of privileged birth and of poverty-stricken birth, of legitimacy and of criminality, of truth-seeker and lie-teller. But they are both beautiful and obsessive personalities who are attracted to the obsessiveness of another. It’s not the classic tale of a man using force to tame a wild woman. Mark doesn’t want to cage Marnie and turn her into a stepford wife. Indeed, he is attracted to her for being an independent and headstrong woman, and to an extent, wants her to remain herself. But he seeks to tame her so that she will be free but not flee. Perhaps Francois Truffaut was inspired by MARNIE[as well as BOUDU SAVED FROM DROWNING] in part when he made THE WILD CHILD, where a savage gypsy child, once tamed, flees back to wilderness but then returns to civilization of his own volition; Truffaut was, of course, Hitchcock’s biggest fan. ‘Wild Child’ would be a fitting title for MARNIE since despite her conceit of freedom and independence, there’s a frightened little child inside her that has never grown up; this is why the Diane Baker character, who initially resents Marnie as a competitor for Mark’s affections, ultimately comes to pity her as it becomes apparent that despite Marnie’s calculating and devious exterior, her nerves are all torn up inside. A wild animal that cannot be tamed has to remain inside the cage. But a wild animal that can be tamed can be trusted with freedom once it is tamed. And that balance between freedom and domestication is what matrimony and civilization are about. It can never be a perfect equilibrium, but it’s the core of Western Civilization that has allowed both the greatest amount of freedom and the greatest amount of social order. Such a system depends on Law & Order and hierarchy, but as the modern world has grown more democratic, libertine, and equal under the law, human behavior can no longer be predicated on external controls of social expectations and sexual taboos. People must be auto-tamed from within so that even with freedom, they will act sensibly and responsibly. And this involves psychology. Dogs can be tamed & trained and, once tamed and trained, don’t have to be constantly threatened with the whip or stick to keep them in line. But some animals are tougher to tame for whatever reason, and some can’t be tamed at all. Such must either live in the wild or be kept in the cage. This is why we can’t allow baboons and adult chimpanzees to run freely. Their violent nature remains, as with so many Negroes. As Negroes are naturally aggressive and brutal, they’d been kept under control with brutal threat of force. But as such measures came to be seen as ‘racist’, blacks have been given total freedom without proper training and taming. Also, by their nature, it’s much tougher to train and tame blacks as they have more of the warrior-hunter-thug genes. In MARNIE, though Hitchcock surely identified with Mark, he could have been under the cloud of the Mark/Marnie complex. Hitchcock saw himself as a master, a famous celebrity, and an established professional. Like Mark tames and remakes Marnie into a new person, Hitchcock saw himself as the maestro who turned nobody actresses into great stars. In return, he wanted respect and gratitude, even love. But the ladies, though turned into stars by Hitchcock, saw him as a funny-looking fat bald-headed guy who talked weird. This led to a lot of frustration. So, unlike Mark, Hitchcock didn’t have his own obsession fully under control. For all his calm public demeanor as the wry Master of Suspense, Hitchcock was very much out-of-control in his own peculiar way. Hitchcock used various story ideas novels and plays to project his own sickness onto his actresses/female characters who were relatively healthy and sane. He was playing doctor when he really should have been the patient. And he was pretending that others were sick in need of help from either himself or his alter-ego characters like Mark Rutland. This is why VERTIGO is especially revealing as the sickness comes around full-circle, enveloping Scottie as he tries to cure the woman of her ‘possession’ by Carlotta’s ghost. Little does he know that he’s fallen under the spell of Madeleine’s spirit. The ironic thing is Madeleine’s sickness is fake, a put-on. The woman is really a tart named Judy pretending to be the evil husband’s wife who is supposedly possessed by a ghost of a woman who died long ago. But Scottie really does become possessed by the tragic beauty of Madeleine. So, if anything, he’s the sick one, but he thinks he’s trying to cure Madeleine of a delusion. But even though Madeleine is fake, Judy falls under the spell of his love and becomes herself possessed by it. So, even though Judy-as-Madeleine was just playing a hired role as she ascended the stairs to pretend to kill herself, in that moment she really did feel as if she wanted to die because she would have to say goodbye to Scottie for good. So much that is significant in life occurs when people are least aware of it. This is why the kiss has special meaning in MARNIE. Consider the scene where Marnie is called to Mark’s office to do some dictation. Thunder erupts, and Marnie trembles and almost loses consciousness out of extreme fear. It is then that Mark plants a kiss on her lips, and in her dazed mind, she is almost unaware of what happened. It’s like a subliminal kiss, and it presages what will happen later when Mark employs subliminal tricks to unlock the safe within Marnie’s mind that holds a terrible secret. One might almost say Mark uses a kind of ‘date rape drug’ to penetrate into Marnie’s subconscious, but then the field of psychology has long been closely associated with sex. And consider the term ‘mind-fuc*ing’. The mind can be fuc*ed to fool someone, but it can also be fuc*ed to force it to birth the hidden secret. Psychology and cinema, like psychology and sex, are natural partners. Cinema can feel like rape, seduction, love-making, humiliation, sado-masochism, spanking, titillation, orgasm, and etc. Of the film masters, perhaps the hypnotists are the greatest and most awesome. Directors like Fellini have been great showmen. They put on an impressive display, a circus of life, from which we find much laughter and pathos. Then, there are magician directors like Jean Cocteau, Ingmar Bergman, Sergei Eisenstein, and John Frankenheimer, at least with the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. They do wonderful, even brilliant, things, but we are generally aware of the tricks and wizardry. But the hypnotists don’t merely trick or impress our senses but draw our entire being into the medium until we are entranced by its aura. Think of UGETSU by Kenji Mizoguchi, VAMPYR by Carl Dreyer, THE SHINING by Stanley Kubrick. Hitchcock usually worked in the magician mode, but with VERTIGO he was one of the greatest hypnotists of cinema. To be sure, some artists at their very best — Orson Welles with MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and LADY FROM SHANGHAI and Emir Kusterica with TIME OF THE GYPSIES — seem able to juggle and blend just about every trick and spell in the book.)
Jewish use of psychology is no less sinister but has been subtler for Jews have been less enamored of the cult of beauty, if only because Jews have been rather lacking in that department. If most Jews looked like Czechs, Swedes, or Estonians, things might have been different. But too many Jews looked like Betty Friedan and Alan Dershowitz, and even the good-looking ones tended to be complimented as ‘not looking Jewish’, which really stung as an insult to their Jewishness, as if a Jew has to look ‘white’ to look good. It must be said it’s somewhat unfair since there are plenty of Semitic-looking Jews who are attractive, and indeed, some of the ugliest Jews happen to be pale-faced Ashkenazi Jews with a strange mix of European and Semitic blood. I mean take the ghastly Barbra Streisand who has blonde hair but has the face of the ugliest Jewess you can imagine. Sarah Jessica Parker is a more interesting case since she was rather pretty when she was young but got progressively more weird-looking until she looked like the lead singer for Twisted Sister. Even stranger is Ellen Barkin who was pretty in her young role in TENDER MERCIES but then got plainer and then downright ugly. Jews must go through a kind of odd metamorphosis as they grow. Maybe their non-Jewish looks appear first and then their Jewish looks take over. Philip Roth expressed such anxiety in PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT where the Jewish kid looks ‘normal’ like everyone else, but his nose progressively grows bigger and bigger as he grows into a man. Some Jewish looks resemble premature agedness. Woody Allen, even as a kid, sort of looked like an old man. Orson Welles once said that everyone begins to look sort of Jewish as they age. Maybe Jews, being an ancient scholarly people, favored those with the ‘old sage’ look, and those characteristics spread far and wide among them.
Anyway, since Jews couldn’t make too much of a fuss about their beauty, their study of psychology came to focus on inner drives than outward appearances, and that sort of gave Jews an edge in psychology. The insecure Jew Freud didn’t think too much of his physical self, so he concentrated on his inner drives and his throbbing pud. Carl Jung, who was robustly built, handsome, and sturdy, was very much into the connection between the mind and the totality of the body than just the genitalia. Though never pro-Nazi in any official sense, there were certain parallels between his ideas about myth and psychology and the Nazi view of the body and soul. For Jung, the ‘Aryan’ race couldn’t be understood apart from its beauty and nobility. Therefore, psychology should look into mythic connection between the psychology(which became as much a study of the racial-collective soul as the mind and instinct) and the race. (Indeed, it makes no sense to discuss the psychology of sexuality apart from its physiology since people are attracted to physical attributes in the mating game. After all, in PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT and Woody Allen movies, Jewish male sexuality cannot be understood apart from its sexual lust for ‘Aryan’-looking women. In the opening scene of STARDUST MEMORIES, Woody Allen’s character, who is stuck in a train compartment with big-nosed Jews, sees Sharon Stone in the adjacent train and wants to go there. But he’s excluded because he’s a Jew with Jewish looks. So, in a way, National Socialist sexual psychology made plenty of sense even if its means of dealing with racial-sexual issues was inhuman and crazy. Sexuality is about attraction to beauty, and if a race is more beautiful than other races[or has unique qualities of beauty lacking in other races], it will be desired by other races that may be less beautiful or different, and therefore, the beautiful/special race has a right to defend and preserve its own beauty and/or unique qualities. If indeed racial beauty doesn’t matter, why do so many Jewish men lust after ‘Aryan’ women? Why not go after black women or Bolivian Indian women if indeed all races the same and equally attractive? Anyway, if a bunch of Jewish men have children with ‘Aryan’ women, won’t the kids look less ‘Aryan’ and more Jewish? Wouldn’t that be a genetic attack on the very beauty that Jewish men crave? To be sure, some Jewish guys are real hunks, like the one Amy Chua married. It seems when it comes to love and mating, everyone is a Nazi to some extent. They are not only interested in sex as any woman can have sex with any man. Rather, they are interested in beauty and other attractive sexual qualities, and this leads to exclusion of whole bunch of men and women in the sexual marketplace in favor of the special superior man or woman of one’s desire. "Meine Muschi lehnt die Spermien von den meisten Männern als minderwertig und Untermenschen.") Though Freud was secretly just as much a race-ist as Jung — he was a Jewish supremacist — , Freud’s view of psychology was different for three reasons. (1) Though a secularist, his Jewish mind-set steeped in Hebraic tradition preferred the monomaniacal concept over any paganist pluralities. (2) As Jews were relatively scrawnier and ‘uglier’ than the ‘Aryans’, it would have been foolish for Jews to mythologize their own beauty(or lack thereof). (3) As Jews were a resented minority and as Freud was trying to win the respect of the gentile community, he had to emphasize that his psychology was NOT a Jewish science but a real science with universal implication and application. But whatever secretive agendas Freud might have harbored, his attitude did make for a more concentrated study of the human mind — though the kind of obsessions that Freud studied tended to be of a certain cultural milieu than of universal relevance. Indeed, it would be silly to suggest that Freudian psychology would make much sense if applied to wild-ass Negroes whose booties are more active than their brains.
Thus, under Jewish psychology, the study of the mind became divorced from the ideal of the body. In contrast, Carl Jung felt as one with the people around him in both body and soul.
Because Freud, being a member of the Jewish people who were physically/culturally distinct from the ‘Aryans’, couldn’t make the same claim, he went further to separate the mind from the body-as-a-whole, the race and the face. Surely, ‘Aryans’ and Jews were different sub-races of the Caucasian race, and they had different faces that could easily be distinguished from one another. But when it came to the genitalia, there was much in common between the Jew and the ‘Aryan’. Jewish puds didn’t have hooked noses, and ‘Aryan’ puds were not chiseled and angular with aquiline noses. Though different races had hardened and solidified differently when it came to facial bone structure, their genitalia remained almost primordial in their forms, though, of course, some races have bigger ones than others. Also, unlike facial bone-features, the genitalia, especially of the man, ranged from limp/flaccid to hard/firm depending on the mood and stimulation. It wasn’t molded and cast into specificity that came to mark racial differences. Purely in the realm of the genitalia, what did it matter if an ‘Aryan’ or a Jewish pud entered a pooter(or cooter as some would have it)? Because bodily forms other than the genitalia tended to differentiate the races(at least between ‘Aryans’ and Jews), Jews preferred abstract art and subversive art that undermined the specificity of forms. Not surprisingly, Lucian Freud, the grandson of Sigmund Freud, created paintings of fat, ugly, and formless people looking pretty gross. I suppose one could defend Freud’s painting as representing the full range of humanity, and indeed, why should art be only about the ‘best, brightest, noblest, and most beautiful’? If art is to wrestle with truth, then it has to come to terms with the fact that much of truth is ugly, dark, and disturbing. If all art must be about ideals of beauty and nobility, a work like CRIME AND PUNISHMENT or MULHOLLAND DR. shouldn’t be attempted. Even so, there seems to have been something willful about Lucian Freud’s wallowing in ugliness. It’s one thing to acknowledge and represent the less attractive elements of reality, but it’s something else to devote one’s entire life to exaggerating the ugly and putrid in the world. If Nazi Art couldn’t tolerate anything but the attractive, it’s as though Lucian Freud was single-mindedly fixated on the ugliest features of humanity. This is what I find off-putting about Michael Haneke as well. The problem is not his dark and pessimistic view of humanity, but his willful agenda of blocking out everything else about humanity that isn’t sordid or sociopathic, as if his vision is somehow ‘radically’ truer for its neo-puritan commitment of handling humanity as a disease.
Lucian Freud - Hippopotamus Woman 
In some ways, the problem of sexuality is the result of the ‘high’ being forced to deal with the ‘low’. According to traditional ideals, the high should think about the high. Since the human mind is in the realm of the ‘high’, it should think about beauty, nobility, spirituality, higher truth, God, virtue, and etc. And artists should create works about the greatness of God, the wonders of beauty, the righteousness of power, and the hope for transcendence. It’s like the rich like to live in the villas on hilltops with a grand view of things. They want to remain above the rabble with their stench, ugliness, ignorance, and disease. But the high cannot exist without the low. Everything high rose from the low. After all, even the Bible says man was made out of clay. And even the richest, best educated, and the most beautiful people through the ages knew they would grow old and wither and return to dust. Besides, they had to piss and shit everyday, so how ‘high’ was that? And they were created not through the mind — like Athena from the head of Zeus — but from the shellfish like genitalia of men and women, and childbirth was pretty gross like gooey stuff in a David Cronenberg film. Ideally, aristocrats wanted to live in their own blissful world, but they relied on the backbreaking labor of the peasants and the ‘dirty’ dealings of the merchants who took the harvests to market. So, the aristocracy was something of a moral fraud. It put on airs of being haute, fancy, and high-minded, but its elevated-ness depended on the toil in the soil by the masses. Also, despite the surfeit of highness, many aristocrats were retards, petty back-stabbers, and decadent pricks who were overly dressed in tutti-fruity fancy attire designed by fruitkins. Besides, responsible people cannot simply live in a world of happy narcissism, bliss, beauty, and etc. closed from the rest of the world. Such leads to decadence and softness, which is why the Heian court culture had to be wedded to the tough code of the samurai warrior in order for Japan to survive as a nation of both chrysanthemum and the sword. (Kurosawa’s HIGH AND LOW is an especially striking tale about how the ‘high’ world and the ‘low’ world are socially separate but nevertheless intertwined in business, crime, and law.) Aristocrats comprised the warrior caste in the West, and warriors who were excessively into fancy-pants stuff would lose the ardor and fervor necessary for fighting spirit. Furthermore, any warrior who’d seen battle knew how ugly and dirty it was. Aristocrats spoke of honor, virtue, valor, pride, and dignity, but the actual business of war was to gouge, impale, stab, mutilate, butcher, and destroy the enemy in huge numbers. In sports, despite all the stuff about sportsmanship, the players are out to win and really driven by bloodlust. It’s even truer of war. We speak of heroism and warrior virtues, but things get pretty hairy in war, and it’s just one big butchery that goes on and on. So, the aristocratic class couldn’t simply lose themselves in the world of the high. They had to tackle with the world of the low. [It’s like even the elite officers in DAS BOOT must share in the stench and filth in the U-Boat with the rest of the men.] Good officers couldn’t just treat foot soldiers as cattle. They had to lead and inspire the troops. And so, there developed a concept of noblesse oblige and esprit de corps.
The problem of bridging the high and low has been the stuff of religion and philosophy since mankind created civilization. Primitive folks needn’t care much about such matters because the richest savage and the poorest savage aren’t much apart in wealth and knowledge. But civilization created the privileged class and hierarchy of classes. So, the issue of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ became ever more problematic. The elites had to justify to the masses and to themselves why they should have the power. The anxiety of power/privilege — problems of the ‘high’ and ‘low’ — is reflected in the thoughts of ancient philosophers and prophets. There was Siddhartha who was born into the high world. Protected and cloistered in a bejeweled world by his father, Siddhartha thought the world was all about happiness, bliss, beauty, nobility, and even immortality. A kind of universal privilege for him and his companions in paradise. But when he walked outside the walls, he noticed all kinds of suffering of mankind, and once he ventured into nature, he noticed its chaos and cruelty of violence, death, and decay. He began to feel guilty for the beauty and bliss that he’d once known and enjoyed for himself. He came to see beauty and bliss as mere illusions. Worse, they were illusions made possible for the privileged classes isolated in their social bubble by the sweat-and-toil of the laboring masses. So, what was Siddhartha to do? His solution was profound or cowardly depending on whom you ask. He concluded that, just as his youthful paradise was just an illusion, the entire world is an illusion; indeed, even consciousness is an illusion, and therefore, the only hope of being freed of this illusion was through meditation for the attainment of Nirvana.
China had Confucius who wasn’t into religious/spiritual stuff, but he too thought long and hard about the problem of the high and low. He decided there is the good high and the good low. The good high are the scholars who are considerate, cultured, educated, knowledgeable, and imbued with fortune cookie wisdom. The good low are the peasants. They may not be educated and cultivated in manners, but they do honest work by tilling the soil and producing food. The bad high were the merchants and soldiers because merchants leeched off the peasants — or so Confucius, who never would have won a Nobel in economics, thought — and because soldiers used brute force than sage-like persuasion to impose and maintain order.
As for Jesus, the would-be God-man thought that the ‘high’ rich should give away all their wealth and be equally poor and ‘low’ with everyone else and favor spirituality over the needs of the flesh. He practiced what He preached as He was the Son of God who embraced poor people with disease and such, thereby bridging the high and the low.
Greeks took more of a logical approach to the problems of high and low. According to Plato, the state should conceive and manage a strict system of education that shall train young boys and girls from a young age toward well-rounded achievement in physical health and intellectual understanding. Unlike most philosophers around the world who remained rather vague or incomplete about what-is-to-be-done, Plato and some other Greeks detailed how the state should manage social order and its stratifications, and in that sense, their ideas served as the foundation of modern society’s emphasis on public education. Not surprisingly, it was the Greco-phile Germans of the 19th century who took such ideas closest to heart and mind. Christian education had been relatively vague about how to cultivate young people into good rulers and citizens as the knowledge of God could never be complete. In contrast, the humanist model of the Greeks didn’t hesitate to ponder what exactly must be done to make for a better order. On the matter of God, there were limits as to what could be thought, questioned, and discussed since God was ultimately unknowable and there were too many taboos around Him. But on issues pertaining to mankind, there was much greater freedom to look for solutions to problems. (It is, of course, no longer really the case since certain groups, especially Jews, Negroes, and homos, have been elevated to near deity-like status so that it’s become taboo to raise certain questions about Jewish power, homo perversion, or Negro savagery. In our so-called secular age, the suffering of certain peoples have been ‘sacralized’ to the point of holiness whereby free debate and discussion are virtually impossible in respectable or mainstream circles. In the case of the Holocaust, it’s somewhat understandable since its horror cannot be overestimated. But the fact that so much has been made of black problems when, in fact, the black experience in America hardly amounts to one of the great historical horrors suggests that the sacralization of a particular people has more to do with media hype and government/academic promotion than the tragic value of what may have happened. This fact becomes even more strikingly obvious with homosexuals. Homos got a lot of sympathy over the AIDS crisis, but, in truth, the epidemic spread in the homo community because too many fruitkins indulged in irresponsible fecal-penetrative behavior. And yet, the Jewish powers-that-be that control the academia, media, government, and courts have spread the dirty lie that homos who died of AIDS were simply hapless victims of ‘Reaganite indifference’. Isn’t it strange that homos who killed themselves by spreading HIV via excessive butt-fuc*ery have been elevated to the same pedestal with Jews and Negroes? In contrast, there’s precious little that is said or done about Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their own homeland and now eke out a living under Zionist imperialist occupation. So, ‘sacralization’ is all about politics and ‘who, whom’ than about which people really suffered nobly or more than others. The powerful decide which people are ‘sacrally’ deserving of sympathy and even worship. If powerful and rich Jews and homos say we should sympathize with eternally ‘powerless’ Jews and homos forever, many of us just grovel and do as commanded.)
There is no greater wonder in human achievement than science. Science has engaged the highest and the best of human intellect, but the paradox of science is that its highness is focused on the abject lowness of the world. Science has no use for ‘high’ concepts like God, beauty, nobility, honor, virtue, and etc. A science learns about humanity by cutting open the flesh, looking at the gooey stuff, sawing through bones, testing the bile and other chemicals, studying the tangle of veins, and studying the genitalia and other organs. There is a strict method to science but there is no ‘dignity’ to it. Even a king, a president, an aristocrat, and a bishop have to drop their pants and bend over for the finger of some doctor who wants to inspect their anuses. Even the queen has to spread her legs open for some gynecologist to examine her pooter.
Astrology is bogus but is filled with wonderful stories of gods and goddesses of the sky who shape our destinies. In contrast, science has proven that space is filled with dead rocks, dust particles, gases, and cold blackness. And there’s nothing special about ‘stars’. They are merely other suns farther away that will burn until they blow up real good or turn into a black hole. So, science brings together the high and the low. Science exists only because of the great tradition of civilization and the best of human intelligence. But in the end, science progresses not by waxing romantic and highfalutin about high ideas but by taking a cold look at the ‘low’ elements of reality. Chemistry reduces everything down to particles and atoms. Indeed, science tells us that everything is a kind of ‘low’. Even a king is just a man like you and me putting on grand airs. Even holy water is just H2O and has germs. And according to Freud and others, even so-called high-minded ideas are grounded in biological — especially sexual — instincts.
Stanley Kubrick was maybe the greatest film-maker on the relationship between the high and the low in films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, BARRY LYNDON, THE SHINING, and EYES WIDE SHUT. And one of the great mysteries of Vincent Van Gogh was how he managed to employ such a ‘low’ and ‘crude’ style to create works of such astounding power and, yes, beauty. THE STARRY NIGHT should be an ugly mess, and yet it is a sublime work of art. It looks both primitive/chaotic and poetic/beatific. It’s as if madness has been willed into music.
Indeed, it is interesting that perhaps the greatest and highest achievement of man — the understanding of his origins via Charles Darwin — associated mankind with ape-kind and ‘lower’ animal forms from which apes evolved. The advance of science reminds us that we are special and different from other animals that cannot think and reason like we can, and yet, the end-result of our exploration is that our DNA is 98% the same as that of chimpanzees. This is still something that troubles many people, especially on the religious right but also on the left. The Christian West used to be pro-science as the clergy was so sure that science would reveal the glory of God. Mankind would learn of God’s greatness as an architect, artist, creator, dreamer, and manager of the universe. There was a time in the West when religion, art, music, and science all seemed to be in alignment and agreement. Religion worshiped God, art celebrated His greatness, music sang hymns to His glory, and science explained the power of God that made the law and order of the universe possible. The Church even overcame the controversy about Earth revolving around the Sun, but the stuff about mankind having evolved from other life-forms was simply too much for many religious folks. But the left also has problems with the science of evolution because, if indeed mankind are animals, then they too must be affected by the forces of natural and social selection. If the elements of the religious right say that evolution never happened, many on the left say evolution ended for mankind just when all the races evolved to the point where they remained more or less same with another. This too is a problem of the high vs the low. For the left, there is no higher idea than the ‘equality of mankind’, a kind of paradox to be sure. So, when it turns out that Europeans have Neanderthal blood and that black Africans evolved toward a tendency to act like baboons, this is distressing stuff. Though the religious right is even more opposed to the full implications of evolution, the secular left poses a greater threat to the science of evolution since so many of them control the commanding heights of elite education and research.

The problem of high and low is further complicated because the more we try to clarify and purify a set of data or an idea, the less clear it becomes. It could be called the ‘murk-to-mist conundrum’. We see this in the evolution of religion. All religions began as low cults and myths. We might say Greco-Roman pagan mythology was ‘high’ whereas that of the Germanic barbarians were ‘low’, but Greek myths had once been ‘low’ before they were elevated by priests, ritualists, artists, and poets. It was over time that it developed into something worthy of high civilization. And in time, Germanic mythology might also have bloomed into something high, but the intrusion of Christianity put an end to such a possibility — though, to be sure, one could argue that German Romanticism of the 19th century revived and elevated Germanic mythology into the realm of high culture, but it was still as high art than as high religion. When we look at the genealogy of Greek mythology, the first gods were murky and primitive and stood for base lust, aggression, fear, and other crude emotions. They were like the power of nature, without particular forms, purposes, or meanings. But the early gods were overthrown by the Titans and then by the Olympians who stood for certain ideals recognizable to humans. So, Zeus wasn’t just some monstrous god but stood for patriarchy. He was the father figure. Hera was the mother figure.
Poseidon wasn’t just about the tumultuous power of the seas but about control of the seas, a kind of engineer who controlled the waves so men could sail and discover new lands. Ares stood for warrior might(though not in the best light). Apollo, as the sun god, came to represent order and reason. Demeter was the goddess of cereal and agriculture, so crucial to civilization. Aphrodite wasn’t just about beastly lust but about the allure of beauty, a higher concept. And so on. So, gods came to stood for certain ideals, and so the god went from murkiness to clarity. The power of the gods was no longer mysterious and threatening but more predictable and recognizable. A mother knew she had to pray to Hera. A farmer had to make an offering to Demeter. Each god had his or her field of specialization. It’s like if you want a horseshoe, you go to a blacksmith. If you need your tooth pulled out, you go to a dentist. Prior to civilization, there was no telling what was what. As so many tribes roved around like bandits, it was hard to pin down who owned what and for what purpose. Then, once civilization advanced, people and gods began to take on specific traits and meanings. But man is never content with mere clarity. He seeks higher clarity, and this is where things paradoxically went from clear to less clear despite the search for greater clarity and meaning. Initially, things give birth to ideas. But in time, ideas give birth to ideas. When ideas are attached to specific realities, we can clearly identify the link between the idea and the thing. But when ideas are attached to ideas, things get a bit misty.
This is the problem posed by Athena. Other than her, each of the Olympians are associated with something clear and unambiguous in the real world. Fathers exist, and Zeus is the father god. Mothers exist, and Hera is the mother god. Warriors exist, and Ares is the warrior god. Hunters exist, and Artemis is the hunter goddess. Love/lust exists, and Aphrodite is the goddess of love. Metallurgy exists, and Hephaestus is the god of fire and metalwork. What Apollo stands for is more abstract, but he still stands for ‘manly’ qualities of light, order, and reason. (Hermes might be seen as a slippery character, but he’s essentially the messenger god, and information is about facts and figures.) And all such gods and goddesses were born into existence by a kind of ‘natural process’. But Athena was sprung fully developed from the mind/head of Zeus. She is said to be beautiful but also warrior-like, attributes of masculinity. She represents arts & crafts and endeavors ranging from the masculine to the feminine. She also represents reason and wisdom. As a concept, she is the synthesis of various ideals being interwoven and harmonized into oneness. As she represents so many contradictory ideas, one might compare her to the Loki character in Germanic mythology. But whereas Loki, in embodying various traits and moving from various realms, represents deception, subversion, and trickery, Athena also represents truth and virtue. She is the most unstable of the gods because she is an higher ideal born of ideals. She doesn’t represent something specific in nature or civilization but rather man’s attempt to go beyond the categoric limitations of the world. If Greek mythology might have developed into a higher religion, it would have had to have been through her. As an idea born of an idea, she represents the highest ideal of divinity in Greek mythology, but an idea born of an idea can never be crystal clear because of the very abstractness of ideas. Without a link to something real and specific, ideas tend to drift to mysticism. (This is even true with political ideas, especially evident among French public intellectuals/philosophers who, though claiming to be committed to political causes, often became lost in the mysticism of thought by constructing their ideas about the world on other ideas about the world than on the empirical reports and data. Thus, French Maoism peddled by the likes of Louis Althusser had nothing to do with real Maoism in real China.) Furthermore, Athena wasn’t the most powerful god, and being a woman, it would have been problematic for any civilization to elevate a goddess to the highest status. Though Athens paid special tribute to her, even Athenians acknowledged Zeus and Apollo as number one and two in power. Also, the defeat of Athens at the hand of Sparta probably dealt an irreversible blow to the cult of Athena. Thus, in the historical view of things, the concept of Athena was stillborn though it had the possibility of being transformed into a higher religion that might have dominated the Western World in the stead of Christianity.
The murk-to-mist conundrum exists in the Jewish tradition as well. Surely, the proto-Jews were influenced by the low gods — their own and those of other tribes — that were murky and chaotic. But as Jews came into their own as a tribe and a cultural identity, their concept of God became clearer. He became the greatest of the gods, the number one God. And He was sufficiently man-like so that humans could understand Him. After all, the Bible says God created man in His image. (To be sure, maybe the Bible meant that only Adam was made in God's image, but since then humanity got uglier and funnier-looking via endless mutations and deformations. Or, maybe the 'image' of God refers to the aura around Adam than his actual physical features. Consider the light of the Moon. The 'light' of the moon is really the reflection of the rays of the sun. So, if we say moon shines in the ‘image’ of the sun, it could mean that the moon reflects the radiant aura of the Sun than actually looks like the Sun. So, maybe ‘image of God’ is a metaphor for God’s holy aura that was blessed upon Adam. Incidentally, the concept of Adam is strangely unnatural since he was created complete and all-grown[like Athena was ‘born’ fully grown, but then, she emerged with full wisdom whereas Adam was created with innocence]. Thus, in some ways, his story has an element of abstraction and conceptuality even beyond that of Jesus who was born as a baby like all other men. Adam, in contrast, had no childhood, thus no memory of childhood. He was created as a full-grown man with a full-functioning mind. But he was born without memory, especially no memory of childhood since he was never a child — it’s like the Replicants in BLADE RUNNER are created as fully functional adults but without memory of the past that they never had. So, in some ways, the very first man was the most complete man, the most ideal man — in some ways, even more than Jesus — , but he was bound to fail since, having no memory of experience, he couldn’t understand the meaning of right and wrong, good and bad. Indeed, how can anyone without lifelong memory of personal experience understand anything? Also, he couldn’t really learn much in Eden since time was suspended in a state of happy perfection. It’s when he and Eve are exiled from the Garden of Eden that he begins to live a real life and accumulate something like a memory of a life lived.) As long as God was somewhat manlike — or superman-like — , Jews could understand where He was coming from and what He wanted and why. So, initially, the concept of God among Jews was drawn from and representative of their real needs in the real world. God was the like the most powerful Prophet in the sky. He was an idea but an idea associated with concrete realities that Jews faced on a daily basis. But over time, a new idea of God grew out of the idea of God associated with reality. Like Athena, it was an idea born of an idea. (When Greeks developed a new spiritual idea, they simply birthed a new god from the existing gods. As Judaism was monotheistic, this wasn’t possible.) Since Jews came to believe that they must worship only one God — that their one God was the only true God, with all other gods being false — , they could not create a scenario of another god being born from their God — like Athena being ‘birthed’ from the mind of Zeus. So, Jews maintained the impossible idea that their God was the same God with the same truths despite the profound transformations in their conceptions of Him. Since Zeus could only be Zeus, a new inspiration had to be expressed through another god, or goddess, as in the form of Athena. But since there can only be one God in Jewish tradition, God could not create another god — though, if God is indeed all-powerful, I suppose He theoretically could create other gods or even a clone of Himself. This created a kind of tension within Judaism. If indeed there is only one God and if His truth is constant and ever-lasting, how could He be so different from book to book in the Bible? In Greek mythology, the changes in spiritual concepts, values, and cosmology are explained in terms of old gods being overthrown by new ones who give birth to new gods. And finally, Zeus birthed a goddess as a something closer to a pure idea. But if the Jewish God is the one and only God and He was always perfect and right, then how does one square the fact that He keeps changing throughout the Bible? To the extent that Jews have sought the unified and total truth in the form of the one and only God, one could argue that few peoples have been as immersed in the concept of truth. But to the extent that Jews maintained the myth of the constancy of God and His truth despite all evidence to the contrary, they turned out to be masterful liars. Indeed, one must settle for all sorts of lies and distortions to believe in the Bible as the Holy Book all the while pretending that God is perfect and constant in His truth. He certainly isn’t in the Bible. This mental habit lives on secular Jews today who insist that there has been one history of the Jews — that of holy persecution of their innocence at the hands of wicked and nasty ‘anti-Semites’ through the ages — when actual history tells us something quite different. But as long as public education and popular remembrance of history — repeated over and over in magazines, movies, and books controlled by Jews — stress the singularity of Jewish wonderfulness, innocence, and suffering through the ages, we are obligated to believe in Jews as a holy people, a perfect people, and the exceptional one-and-only Chosen people to whom the entire world must apologize, kneel before, worship, and beg forgiveness. Secular Jews didn’t so much abandon God as put themselves in His position. But then, the Holy Jew of Holocaustianity would not be possible without Christianity itself. If indeed Christianity had never existed and if pagan Europeans had attempted to wipe out the Jews, there never would have been anything like ‘white guilt’, which really is a variation of long tradition of Christianity in the West. So, it’s not so much that secular Jews are trying to be like the Old Testament God but rather that they’re modeling themselves on the New Testament God, the Messiah of Jesus Christ: Jew-sus died for OUR sins in the Holocaust — if Russians had any talent, they would spin a narrative where the 25 million Slavs who died in World War II would be worshiped as the people who sacrificed most to defeat the evil of Nazism. After all, Nazism wasn’t defeated by dying Jews but by dying Russians who killed as well as died as they fought their way to Berlin. (Though God in the Bible clearly changes from a rougher and cruder God to a more abstract and high-concept God, the Bible insists that God was always the same and always perfect and that we must accept God’s infallible perfection on faith. Similarly, even though Jewish history is filled with all sorts of events and narratives where were Jews were sometimes good and sometimes bad — and where Jews profoundly changed in terms of their social, cultural, and political outlooks — , Jews insist that they were always good, always perfect, always wonderful, and always the same; and we better believe it or else be attacked as ‘anti-Semitic’ blasphemers. Jews have a Yahweh personality even though so many have lost their faith in God.
Get down on your knees and worship the Perfect Jews!!!
It’s like the recent homomania business. Even though most people through most of human history always found homos to be ewwww — especially the Jews of tradition as the Bible clearly says that homosexuals are vile and disgusting — , the Jew run-media would have us believe that homos were always so wonderful, and all good people always were pro-homo throughout the ages when this is clearly BS, as even plenty of Liberals negatively depicted homosexuality in books, movies, and etc. Currently, Jews are especially problematic as they are supremely powerful but uneasily anxious in their roles as elites. When Wasps ruled, they really ruled as confident elites. They were comfortable being on top, and with the confidence that came with the power, they ruled as elites with some sense of responsibility, mutuality, and accountability. [Jews bitch about Wasp exclusion of Jews, but if Jews had founded America and laid down its foundations, does anyone think they would have been as generous as Wasps? Does anyone think Jewish elites would have allowed gentile groups to take power away from Jews? Just look at Jewish treatment of Palestinians and Christians in Israel. Indeed, what is most outrageous is how Jews have taken over the elite institutions of non-Jewish nations and turned them into exclusive zones of power that are open only to Jews and shabbos goyim who kiss Jews in the ass. Wasp way was, "Let’s keep it a white boys’ network, but let’s make some room for other people who don’t like us", but the Jewish way is "Let’s keep it a Jewish supremacist network, and let’s not allow anyone into the club who is even faintly critical of Jewish power." So, which group has been more exclusionary? Also, by making homomania a qualification of entering elite society, Jews have cleverly locked out of the halls of power/wealth/privilege anyone who’s associated with the real right. Though the homo agenda is thought to be a ‘civil rights’ issue unrelated to Jewish interests, it is used by Jews to separate the collaborationist shabbos goy wheat from the ‘rightist’ chaff that still believe in their racial/national interests. After all, most true right-wing white nationalist types tend to be opposed to nonsense like ‘gay marriage’.] But because Jewishness has become defined in terms of its opposition to the majority elites, Jews don’t know what to do when the old gentile elites have fallen and they themselves are the ruling elites over the majority population that is goyim. Also, as Jews rejected assimilation and entered the elite realm not by joining with the pre-existing elites but by displacing them with themselves and their children, the corollary effect is it’s more difficult for gentiles to assimilate into Jewish realms of power — and indeed, even those who do so through marriage just become ‘Jews’ and tend to set themselves apart from the rest of the population. If Jews had melded into the Wasp world, it would have been one thing. Instead, they pushed the wasp elites aside to make room for Jewish supremacist power. If Jews weren’t willing to meld with the wasp elites, what are the chances that they’ll be willing to allow the masses of gentiles to meld into Jewish power in any significant way and thus slowly dilute Jewishness? Also, if Jewishness has been defined and justified as an opposing force against the existing privileged elites, what are Jews to do when they are the most powerful elites and when there is no more goy elites for Jews to bitch about?
Jews are the masters of the Culture of Complaint and got to the top by complaining about the unjust power[of goy elites], but even as they’re perched at the top, they continue to bitch and complain about goyim who have far less power than they do; worse, they don’t allow goyim to practice the Culture of Complaint against Jews. It’s like Jews are for free speech[to attack goyim]by Jews but against free speech by goyim to challenge Jews; that’s called ‘hate speech’. Jews still bitch about how people like Richard Wagner were ‘antisemitic’ against Jews, but they refuse to realize that it always took two to tango. Sure, there were plenty of angry and even nasty antisemitic types through European history, but there were also plenty of Jews who were hateful, spiteful, nasty, and vicious. Jewish attitude toward goyim was worse than goy attitude toward Jews through most of history. Indeed, if Europe were 98% Jewish and 2% Christian, the latter would likely have been wiped out as blasphemers. Consider how Jews are only 2% of the American population, but so much of the nastiness, self-righteousness, censoriousness, viciousness, and obnoxiousness flows out of the Jewish community. Jews are both the pushiest and the touchiest. Of course, Jews still find ways to bitch about how the Koch Brothers are orchestrating some ‘fascist’ takeover of America, but really, it’s the Jews who really run this country, and it is they who should be held accountable to the rest of us since they hog most of the power. But can Jews be accountable as the Wasp elites who, at the very least, admitted that they were the elites, were confident in that position, and felt they were duty-bound to the nation as a whole? Instead, more often than not, we see elite Jews excusing and rationalizing their bad behavior and massive abuse of power by invoking how, decades ago, some Wasp golf club didn’t admit their grandfather or some such. Even as top dogs, Jews keep pointing to topper dogs that are no longer there but have been dethroned by the rise of the new toppermost Jewish elites. Can Jews rule as an elite that is honest about and accountable to their power? Or will Jewish elites continue to act like the scumbags of Goldman Sachs, Hollywood, big law firms, the movers-and-shakers behind the homo agenda, and destroyers of the Middle East via twisted US foreign policy? Will American Jews act like Russian Jews who looted nearly all of Russia in the 1990s without an ounce of remorse? Indeed, when we see American Jews passionately side with Russian-Jewish oligarches instead of thinking in terms of what is good for Russia as a whole, it’s time we realized that Jews, despite all their intelligence and talent, are unfit to rule over a gentile majority nation since they will forever cling to the self-righteous and tribally self-serving cult of powerlessness even though they’ve become the most powerful people in the world. Indeed, contrast a rich person who admits he’s rich and acts like a person of wealth WITH a rich person who, no matter how richer he becomes, still acts like he’s a poor person in need of alms and sympathy from others. No matter how rich and powerful Jews become, they will not admit to the full extent of their power nor live up to its responsibilities but instead just keep playing the vulnerable-and-wronged party eternally deserving of our sympathy and support. So, even though they use their awesome power to intimidate us into blindly obeying and serving them, they also have us fooled that WE are the powerful ones who are aiding poor helpless Jews from neo-Nazis and anti-Semites all around the world. As such, our sense of righteous pride has come to be predicated on our competition with other goyim around the world to show that we ‘serve and protect’ Jews better than any other people. Indeed, consider how American politicians, activists, and ‘thinkers’ bitch about how some other country in Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Middle East is so very ‘antisemitic’ and how ‘we’ are so much better because we are over-brimming with fulsome sympathy for the Jews. The psychology of American goyim is rather like that of dogs. Dogs blindly serve their masters but are led to ‘think’ that they themselves have the power and are protecting their helpless masters — who has the power of food, shelter, and life over them — from the ‘bad guys’. When the likes of Sarah Palin and Chris Christie bark in praise of Jews, Jewish elites laugh and watch the spectacle like a dog show.)
In a way, Jesus is like both a Athena figure and reverse-Athena figure in the Jewish tradition. Like Athena was born of the mind of Zeus, Jesus was born of the heart of God. And this is why Jews couldn’t accept His divinity. According to Jews, there can only be one God, so the idea of God producing another God seems absurd(indeed an offense worthy of death penalty). Indeed, even Christians theoretically have a problem with the idea of there being more than one God, and so they say the Son of God isn’t really a separate god — like Athena is from Zeus — but part of God manifest on Earth. But theoretic rationalization aside, Jesus was like a birth of a new God from an old God. In this, He is like Athena. And yet, He is also like reverse-Athena since He was born as a Man. In the case of the Greeks, gods were ideas modeled on mankind, and then a god(Zeus) as an idea gave birth to an higher idea. Thus, Athena is removed from mankind twice-over. In contrast, though Jesus was a God born of the God, He was born as a Man to live among mankind. So, He is reversed or returned to mankind. Also, if Athena is a high concept deity who represents the highest virtues and values — though she can be vain and petty at times — , Jesus bridged the high and the low as the God who went among the wretched of the earth. Athena’s ‘low’ qualities that are most humanlike — vanity, vengefulness, spite, and ruthlessness — lend her some humanlike qualities, but they do her no favor as a goddess because her lofty status and high ideals are exposed to imperfection. In contrast, though Jesus goes among the lower masses and sometimes becomes dirty and weary, He can be said to be perfect preaches He preaches sympathy & understanding and also practices what He preaches to the very end — though the Gospels do show Him as sometimes impatient with the dimwittedness of the Disciples, but then being an arrogant Jew, He probably couldn’t tolerate anyone who disagreed with Him; neither could Marx and Freud who insisted on disciples who never contradicted their great ‘truths’. The problem with finding perfect disciples is that blind followers tend not be of the best minds, and this may explain why Paul, who was NOT a Disciple, became the most inspired theorist, visionary, and proselytizer of the new Faith. Had he met Jesus in real life, Jesus would likely have told him to get lost for having too many ideas of his own instead of just following and obeying Him. Those closest to the sun become consumed by the light; those further away make of sunlight what they wish.
Anyway, it is the figure of Jesus that secular Jews aspire to in their cult of Holocaustianity, at least in the West. In Israel itself, Jews model themselves on Moses, Samson, King David, and King Solomon. They love flexing muscles, kicking the modern day Philistines(Palestinians), and acting tough. But if Jews brazenly acted like Samson in the West, goyim would come to see Jews as very powerful and brutal. So, in order for Jews to go on guilt-baiting white folks, they must put on the Jew-sus Holochrist act, indeed as if Jews died for the sins of white gentile goyim.
Elie Wiesel the Holocaustianist Weasel
Anyway, returning to the original point of this post, the American Right has come to associate the politics of victimology almost entirely with the Left and non-white groups. Some on the Right believe that the so-called ‘victim groups’ ought to wise up and stop whining about ‘past injustices’ and ‘historical crimes’, especially since all peoples have been alternately victorious and victimized. Also, victimization is circumstantial and specific, not eternal and permanent(and quasi-holy). There is no ‘race’ of forever-victims. It’s like if you were robbed on some summer night in 1995, it doesn’t mean you’re the victim of robbery for all time, as if you’re robbed day in and day out. Just because you were a rape victim in 1993, it doesn’t mean you’ve been rape victim every day since and will be forever. You were a victim on a specific day. You were victimized; you’re not being victimized forever. Also, 99.99% of victimization throughout history had more to do with the dynamics of power than issues of morality. If a cougar kills and devours a raccoon, it doesn’t mean the raccoon is better than the cougar. The raccoon too hunts and kills. It’s just that the cougar is stronger and ‘victimizes’ the raccoon. But if the raccoon were bigger and stronger, it would attack and eat the cougar. Indeed, raccoons are known to attack house cats for food.
Way of Nature
In the case of Jesus Christ and some Christian saints, they indeed chose victimization for moral reasons. But in most cases of defeat and victimization through history, it was simply a case of the stronger beating the weaker. This is why the victimization narrative so often falls apart as morality tales. We have a mental habit of affixing permanent victim-status to certain groups, but the politics of victimization always shifts depending on the configuration of power. We like to think of poor victimized Buddhists of Tibet, but few seem aware that Tibetans were very cruel to Christian missionaries and other minorities. Also, we heard of how the barbaric Taliban blew up Buddhist statues in Afghanistan in the late 1990s. We also heard of how Muslim oppression of Christians and non-Muslims in the Islamic world. There is a cottage industry — most among Conservatives but among Liberals too — that churns out horrific stories of those oppressive and repressive Muslims. But what about the cases in Southeast Asia where Buddhists have been brutally attacking Muslim minorities in places like Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand? Of course, Muslims look at stuff like this and try to reverse the equation where Muslims are the poor helpless victims of evil infidels. In truth, neither Muslims nor Buddhists are ‘eternal victims’. They are victims depending on the circumstances that surround them. So, Buddhists in Saudi Arabia could be persecuted by Muslims, and Muslims in Myanmar(aka Burma) have reasons to be nervous. It’s like the animal world. When we see a lion pride mauling a lion of rival pride, our heart goes out to the victim-lion. But if the situation were reversed, the other pride would be mauling a member of the enemy pride. Humans have been no different for most of human history, and people still act likewise all over the world. And even the advanced world could well be returning to such conditions with rising diversity and animosity stirred up by hideous Jews who are hellbent on ‘divide and rule’ strategy among goyim.

No less problematic in regards to victim-hood is the revolution in thought that happened with Judaism and Christianity. With Judaism, there arose the concept of the eternally favored and righteous people. A kind of moral supremacism of the Jews. This was different not just in degree but in depth from pagan view of the world. Ancient Greeks were arrogant and tended to see non-Greeks as barbarians, and they gave as well as they got. But with their many gods — none of whom was perfect — , Greeks didn’t feel that they were right about everything and right all the time. And not all the spiritual forces were on their side. Recall that according to myth, Athena promised Paris to lay waste all of Greece if he presented her with the Golden Apple. She sides with the Greeks only because Paris awarded the apple to Aphrodite. Thus, the Trojan War becomes not just a war between the Greeks and Trojans but a family feud among the gods(but without Richard Dawson to kiss all the goddesses). In the Trojan War, half the great gods were on the side of Trojans. And one of the most famous plays THE TROJAN WOMEN by Euripides sympathizes with the fallen Trojans.
In contrast, Jews with their one God decided that their God was perfect and always favored the Jews. It’s like the boybot David in A.I. who’s convinced that ‘mommy’ really loves him and that he must earn her love forever and ever by becoming a ‘real boy’. Jews came to conceptualize their spirituality into a single Deity who created and ruled over everything, and this Deity’s love belonged foremost to Jews. Of course, Jews could fall out of favor and be punished, but their Deity would never favor another people over the Jews. The Deity might disfavor the Jews if they did something wrong, but Jews would be given another chance to rectify their sinfulness so that they would regain the love of the one and only God. It’s like every child wants to believe that his or her parents are his or hers alone and belong to no other kids outside the family. The Bible says Jews were often sinful and had to be taught a lesson, but as long as Jews redeemed themselves, there was the hope of God delivering the Messiah who would lead to Jews to complete victory over the goyim. (Ironically and perversely enough, the ‘messiahs’ that finally handed the world to Jews on a silver platter were not even Jews but goyim: Adolf Hitler and MLK. Hitler set out to crush and destroy the Jews, but his horrible example undermined Western Christian and neo-pagan civilization and provided tremendous moral capital to the Jews. As for MLK, he became the icon for baiting ‘white guilt’, and Jews have recently elevated his cult higher than worship of Jesus. In America, you can have a successful career by bashing and mocking Jesus, but if you dare utter a negative word about MLK, you will be destroyed immediately. Though Jesus was a Jew, His spiritual apotheosis became associated with white European power and pride, and so, Jews have mixed feelings about Him as the renegade Jew — though Jews are somewhat coming to appreciate Him because church after church in what remains of Christendom is bowing down or bending over to the neo-temple of ‘rainbow homo ass-buggery’. With Christianity homo-ized, it will belong to the Jewish-Homo or Jomo Cabal that controls the new culture.) +David in A.I. never loses faith in ‘mommy’ and prays to the Blue Fairy forever and ever to be ‘redeemed’ into a ‘real boy’ so he can be worthy of ‘mommy’s love. In a scene where David meets another ‘David’, he grows all jealous, angry, and murderous and destroys the double. This is why Jews came to hate Christianity. Judaism said God, though the creator of everything and everyone, favored the Jews. Jews were His special and unique people, and the rest of mankind could only be blessed through Jews. But Christianity turned God into a ‘generic’ concept that could be adopted by gentiles. Gentiles could say God belonged to them as well for they too were the children of God. If anything, Christians said God belonged to them more than to the Jews because they accepted Jesus as the Messiah whereas the Jews killed Him. If Jews came up with eternal moral righteousness, Christians came up with eternal self-pitying victim-hood. If Jesus had simply been remembered as a man killed by Jews, he would have been seen as a tragic historical figure. But Christianity says He was the Son of God, which means Jews attempted to kill God Himself. Such grave sin could only be washed away by Jews repenting and converting to Christianity. Fair or unfair, such an idea was almost inevitable since Jews, in creating their one-and-only God, had killed off all the other gods. If Jews believed in many gods, and if Jesus had been seen as the son of one of the many gods, his killing wouldn’t have been so bad since there are other gods with their children. But since Jews conceptually murdered all the other gods, it meant there was only one true God left standing. Though in His manifestation-in-flesh Jesus was the Son of God and therefore separate from God, in His spiritual essence He was the one and the same with God. Thus, the idea that Jews tried to kill Jesus translates into the notion of Jews-tried-to-kill-God-Himself. Of course, from the Jewish viewpoint, this is absurd since they don’t regard Jesus as the Messiah, let alone the Son of God, but Christians live by a different theology.
Since World War II and the Holocaust, most Christians have decided to denounce the traditional Christian teaching(throughout the ages) as vile, offensive, deranged, crazy, and sick. (This capitulation to Jewish Power set the grounds for similar appeasement to the homosexual community. If Christians were willing to so suddenly reverse what had been a core tenet of Christianity for over a thousand, then why wouldn’t they do the same thing for other groups? The core dogma of Christianity says that Jesus died for the sins of mankind and that mankind’s salvation comes only through Jesus. An atheist like myself doesn’t have to believe in any of this, and I don’t care what Christians believe as long as there’s separation of Church and State, and I get to believe what I want to believe. But for Christianity to have any meaning, it must stick to its principles. As Jews don’t accept Jesus and reject Him as the Messiah, any true Christian should have the guts to say Jews will go to Hell... along with my atheist neo-pagan Priss-revering self. But Christians now say God loves Jews as much as He loves Christians. If that’s the case, what was the whole point of Jesus and His preaching? That would mean one doesn’t have to believe in Jesus to be saved and go to Heaven. If Jews can go to Heaven without believing in Jesus, than why not pagans and atheists as well? And if God according to New Christianity loves Jews, then He must love homos too, especially since Jews love homos. Modern Christians need not hate Jews, and I think it’s a good thing that today’s Christians are more tolerant and respectful of other religions, cultures, and faiths. That said, Christianity is meaningless unless it sticks to its core belief that says Jesus died for the sins of mankind and that mankind’s salvation is only through Him. Christians should be nice to non-Christians, but they need to stick to the core tenets of Christianity or else they are phony religionists. It’s like we expect Jews to treat non-Jews with respect, but Judaism is meaningless unless Jews believe that they are the racially-spiritually special chosen of God. Same goes for Buddhists. Buddhists believe that meat-eaters such as myself[though I’m not vile enough to eat pigs]will be reincarnated into lower animals as the result of karma. Whether meat-eaters find Buddhist beliefs offensive or not, it’s up to Buddhists to stick to their beliefs. If Buddhists really believe I will be reincarnated into a monkey or rat, they should stick to their guns... or lotus flowers. They should not change their beliefs just to avoid offending meat-eaters. Every creed, religion, ideology, or philosophy is bound to offend someone or some group. Liberal democracy is about the right to have offensive views as long as everyone respects the rights of others to have offensive views. To meat eaters, Buddhism might be offensive. To Jews, Christianity might be offensive. To Christianity, Judaism and Islam may be offensive. But as long as we respect the rights of others to have their own offensive views, what does it matter if we agree or disagree?
But Christians, in order to be on good terms with Jews after WWII, altered the core of their faith by newly positing that God-according-to-Christianity loves Jews as much He loves Christians. But once Christianity made that concession, it opened itself to further concessions to other groups out of fear of giving offense. But a religion that is afraid of giving offense is no religion at all. After all, if Jesus had been overly sensitive about giving offense, He would have shut up lest he offend Jews and Romans, and then there would have been no Christianity. Given the horror of the Holocaust, I can understand why many Christians felt compelled to purge Christianity of its anti-Jewish tradition. But blaming Christianity for the Holocaust is misleading because, after all, neo-pagan Nazis carried it out. Also, one could also argue that communism has moral roots in Christianity’s invective against money-grubbers and the wealthy. Since communism exterminated so many people in the name of ‘equality’, should Christianity-as-moral-precursor-of-Marxism be cautious about giving offense to the rich and privileged as well? Besides, even if one could make a valid case that Christianity led to the Holocaust, didn’t Christian culture of intolerance grow out of Jewish culture of intolerance? We can go on like this forever.) From a modern-rational viewpoint, Christian anti-Jewish-ness seems offensive, but from a religious viewpoint, special Christian guilt about ‘antisemitism’ seems selective, opportunistic, and disingenuous. After all, what about the pagan victims of Christianity? Why is the notion that there is only one God(and that all the other gods are false) any less ‘offensive’ than the notion that Jews are the murderers of God? Didn’t Christian monotheism serve as the justification for destroying pagan cultures and torturing/killing pagan peoples? And how is the notion that the one and only universal God favors the Jews over all other peoples any more rational than the notion of Jews being eternally responsible for the murder of Christ? Why don’t Lutherans apologize to all the pagans who were burned as witches? Why don’t Jews apologize to the descendants of Canaanites and Philistines for using religious justification to wage wars, commit genocide, and practice Judeo-imperialism? All religions are ‘crazy’ if you think about it, and the notion that Jews are eternally tainted with the killing of Jesus is no more ‘crazy’ than the notion of the Original Sin, the notion of Ham’s tribe being condemned because Ham saw Noah’s privates, the notion that the first born of Egyptians should die for punishment for Pharoah’s mistreatment of Jews, and etc. Besides, the Holocaust could be seen as the Revenge of the Neo-Pagans.
Even if we were to argue that Christian antisemitism paved the ground for mass killings under the Nazis, we could also argue that Christian egalitarianism informed the morality of communism that destroyed tens of millions of lives. Come to think of it, even Jesus’ economic theories are totally cuckoo-bananas from a rational viewpoint. Jesus didn’t merely tell people to give some stuff to the poor but to give away everything until they themselves were equally poor and had nothing left to give away.
Though I find the traditional Christian notion of Jewish guilt for the death of Christ distasteful and ugly, there’s nothing strange about religions being sort of ‘crazy’ — and when it comes to total craziness, the system of religions known as ‘Hinduism’ really takes the cake. And there must be plenty of ‘ugly’ things in Judaism; indeed, devout Jews have preached that goyim are inferior to Jews, that only Jews have genuine souls, and that Jews should rule over goyim as cattle whose main purpose is to serve Jews. Such an attitude, though literally believed only by religious Jews, is shared in sentiment even by secular Jews whose words and actions indicate boundless contempt, hatred, and disregard for the humanity of goyim. Jerry Springer isn’t a religious Jew, but just look at his attitude toward goyim as ‘trailer trash’. Of course, this is partly understandable since Jews are smarter, and smart people tend to look upon dumb people with derision and amusement. But good smart people try to do right by dumber people whereas bad smart people just try to exploit and degrade dumb people, and too many Jews have the mentalities of porn-meisters who see white women as pieces of meat to peddle on the filth market. Porn-meisters are essentially electronic-pimps. Another problem is that Jews are the most dualistic people of the modern age. Generally, some peoples in the past can more or less be categorized as ‘winners’, and some peoples can be categorized as ‘losers’. The Narrative associates certain white peoples, especially the Anglos, French, Germans, and Russians as the winners while associating most non-white peoples of the Third World as ‘losers’. In contrast, Jews are associated with both the greatest loser-horror-dom of the Holocaust and the greatest winner-honor-dom as the rulers of the globalist New World Order. (Though A.I., like any great movie, can be ‘read’ and interpreted in multiple ways, it’s worth considering its Jewishy aspects, especially as both Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg have been profoundly Jewish artists. Kubrick was especially odd in this regard since so much of his view of humanity was rooted in biology and brutality. This is why DR. STRANGELOVE is a strange film that goes well beyond anti-war and anti-military satire, which is how many liberals chose to see it at the time, i.e. they regarded it as FAIL SAFE with laughs. Though General Jack D. Ripper is clearly unhinged and dangerous, he’s also something of a visionary and prophet in the way that others in the government/military are not. Indeed, he is all the more dangerous because he’s partially in tune with the truth. He’s like John Milius’s characterization of Colonel Kurtz as a visionary-shaman in APOCALYPSE NOW. True, he does something totally crazy by igniting WWIII, and his theories about fluoride and communist conspiracies are far-fetched, but his overriding obsession wasn’t much out of line with what fascinated Kubrick all his life: the connection between biology, psychology, and worldly power. At the core of his psyche, Ripper isn’t a narrow ideologue but a visionary-philosopher who connects the brains with the stomach with the groin. He’s obsessed about manhood, the sex drive, virility, fighting spirit, and etc. He is ape as well as prophet. We may mock him for this, but in a way, Kubrick also felt this way about the nature of humanity. We are all ape-prophets at our core. Though we like to pretend to be idealistic, rationalistic, and etc, we are motivated and moved by animal instincts and prophetic inspiration. [Like Ripper wants to take over the military, Jack Torrance of THE SHINING wants to be the ‘caretaker’ of the Overlook Hotel who, in his own fashion, wants to take over the hotel. He is both servant and maverick-rebel of the outfit.] Of late, many feminists have embraced their ‘inner-slut’ and take pride in fuc*ing around and ‘bagging’ many guys. They see it as liberation and empowerment and oh-so-progressive. Of course, some degree of loosening of social mores can be enlightening, liberating, and progressive, but, as shown in Alfred Hitchcock’s THE BIRDS, it’s also playing with the Pandora’s Box of animal nature within us that can easily fly out-of-control. Also, sex isn’t merely about love and sharing but about competing, excluding, hating, despising, hurting, and being hurt. Indeed, there’s usually more social equality with repression of sexuality than with the flaunting of it. With clothes on, women are more equal to one another since the size of their boobs and butts are hidden. And among clothed men, one cannot tell who has bigger muscles and bigger puds/balls. Sexuality isn’t about loving everyone but choosing someone that turns you on the most. Most women who are sexually ‘liberated’ will not choose the likes of Beavis and Butthead, Elephant Boy, Crackhead Bob, or Hank the Angry Dwarf. In the sexual competition, flat-chested and homely faced ‘wallflowers’ will lose out to ‘bodacious’ babes. Sexual passion and desire weren’t, aren’t, and never will be about equal sharing of love for everyone. Jesus was for the spiritual loving all of mankind and womankind, but the animal instinct of sex revolves around competition, rivalry, and exclusion. A man who gets a woman to marry him wants her to exclude all other men from her life, and vice versa. Even among Liberals, marriages often end in divorce if a spouse has a fling with someone else. No matter what people tell themselves, they get awful jealous when it comes to sexuality since the very nature of sexuality is highly selective and competitive. Since humans — especially civilized humans — have a heightened sense of beauty, they are even more competitive than other peoples. Chimpanzees will stick their penises into just about any female chimp, and primitive folks judge a woman’s worth by how many gophers she can club to death for supper before offering up her lice-ridden beaver for the night. But among civilized folks, beauty and/or bodacious-ness is what turns a man on, and men will compete one another for top women. Of course, they won’t generally kill one another for it, but they work like crazy, try to make more money, try to look better, and try to say cooler things to win the war of the ‘boing’. The competition is so fierce that some men even accuse women of ‘temptation cruelty’. Would it be cruel to take a piece of meat and hold it over a starving man or dog? Even if the man or dog knows he or it should control himself or itself, the sight and smell of that piece of meat will just to be too much, and he or it will salivate like crazy and will even try to snatch it away and eat it greedily. Whether such action is right or wrong, we can understand their voraciousness when being tempted in such manner. We can agree it’s cruel to tempt a man or dog that way. In a similar sense, it may be cruel to tempt a man with too much sluttiness. When women dress and act all slutty but then expect ‘boing’-ish horny men to just regard them as dignified women, they don’t know much about human nature. Consider the episode of BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD where Beavis accuses a woman in a courtroom of driving him crazy by giving him a stiffy. As ridiculous as it sounds, there’s a kernel of truth to Mike Judge’s joke. Camille Paglia understands this because, being a lesbian, she looks at women with the wolfish eyes of men. So, Kubrick was actually far more ambivalent about the ‘politics’ of DR. STRANGELOVE than most liberal audiences who just it as a satire on right-wing paranoia. Though Kubrick agreed with the political aspect of the film that mocked the militarist right as crackpots, he was fascinated by the connections among animal nature, human nature, human values, human aspirations, and human delusions. While we don’t want to be ruled by men like General Jack D. Ripper — or General Turgidson or Major Kong for that matter — , their beastly side reveals something deeper and truer about our nature. It’s telling that Kubrick’s two major themes were war and love. LOLITA, BARRY LYNDON, and EYES WIDE SHUT are very romantic, and yet, the emotions of love in them are very competitive, possessive, paranoid, power-obsessed, fearful, and dangerous. In BARRY LYNDON, the adventures beings over a duel over love. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY began with animal grunts of ape-men, and the final word of EYES WIDE SHUT, a film set among the rich and cultured of the present, is ‘fuck’. Bill Harford — Tom Cruise — , for all his education, cultivation, sophistication, and professionalism, gets wildly jealous and paranoid about his wife’s sexual fantasies. Despite his cool rational exterior, his sexual subconscious[programmed by millions of years of evolution] keeps driving him crazy. Actually crazier than animals since humans have a sense of pride and propriety. While male animals compete ruthlessly for ‘land and pussy’, the losers accept their loserdom, take flight, and that’s that. But because civilized men are not supposed to act beastly and because they are not supposed to show their disappointment when they lose, their anger and anxieties are repressed and turn into a complex that aggravates them in their dreams and fantasies. The way ‘progressives’ make it sound, there’s nothing easier and more natural than love. And yet, most men don’t just want any pussy, and most women don’t want just dick. This is especially true in our celebrity-centered pop culture age where so many young people grow up worshiping the strongest athletes, studliest rock/rap stars, drooling over the hottest movie and TV stars, and/or slobbering at porn. And in places like Japan, kids from a young age grow up with idealized images of long-legged western-looking beauties in comic books, videogames, and cartoons. So, everyone wants the ‘very best’. And with less social pressure on young people to get married, settle down, and have kids, individuals want to be forever young and forever happy[or forever searching for ideal happiness]. So, love/lust ain’t easy. Even within the hook-up culture, it isn’t like everyone is putting out to everyone. There’s a system of hierarchy and exclusion that determines whose dicks enter whose pooters. And when some people feel ‘unfairly’ excluded, like Elliot Rodgers, it can lead to anger and bloodshed. They’ve been told from a young age that everyone is beautiful and love is what makes the world go around, but such expectations are bound to produce cognitive dissonance and disappointment since everyone is not beautiful and since love/lust is essentially exclusive. Rodgers asked why girls hated him so much. Of course, there were plenty of girls who would have liked him, but the problem was he hated them as ugly hags. He wanted to be liked by the gorgeous babes who, in reality, might have look upon him in the way that he looked upon ugly girls. Most forms of love isn’t Jesus-like. Most people don’t want to embrace the wretched of the earth. Even when they do, they are only pretending to be ‘caring’ through hip and attractive intermediaries who make ‘loving’ into a kind of fashionable enterprise. Consider Somaly Mam, the Cambodian sensation who claimed to have escaped from sexual slavery and was tirelessly working to free other Cambodian girls from the sex-slavers. She turned out to be a fraud, but many rich, good-looking, and narcissistic Westerners lavished praise on her because it was easier to hug a well-dressed and perfume-scented attractive woman than the genuine wretched of the earth who are ugly, smelly, and gross-looking. So, even when it comes to compassionate-love, most people don’t want to get too close with most people, especially of the Third World who don’t shower too often. But when it comes to sexual lust and romantic love, democracy never enters into the picture. Indeed, lust would be boring if one felt the same about any person. Lust gains power because some people are most luscious than others. Similarly, romance gains meaning through a possessiveness that can be near-pathological. Consider Bella’s mad fixation on Edward. And Edward is cuckoo for Bella too. But then, so is Jacob. Since both guys can’t have her, one of them has to bow out, and things get complicated. Of course, romantic love can turn into a kind of higher love of the other, even to the point where his/her happiness becomes more important than one’s own. So, in ECLIPSE, Edward tells Jacob that if Bella wants to be with Jacob, he would let her go for the sake of her happiness. And Jacob eventually learns to accept that Bella really wants to be with Edward, and if that makes her happy, he should be okay with that since loving her means wanting her to be happy. It’s like Robert De Niro’s character in MIDNIGHT RUN finally comes to terms with the fact that his wife married another man. She’s happy with the new guy, so if he, the De Niro character, really loves her, he should let her go and stop hoping that they’re gonna end up together again. Another problem in Kubrick films for liberals is the sense of the imbalance of power. ‘Progressives’ like to believe that we can and should be moving toward a more equal society where every individual is both free and equal with others, but even many liberals, if they’re honest, know this is a pipedream. For one thing, the power of intelligence, creativity, and boldness aren’t equally distributed in the minds, hearts, muscles, and genitals of mankind/womankind. And this doesn’t merely apply to individuals but to entire groups, with Ashkenazi Jews being smarter than other groups and with certain groups of Negroes being stronger than everyone else. So, despite all the ideals that flowed out from the Age of Reason or Enlightenment and despite all the stuff about War on Poverty and various causes and policies for greater equality and liberty, the world will never conform to the liberal hope of ‘equality’ — and, of course, honest Liberals know this and only pretend to otherwise. Indeed, equality and liberty usually undermine one another as many have observed. People have to be forced to be equal, thus undermining liberty. Even when people are equally free, the variances in natural talent will lead to inequalities. Consider how Eastern European Jews arrived with so little but now command the elite institutions of America. In contrast, many blacks who gained complete liberty in the 60s made things worse for themselves by using their freedom to run wild and holler like apes. Liberty, after all, means freedom to succeed and freedom to fail. And even if everyone were to ascribe to libertarian individualism, tribalism will rear its head again since the highly successful will come to notice that so many of them are Jews, whereas the spectacularly unsuccessful will be all-too-aware that so many of them are black. Over time, a kind of Jewish-centric mentality will develop among the rich Jews, and a kind of black-centric mentality will develop among underclass Negroes. In fact, we can see this in playgrounds. All kids are provided with the same freedom and means, but some kids are socially more successful and attract the more ‘popular’ kinds of kids as playmates whereas some kids will be ignored by most boys and girls. So, there’s a kind of counter-humanist streak in the films of Kubrick. In PATHS OF GLORY, we may sympathize with the soldiers condemned to face the firing squad and we may admire the principled heroism of the Kirk Douglas character, but the wicked sly general — Adolphe Menjou — really steals the show. Right or wrong, he understands the true nature of power. He has the wit and cunning to manipulate those around him, and it’s such people who gain the most power in any system, AND THEY ALWAYS WILL regardless of the ideology. In the end, power isn’t so much about principles as about the play. Does anyone think all those politicians signed onto ‘gay marriage’ out of principles or genuine change of heart? No, they know which way the wind blows and on which side the bread is buttered. They know that Jews control America and have chosen homos as their main allies. If you wanna be anything in America, you have be on the good side of Jews who control the elite institutions and have the power to make or break anyone. In DR. STRANGELOVE, the eponymous character steals the show and is the real ‘black hero’ of the film. Alex and the politician come to an understanding in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE at the end. They, wink wink, understand the game. Anyone who thinks power works according to principles is a fool. This isn’t to say that having principles is wrong but that power has its own logic, and even principles are twisted and manipulated to serve power. No individual can really be free and independent since he’s only a piece in the puzzle that is power. Most people are insignificant pawns. But even powerful individuals have their limits because, no matter how much they employ their authority, intelligence, cunning, vision, ingenuity, expertise, and imagination to control everything, they cannot foresee every development, let alone all the accidents. After all, NASA spaceships blew up in space even after undergoing the most careful inspections. And who can forget the Obamacare rollout? And even if the men of power were to create the perfect system, there are still forces outside the system that can wreak havoc. It’s like everything was going well with the project in the opening scene of GRAVITY before, out of the blue, shards of an exploded spaceship bombarded the American space station. Even if mankind builds a perfect spaceship that will never fail and never break down, it can still be blown to smithereens by an asteroid. In THE KILLING, the robbery of the race-track is nearly perfectly orchestrated. But the shooter of the horse is upended by a discarded horse-shoe. A bunch of guys end up dead because one of the co-conspirators spilled the beans to his wife. And finally, the loot ends up blowing in the wind because a dog ran in front of a cart lugging the cargo. So, any system and plan, even when nailed down to the finest detail by the best and the brightest, can be upended by missed imperfections within and surprise-elements without. Both the Vietnam War and Great Society were planned and managed by the ‘best and the brightest but ended as disasters. Of course, during the 1950s and 1960s, the greatest fear was nuclear conflict, especially as US and USSR became locked in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Though both systems seemed to depend on their respective ‘best and the brightest’ to control and oversee the arsenal, there was no telling what might happen due to some ‘accident’, ‘misunderstanding’, and complication. In DR. STRANGELOVE, the mad general’s plan is thwarted, but the world blows up anyway because of a glitch in the system. Even the smartest people fail to spot the defect in the system — consider K-19 by Kathryn Bigelow — , and even the most perfect system can be destroyed by forces outside the system. Or, the rational can be undermined by the ‘animal’. But then, the natural can be undermined by the conceptual. So often throughout history, many civilizations declined or dissipated due to the conceit that something that suppresses or severely distorts the natural is more civilized on the premise that the natural = animal/beastly whereas conceptual = sophistication/elevated. But the Christian and Muslim repression of the sexual caused many problems, and the Confucian suppression of the physical/athletic among its elites made them sickly and vapid. But then, Negrophiles fall for the other fallacy that the natural is automatically liberating, indeed as if humanity will rise to ever greater heights if every dude acts like trashy rappers and every woman twerks her ass like some gorillian black-ass ho. What sets Kubrick’s films apart from most is the ever-present sense of higher powers and outer powers, the presence of which is a cause of constant anxiety. In most narratives, we focus on individuals taking action in well-defined worlds. It’s about individuals and individuals or individuals vs individuals within a well-defined set and setting that serves as useful background. But in Kubrick films, there is the pervasive sense of ‘higher powers’ embedded in the setting that are equal in centrality as the characters, and this lends a ‘spiritual’ element to his films. It was most obviously felt in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and THE SHINING where indeed higher powers exist as beneficent extraterrestrial intelligence or malicious supernatural ghosts in every corner of screen-space. But even in films without space aliens or ghosts, Kubrick’s characters are or come to feel surrounded by mysterious, dark, or cryptic forces way beyond the characters’ access and/or understanding. And though forces are sometimes embodied or manifested in particular figures, one senses that even if the figures were to die or be killed, the essence of that power would still remain somewhere in their world and manifested through something else. If indeed ‘creation’ and evolution of everything is a matter of power and survival, then everything, conscious or unconscious, had a strategy of dominance; and of course, the being with the highest form of strategy for power is the human, and among humans the highest player is the Ashkenazi Jew. [It’s been duly noted that Kubrick was an avid, even obsessive, chess player, but I wonder if he was a billiard fan as well because billiard has a lot to do with strategy. For one, as in chess, the nature of the game changes with every move because balls are knocked about all over the table. Sometimes, players hit the ball to hit another ball into a hole. Sometimes, a ball has to hit another ball that hits another ball. There are direct and indirect relations in billiard. Sometimes, a player hits the ball to change the configuration on the table just to make things more difficult for the other player. And there’s always the danger of shooting the 8 ball into a hole, which is like the moment in DR. STRANGELOVE where the world blows up. Game over. Ziegler — played by Sydney Pollack — knocks a few balls around when he invites Bill Harford near the end in EYES WIDE SHUT, and it’s a telling moment because, in order to ‘get’ to Bill and send a strong message, he’s had to hit a few balls around — especially the big goons who stalk him — to scare Harford. We are all like balls on some grand billiard table. As Jews own the cue sticks, they get to strew the balls of power in such arrangements that favor their plays and disfavors the plays of their rivals and enemies. There’s much to be learned from using billiard as a metaphor for the strategy of power.] Though James Mason’s character finally kills Quilty in LOLITA, he’s no closer to the truth as to why what happened really happened. Why was it that an erudite and clever man such as himself ruined his life over some young tart? The mystery is within one’s nature as well as without. In the simplest animalist sense, one could say ‘boing’ was the reason. He has the hots for the girl because he’s an animal inside. But why that girl? Why a young female? And why risk everything for her? It’s animal, yes, but something more. Lolita was his dream, his muse, his poetry, his religion. But which Lolita? The actual person or the ‘Lolita’ he created in his own fantasy. He turned a tart into a nymphet-goddess. It’s like Scottie turned the tramp Judy into ‘Madeleine’, the woman of his dreams in VERTIGO. This is where the element of myth comes in. While Freud and Beavis might have been right about the animal ‘boing’ factor, the true power of sexuality derives from how people interweave it with myth, and this is where Carl Jung was closer to the truth. EYES WIDE SHUT isn’t just about ‘boing’ but about the power of fantasy emanating from ‘boing’, a kind of imagination that inspires Bill Harford to see some hooker as the savior-angel who sacrificed her own life out of her unconditional love for him. [Indeed, there’s a shade of this even with the first hooker he met for the night. She seems to take a shine on him and be especially nice. And when he decided not to go through with it, she declined the money and took it only because he insisted. So, what could have been a night with a hooker turned into a night with a kindly angel-like ‘comfortress’.] Freud merely alluded to myths to use as metaphor, but Jung believed myths had power in their own right. It’s like how the bodily-fluid-biological system fuels a myth factory in the hearts and minds of the characters in ERASERHEAD and MULHOLLAND DR. And the element of myth is central to A.I., the work of both Kubrick and Spielberg. There’s a key scene when David and Gigolo Joe makes a request to Dr. Know, an electronic encyclopedia program that David and Gigolo Joe take to be a genuine wise-man. They ask for Dr. Know to combine ‘flat facts’ and ‘fairytales’. On the surface, we may laugh at David and Joe as naive clods as, after all, who in his right mind would combine facts with their opposite, fairytales. And yet, we would be laughing at our own expense since so much of history, civilization, creeds, values, and ideals that we hold dear are a combination of facts and fantasies. Take the myth of Jesus Christ. He probably really existed, but He is revered as the fantastic Son of God by billions around the world. Muslims live in a world of many facts but they also believe in Muhammad as the final Prophet. Modern secular Jews know that Israel isn’t really some literally holy land. It’s just a piece of territory in the Middle East. But even secular Jews are emotionally committed to the idea of the Return. Many people know of the real MLK who was a lousy punk, but they can’t help but worship him as some great saint. All nations are both facts and artificial constructs. All nations really exist geographically and geologically, but their borders, names, and narratives are defined according to a mythic summarization of the past. Every secular value is, to some extent, a fairytale. Take ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’. More diversity means less equality, but ‘progressives’ need to believe in the pair as a marriage made in heaven. Also, equality and diversity cause intellectual problems for those who champion evolution, a process accepted by most Liberals. But equality is anti-conducive of evolution. If equality is so wonderful, single-celled organisms should never have evolved into something higher since the arrival of something higher implies inequality and even ‘superiority’. Why did intelligent creatures gain so much more power on land than in water? Because water is the great equalizer. It’s difficult to move around in thick viscous water, so most creatures have to be streamlined like fish. So, with the exception of few creatures like octopus that has tentacles, most sea-creatures are shaped like fish — from dumb barracudas to highly intelligent dolphins. Without limbs, there isn’t much intelligent animals can do to further their creativity. Dolphins would be able to do so much more if they were land creatures with limbs. But all they can do is swim around like dumb sharks even though dolphins are a lot smarter. Also, one can’t use fire in water, so even if humans had gills and lived under water, they would never have the use of fire, and without fire, mankind would hardly have a decisive advantage against other creatures. Also, due to the viscosity of water, it’d be difficult to use stuff like arrows and spears. Imagine tossing a spear underwater. Thus, water is the great equalizer. Oceans have diversity of life, but most creatures are pretty similar in design — to swim fast, and that’s about it. To be sure, there are crabs and lobsters, but they gotta hide most of the time since other creatures will just devour them. Another problem of the watery world is that every part of the ocean is accessible. It’s like most sea creatures can both coast/crawl on the surface and ‘fly’ to the surface of the water. To be sure, many sea creatures are only suited for certain kinds of climates. Tropical fish aren’t going to survive in cold water. Even so, there’s far more movement among sea creatures than among land creatures — including birds. So, it’s more difficult for a bunch of sea creatures to be isolated from other sea creatures. But so much of evolution works through separation and isolation. If the only land mass were sub-Saharan Africa, the only kinds of humans that would have evolved would have been wild-ass Negroes. All humans would have lived in a hot savannah or jungle conditions and competed with baboons, gorillas, chimpanzees, elephants, lions, hyenas, leopards, cape buffalos, cobras, warthogs, hippos, rhinos, and etc. They would have been busy chucking spears at dangerous animals and getting gored in the ass by an onyx. So, why did different races and different species of animals arise? Because there were other land masses and continents that were separated by mountains, rivers, oceans, deserts, and etc. There would have been less diversity of humankind if all humans had to live in hot sub-Saharan Africa teeming with big nasty animals brimming with hate-filled rage at jive-ass Negroes chucking spears at them. Indeed, even before mankind and ape-kind evolved, monkeys evolved thanks to trees. The great thing about trees is that they separated monkey-kind from other creatures. An aquatic monkey would have had no such advantage underwater. If a sea monkey climbs an underwater sea tree to get away from a big-ass barracuda, the barracuda will just swim higher and devour the monkey. Water neutralizes the power of gravity. But as gravity plays a big role on land, a monkey high up in the tree would have been safe from big lions and hyenas below. So, monkeys evolved by separating themselves from other animals. Before there was white flight from the wild Negroes, there was monkey-flight up to the tree from lions and hyenas. So, evolution works through separation and isolation. If there had been no trees, proto-monkeys would have been stuck on the ground and would have been eaten. Or they might have evolved into gopher-like creatures whose main thing is to dig underground and hide. But because trees existed, monkeys could climb high and become adept with using their paws that eventually turned into fingered hands. Those with better grasp of branches had better chance of survival, so the monkey’s fingers became longer and more skillful. Eventually, the monkeys became apes and then proto-men and spent more time on the ground, but it was because of the trees that they’d developed elongated fingers to begin with. With skills of the hand, the simian-kind developed tools that gave them an extra-advantage in the game of survival. But the Negro could only go so far since Africa was too dry and too filled with dangerous wild animals that were all around. It was separation and isolation away from sub-Saharan Africa that led to the evolution of more intelligent and more creative humankind — though not more creative in the area of funky and rhythmic music. And it was separation and isolation that also led to huge profusion of diversity in plants and animals. Would Australia have had its Marsupials if Australia had been adjoined to other continents? Would the giant tortoise of the Galapagos Islands have survived if not for the isolation that kept away pigs and rats that feed on reptile eggs? Would the brown bear, the toucan, the llama, and white race have evolved if the only land mass was sub-Saharan continent that was hot, dry, filled with lions and hippos and nasty Negroes? Water is the great equalizer in the seas, and hotness & jungle-jiveness was the great equalizer in sub-Saharan Africa that prevented the black race from evolving to higher forms of humanness. Though sub-Saharan Africa gave birth to tremendous amounts of life — even the ape that became the proto-man — , the very profusion of life may have inhibited and suppressed the rise of a truly dominant form of life. Though Negroes are infinitely more intelligent than lions and elephants, they were surrounded by too many dangerous animals to ever have a chance to develop cooler heads that might produce something other than ugabuga spear-chucking forms of aggression and bongo-drum-beating jigger-jiverish forms of expression. The great contradiction of Liberalism is it calls for equality and diversity when diversity wouldn’t have arisen if everything had been forced to be equal in form or power throughout the history of evolution. Also, diversity is the product of division. What Liberals are really calling for is ‘convergity’ where all diverse peoples are brought together to mix and turn into a mongrelized mestizo-mulatto lump of human-ness. Of course, even isolated land masses have their diversities, but there are complementary diversities that developed over time, and invasive diversities that threaten to undermine the ecological balance of existing diversities. For example, a certain forest might have deers and wolves and cougars and bears. Over time, they’ve learned to co-exist and co-compete and each species have developed an ecological niche in the system. But suppose one introduces a lot of hyenas and hippos into the park. Hyenas and hippos may very well upset the balance since they might attack and devour too many animals and foul up the waters. In some forest, wild pigs might be part of the ecological balance as there are also animals that hunt and eat them. But if you introduce pigs to a forest without predators, the pigs will devour everything and upset the existing diversity. Negroes are like this. Introduce lots of Negroes into any community, and the environment turns into something worse than planet of the apes. I would live in the simian world in THE PLANET OF THE APES than in Detroit or Nigeria. So, even if diversity has its advantages, people need to differentiate complementary and/or ecological diversity with invasive/destructive diversity. Not all diversities are equal. Consider what happened to the Galapagos Island when rats were introduced. It’s like Jews are perfectly fine in Israel doing their Jewish thing, but if you were to release Jews into Slavic nations, Jews will soon take over everything and turn the natives into economic, cultural, and social slaves. Look what happened to America ever since Jews were released to run wild and free and take over all the institutions. They’ve turned Americans onto homo-latreia and homo-ipakoi: homo-worship and homo-obedience. When Bill Clinton, a stooge of Jews, told a graduating college class that US will be majority non-white in a generation or two, all those brainwashed white idiots — converted to racial suicide by Jewish control of academia and media — applauded like lunatics. It’s as if the hideous Jewish rats gnawed away the survival instincts of the white race. White race has lost its gut instinct and bows down to the butt instink of homos. Anyway, if Liberals love equality so much, they should hope for the scenario in WATERWORLD where nearly all of Earth is underwater. As water is the great equalizer, there’s more or less an equality of power among the diversity of animals. It’s a world where even the smart dolphin isn’t all that more advantaged than the dumb shark. Under water, what can one do but swim and eat or be eaten? On land, however, various creatures have more means to create their own worlds apart from those of others. Monkeys have their places atop trees, and non-blacks used to have their own worlds apart from African hyenas and Negroes in Sub-Saharan Africa. And that was the key to not only evolution but advancement of higher kinds of power. This is also true in classroom. Suppose we put all the kids in the same classroom. Smart kids, dumb kids, nice kids, bully kids. Under such conditions, as nice/smart kids will be under constant threat from big nasty bullies, their main objective would be just to survive and not get beat up. It’s like Howard Stern wrote in PRIVATE PARTS that when his school was integrated, his main dream — yes, he had a dream too — was being left alone by nasty Negroes by moving to another neighborhood. This is why there are honors programs and advanced classes in high schools. You want to isolate the smart and creative kids from the dummies and give them time and space to work at a higher level of intellectual development. This is why elite colleges don’t accept just everyone. Just look what happened to the City Colleges of New York when they went oceanic and opened the floodgates of wildass low IQ Negro-dom, Puerto-Rican-dom, dumb-‘Polack’-dom, and ‘speak no English’ immigrant-dom. Sadly, smart and nice kids raised in privileged bubbles are fed with PC propaganda about ‘gentle giant’ mountain-sized Negroes who love little mice like the character in GREEN MILE. Even though they’ve been blessed in being shielded from most wild-ass Negroes who be so nasty and bullying, they’ve also been made to feel sympathy for Negroes as a people who’ve long been oppressed by the mythical KKK that still supposedly stalks every neighborhood in America. White conservatives are happy to see nice smart white and Jewish kids go to nice schools and be shielded from nasty Negroes, but those smart white and Jewish kids are taught by their professors to blame white Conservatives for the ‘oppression’ of the Negroes. Because nice smart white and Jewish students are protected from wild-ass Negroes and are shown warm-glowing images of Negroes via MLK cult — or hip and flashy images of Negroes via rap music — , they become like deer-in-the-headlights when it comes to the true nature of the Negro. It’s like animals that long existed in a place without humans and other predators have no understanding of how dangerous humans and predators can be to them. Anyway, evolution works not to make a species or a race like all the others but to make it different and unique from the others to improve its chances of survival. Indeed, cultures too evolved this way. When sea creature began to crawl on land, they were making themselves unique and special apart from sea creatures. They were on the way to becoming land creatures. And when Jews came up with their idea of God, they were differentiating themselves from other cultures. They were saying that their God is the only God and has a special love for them, the Jews. The very idea of Jewishness would never have arisen if Jews simply wanted to be like everyone else. All Jews would have converted to ancient forms of paganism or, later, to Islam or Christianity. But Jews insisted on their specialness and uniqueness, and this is why Jews became so smart. [In a way, this ‘orthodox’ insistence on Jewish specialness may also have made Jews more powerful and paranoid in personality. As Jews lived alongside many other kinds of people, they would have come under great pressure to ‘racially’ mix with other peoples and cultures. And of course, many Jews did assimilate into other cultures and no longer became Jews. It could be that such Jews who joined with other races/cultures were more easy-going, tolerant, and friendly. Over time, Jews with more open and friendlier personalities would have become non-Jews through assimilation, and the Jewish gene pool would have carried on with those most fervently and fanatically committed to preserving Jewish purity. Thus, over time, Jewish genetics would have become more paranoid, more tribal, and more strong-willed. After all, suppose there’s a happy friendly Jewish guy and a suspicious/anxious Jewish guy. And suppose there’s a pretty Babylonian girl. The friendly Jew might feel like Bill Clinton and figure she’s mighty purty, and so, he might say, "the hell with Jewishness" and why not just go with the Babe-lonian? The anxious/suspicious/judgmental Jew might also feel the ‘boing’, but something in his personality might sound the alarm bell and warn him, "SUPPRESS YOUR LUST FOR FILTHY SHIKSE AND MARRY A JEWISH GIRL!!" Thus, the Bill-Clinton-like-Jew, or the good ole boy Jew, will share his genes with another race and be lost to the Jewish race, whereas the Pat-Buchanan-like Jew would have felt it a sacred duty to go with a Jewish girl. Indeed, even though Jews developed into a very moralistic people, much of their morality is centered around tribalism and blood. A ‘good Jew’ isn’t merely a good person with generic virtues but someone committed to Jewishness in spirit and blood. Thus, the core conscience of Jewishness has long been far more tribal and blood-oriented than that of peoples who’d long been immersed in universal creeds. Thus, Jewish morality isn’t simply about right-and-wrong but what-is-right-for-us. To a Jew, even a wrong can be right if it’s right for Jewish power and interests, and Jews feel no remorse about having violated universal laws to do what is right for themselves. Thus, Jews could forge ties with Apartheid South Africa and with the ANC to play both sides to get ‘what is good for Jews’. So, did this process make Jews ultra-conservative? At their core, yes. But as Jewish economic life depended on trade and finance with other cultures and tribes, Jews couldn’t be tribalist in an ‘isolationist’ way. They also had to develop a ‘liberal-like’ personality that was capable of interacting with other peoples. Thus, Jewish personality is a strange fusion of the most ‘conservative’ and the most ‘liberal’ qualities. Its conservative at the core but liberal at the surface, but then, the liberal surface is ultimately to serve the conservative core. It’s like a bee colony has all sorts of bees on the outside interacting with the world, but their ultimate goal is to steal the sweet gold of flowers and stash them in the hive to feed the queen. Act liberally on the outside to feed the conservative core. White liberals use whiteness to serve liberalism, but Jewish liberalism use liberalism to serve Jewishness. That is the crucial difference.] Insisting on their survival as Jews racially and culturally, they took on tasks/professions and learning that emphasized special sets of skills. One of the conflicts of modernity is this uneasy dichotomy between specialness/particularity and universality/‘genericity’. So much of modernity points to specialness in advanced science, advanced arts, advanced knowledge, advanced wit, advanced sports, etc. Modernity is obsessed with excellence, of going way beyond the average and mere utility. Apple says ‘Think Different’. And yet, there’s also the emphasis on ‘we are the world’, we are all one, we are all brothers and sisters, we are all equal or we should all be equal, we are all the same under the skin, and etc. We have so many high IQ people in elite colleges who differentiate themselves from the rest of us dummies but then preach to us dummies about universality and equality. We have Jews who take great pride in their uniqueness, particularity, and specialness — indeed they act to ensure greater Jewish power, wealth, privilege, and influence — but then tell us that the essence of Jewishness is espousing universal values, equality, and justice. If Jews really believe in being one with all of mankind, why don’t they drop their Jewish identity and interests? I suppose Jews could argue that they need to remain specially intelligent and talented since they can use those qualities for the good of mankind. But then, Jews insist that ‘race is just a myth’ and that we are all equal in talent and there are no group differences among races and ethnic groups. Zionist-Liberals like Jared Diamond try to have it both ways. Jews rail against the particularism of the German National Socialists, but Jews themselves are fanatically particularist. This aspect of Jewishness is reflected in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. When humans round up the robots for destruction at the Flesh Fair, the robots are presented like Jewish victims of the Holocaust. The humans, like the National Socialists, insist on their specialness, uniqueness, and superiority. They don’t want what is human to be turned into a commodity that can be controlled by corporations. What is human must be particular to humans, the mobs in the stands insist. Robots have no right to be recognized for having human qualities since they’re just machines and pose a threat to human sovereignty and individuality. [The irony, of course, is that most of the people in A.I. seem to be no less programmed than the robots, indeed, in some ways, more so. Rich people seem to be programmed by cold and heartless codes of status-consciousness, and the crude mobs at the fair seem to be driven by vulgar passion that can easily be harnessed and directed via bread-and-circus manipulation. David and Gigolo Joe seem more both more human than human and more robot than robot because, unlike other robots, they are far more advanced and complex. In some ways, they seem more intelligent than humans. Because they are almost human but not human, they are more aware of the tension between their artificiality and humanness. If we define humanness in terms of richness of intellectual and/or emotional friction, then Gigolo Joe has thought more about existence than most humans have, and David has felt more about what it means to be a child than a real child has. Earlier models of robots cannot think beyond basic programming. And humans are snugly and even glibly content with their humanity, therefore they have no reason to think much. Joe and David have been made almost human but they are not human. Thus, they are faced with an existential crisis. They feel compelled to think or feel things that other robots and humans have no way or reason to worry about. Of course, Gigolo Joe wasn’t programmed to think about his existence, but he’s too smart not to notice his odd position in the world vis-a-vis the humans. And David was meant to love than to feel sorrow and pain, but he’s confronted with ‘tragic’ emotions because Monica violated protocols: she abandoned him in the wild.] And yet, David, a very advanced robot, feels great fear and pleads for his life at the Flesh Fair. The audience mistakes him for a real boy, a riot ensues, and David is able to escape with Gigolo Joe. In that scene, David is like a persecuted Jewish boy of the Holocaust era. But later, when he confronts another David in a building in Manhattan, he feels very much like the humans at the Flesh Fair. He feels he is special, he is unique, he is the one who will eventually win back the love of ‘mommy’. David, in a fit of rage more excessive than that of the crowd at the Flesh Fair, demolishes and ‘murders’ the other ‘David’. David doesn’t want what is unique to himself to be genericized and commoditized even though he himself was created as a commodity. In a way, what David feels is like what Jews felt when Judaism was genericized and universalized into Christianity. The Jewish God had belonged to the Jews alone. The Covenant had been between God and the Jews. God may punish or banish the Jews for their failings, but there remained the hope and faith that Jews would eventually regain God’s love and trust and be allowed to return to their homeland or motherland that is Israel. But then, the Romans who demolished Jerusalem eventually converted to Christianity, and the God of the Jews became genericized for all mankind. The new covenant through Jesus Christ made it possible for all people to be the chosen of God. Christianity not only said Jews were no longer special in their holiness but that Jews were special in their sinfulness for they’d killed the Son of God and refused to convert to Christianity. This led to a crisis of faith among some Jews who really wondered if Jews were indeed the ONLY chosen children of God or mere the first of a kind — the first testing model[like David] before the rest of humanity could also be chosen. The scientist in A.I. assures David that he is indeed special and unique... as the first of his kind. David is The First but not The Only. So, are the Jews the ONLY people of God or merely the FIRST people of God to be followed by other peoples who were also dear and precious in God’s eyes? A lot of Christians like to say "God is love", but it is difficult for Jews to share in the sentiment since their God is a ‘jealous God’ and Jews themselves are a jealous people, not least in their jealous love of God. If Jews considered God to be first and foremost love, then they would have joined with Christians and Muslims and assimilated. But Jews remained separate because they’ve clung to the myth that God especially loved them — like David carries on with the myth that ‘mommy’ will eventually love him and only him forever and forever; it’s like Jack Torrance in THE SHINING wants to be with the Overlook Hotel forever and ever and ever. Christians can love all other Christians as the equal children of God, but Jews can only look upon gentiles as people to rule over and control. Jews don’t see God’s love as being equally available to everyone. They see God’s love as meant for them only. Thus blessed by God, they hope to gain the power and supremacy over mankind and then maybe feel some affection for dimwit goyim as their sheep. But Jews never want to acknowledge gentiles as spiritual, intellectual, or moral equals. Though secular Jews don’t believe in this in the literal sense, they feel it emotionally because their personality is shaped by their vile and virulent DNA. This is why goyim need to be careful about feeling too much love for Jews. It will go unreciprocated. Consider Teddy the toy bear in A.I. It loyally remained by David’s side through thick and thin through everything. He sat next to David under the sea for all those 1000s of years. Yet, when the time came for David to fall asleep next to ‘mommy’ and fade from the world, he didn’t think twice about leaving Teddy behind all alone. Though David felt some affection for Teddy, his true love for was for ‘mommy’, and everything Teddy did for him didn’t matter one iota. Similarly, though you may love Jews, Jews will, at best, feel slight affection for you and nothing more. In the end, Jews really only care about themselves and their spiritual sense of specialness, whether in relation to God or their heritage/identity. No matter how much Teddy cared for David, David leaves him for ‘mommy’, just like Monica — the ‘mommy’ — abandoned David in favor of her own son. Love is thus exclusive and an enclosed emotional system. And it can be very violent out of jealousy or frustration against those who threaten one’s vision of love. The woman that Gigolo Joe finds murdered was actually loved by her husband. It was a crime of passion. He couldn’t stand to have his wife fooling around with something like negrobots — though Joe is not a black robot, there are racial undertones to his sexual prowess. He even makes ‘real men’ passe to women who’ve undergone his lovemaking skills. Go Mech and you don’t go back. And though Monica and her hubby seem cruel in abandoning David, they were motivated primarily out of love for their own son whom they got back after years and years of despair; they are not about to risk losing him again. As David later prays that he could be reunited with ‘mommy’ and freezes under the ocean, Monica had been praying for years to have her real son wake from his hibernation. So, whatever she feels for David, it cannot compare with what she feels for her real kid, her own flesh and blood. And even though Professor Hobby is so happy that David made his way ‘back home’ to the company, David’s return still isn’t the return of his real son who’s dead and lost forever and can never be reclaimed. [One may ask why David’s memory can’t just be erased and reprogrammed to love someone else. Why must he be destroyed? Though the scientist asks David to wait while he assembles his team to meet him, surely David must be destroyed since he will forever love only Monica as ‘mommy’. While the team may have a nice talk with David, they will eventually have to fool David and ‘kill’ him since David will be severely depressed unless he is with ‘mommy’. He’s useless. It’s like the future beings decide to put him to sleep since his mind is forever fixated only on ‘mommy’ and can never think or hope for anything else. So, why did the scientist create David to be like this? How come David — and future ‘Davids’ — can only be programmed to love one person? On a subconscious level, is the scientist angry at his real son who died and left him? Consciously, he must know that it wasn’t the son’s fault. The son probably died of some disease or accident. He was a victim of circumstances. And the scientist dearly loves and grieves over his lost son. And yet, subconsciously, maybe he feels betrayed by his son who left this world for the next. A breach of fealty. But the robot David is a hardy machine whose devotion to his ‘parent’ can never be broken, indeed even when the ‘parent’ disposes of him, as David was by Monica. It is an unconditional love for the ‘parent’. David could never betray Monica in the way that Professor Hobby’s son ‘betrayed’ his father and left him for the netherworld. If David could be re-programmed to love any number of new ‘parents’, there would be no deep loyalty, especially at the robo-subconscious level. So, each David robot must love and forever love only one ‘parent’ and still love that one-and-only parent on the day of its eventual destruction. It’s like in some cultures, all the subjects were required to die with the king.] Of course, in a way, David did make his way back to his ‘real mother’ for it was Hobby and his team who created him. But as David has been programmed to be attached eternally to the person on whom he imprinted, he still feels that his real home is with ‘mommy’. In a way, this applies to all of us. All humans came from Africa, yet, most peoples around the world don’t see Africa as their homeland. Jews see their homeland as Israel, Chinese see it as China, Russians see it as Russia, Greeks see it as Greece. Despite the fact that they existed as humans long before the rise of their civilizations, their sense of origins is embedded culturally with much later developments. Cultural imprinting works that way. Though we now rationally know that we all began in sub-Saharan Africa, only blacks see that part of the world as their true homeland. British don’t see Africa as their homeland. Finns don’t and neither do the Japanese. Their narratives of origins have been imprinted on their national territories. Also, just as David cannot accept ‘David’ whose existence threatens his own uniqueness and specialness, Jews cannot accept Palestinians as fellow Semites. Jews had to expel and exclude the great majority of Palestinians in order to re-create Palestine into Israel, the home of the Jews. The profound Jewish love for the Holy Land, their father/mother-land, has brought out the brutal side of their nature, but this could be said of any people. It’s natural for people to fight for their blood and soil. The only reason why blood-and-soil nature has been weakened in the West is because Jews have used their immense power to shame and enslave the minds of white folks into hating themselves and finding redemption only through the approval of Jews and Negroes — and now, even homos. People are programmed by both nature and society. Though we have natural tendencies, society can program us against such tendencies or it can re-program and manipulate the natural tendencies to be channeled toward certain ‘productive ends’. It can suppress certain urges or tendencies, or it can direct & guide such drives and desires toward ‘positive’ outlets. So, some people might say the aggressive side of males should be suppressed and boys ought to be taught to repress their animal nature. But others might say that aggression among males is natural and should be channeled through sports, music, or social competition according to agreed-upon rules. So, there are two layers of programming: the natural programming written in the DNA and the social programming that shapes our thoughts, feelings, and behavior through a series of carrots-and-sticks and trial-and-error. Programming tends to make us feel, think, behave, and act in certain ways ‘automatically’ without thought and reflection. The power of programming is such that it renders the conceit of rationalism — where most of us would be guided by reason and reflection — almost useless. Of course, most people are capable of reason and reflection at certain moments of their lives, but the programming usually directs their behavior, often unawares. Consider the scene in ROCKY II in the hospital near the beginning when Rocky asks Apollo Creed if he’d given him the best. In that moment, Apollo isn’t about his ego or vanity or pride. He’s just lying in bed tired and drained. And he’s able to give Rocky a straight answer: that he did give his best. So, there are times when even the loud-mouthed punkass Creed is capable of thought and reflection. But once back in the real world, the natural Negro programming returns and makes him act all loud-and-brash again. Though he’s capable of being rational and reflective, he cannot help but surrender to his genetic programming that turns him into a big-mouthed Negro who’s howling like an angry gorilla. The advanced robots in A.I. are similar. Gigolo Joe, an advanced model, is a rather thoughtful robot. At one point, he gives David a sophisticated interpretation as to why humans hate robots. Obviously, that bit of knowledge wasn’t programmed into Gigolo Joe who was designed and programmed to serve as a lover-robot. And yet, Gigolo Joe is smart and observant enough to figure out how humans think and feel and why. Like the Hal computer, he is more than his programming. He has developed a kind of independence and individuality of thought. He can even philosophize. And yet, for all his intelligence and thoughtfulness — and even something that approaches reflectiveness — , he remains a slave to his programming. Whenever someone mentions a woman, he flies into a song-and-dance routine about how he knows all about how to pleasure them. When David says he’s looking for the Blue Fairy, a female figure, Joe’s first instinct is to go to Rouge City since it’s full of women. And once at Rouge City, the mere sight of a woman makes him want to go off with her even though he’s there to help David find the Blue Fairy. So, despite his power of reason and purpose, his programming constantly makes him act the gigolo. Gigolotics is part of his robotic ‘DNA’, something that no amount of his independence of thought can undo or erase. Teddy is similarly a rather wise and kindly doll. For a ‘old’ and ‘dumb’ outdated toy, it is surprisingly perceptive and thoughtful. And yet, it too has been programmed to attach itself to its owner, and as David is his new owner, he cannot escape that part of programming. And David in Manhattan — where the lions weep — rationally discovers that he’s not unique; he realizes he’s just the first of the kind. And yet, despite all this, when he sees a statue of the Blue Fairy under the water, his programming takes over and he wants to pray to her forever if need be to be turned into a real boy so he can be with ‘mommy’ again. There’s something about the power of love and/or attachment that bypasses our rationality, responsibility, or sense of duty. Because religious people love God, they remain faithful to what’s written in the Bible even though their rational mind and modern education convincingly tell them otherwise. Because the big lug in FAREWELL MY LOVELY loves the woman — Charlotte Rampling — so much, he overlooks all the clues and hints that make it clear as day that she’s a no-good whore. Though ROMEO & JULIET is a tragedy about the positive redemptive power of love, it could just as easily be a negative tale of the bondage of love. After all, what if a Jewish woman fell so deeply in love with a Nazi guy that she was willing to forgo her Jewish duty of resisting the Nazis? Indeed, Hannah Arendt has often been attacked for her deep infatuation — intellectual and presumably even romantic — with Martin Heidegger, indeed even to the point of coming to his defense even though he clearly had harbored pro-Nazi sentiments. And what would we say about an American intelligence officer who betrayed his country out of romantic love of some Soviet agent? Bella and Edward in TWILIGHT betray what it means to be human and what it means to vampire out of their love for one another. Nothing/no one is as dangerous as when we become smitten with it/him-or-her. Once it becomes an obsession, we become blind to all the other considerations — rational, responsible, and/or sensible — that argue against its or his/her favor. Indeed, consider how crazy American foreign policy has become ever since Americans became mindlessly smitten with Jews as the perfect tragic-noble-and-saintly people. We are willing to do ANYTHING for the Jews regardless of all evidence that argues otherwise. We live in a world of flat facts, but our programming makes us wish for fairytales and fantasies. [Or our programming makes us surrender to base instincts for food, lust, or childishness. Obese people rationally know they should eat less and exercise more, and they do have moments of clarity when they understand the gravity of their situation health-wise. But when they see a giant cake or a bucket of fried chicken, they just surrender to their programming and eat like pigs. Humans are also programmed to seek social approval. So, even though they do have lucid and rational moments when they know they’re cravenly caving under social pressure out of fear of disapproval, they go back to acting the same because their programming is more powerful than their power of reason and potential actualization of truth. It’s like Gigolo Joe is capable of rational understanding and even deep insight into the affairs of mankind and robots, but , all said and done, he can’t help slipping back into the mode of male hustler since he’s been programmed to serve the ladies. In films like LOLITA, DR. STRANGELOVE, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, THE SHINING, and EYES WIDE SHUT, we are left wondering how much of the actions are driven by programming — genetic, social, or technological — or by free will with the possibility of thinking and acting beyond the programming. How much was Hal acting according to programming and how much was it acting out of its own will? But couldn’t one argue that even ‘free will’ is a kind of programming? If a sentient being is programmed to think/act with free will, is it driven by free will or by programming of ‘free will’?] Every ideal, vision, value, desire, longing, or agenda is characterized by something both unreal and fantastic, which is why we so often rely on magical, shamanic, and talismanic use of words, images, and sounds to fool ourselves that it’s all part of something holy, sacred, transcendent, redeeming, and/or wonderful. Even a movie as brutal as SCHINDLER’S LIST is a blend of flat facts and fairytales. Indeed, all movies, no matter how harrowing, are fairytales since they’re fantastic re-creations by writers, directors, producers, actors, special effects crew, and etc. And they are presented on the big screen for people to suspend their disbelief and absorb as more-real-than-real spectacles. But that aside, every film distorts the truth to serve some agenda, whether it be consciously or unconsciously. A film like EXODUS recounts and combines some historical facts with the propagandistic myth of new Israel as homeland for Jews, whose acts of terrorism are justified because the cause is seen as holy and necessary. It’s like THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS for the Jews, though of course, Jews later bitched about how Palestinians resorted to terrorism against Jews. And of course, the US news media, controlled by Jews, ran with the narrative: Jews as law-abiding citizens of Israel attacked and killed by brutal Palestinian terrorists. It goes to show that the news are also a blend of flat facts and fairytales. But then, even our love of art and entertainment is packed with self-deception. The relation between art/entertainment and morality has always been problematic because we so often summon/invoke morality to justify our voyeuristic indulgence in fantasy. Art and entertainment offer fantasies of desire, power, lust, vanity, and etc, but we fear the free outflow of such fantasies as amoral or even immoral and dangerous. So, we indulge in the fantasies but then pretend to be morally condemning them. In many Cecil B. De Mille movies, the hedonistic celebrations of the pagans are the main attraction, but then we pretend that ‘wicked stuff’ is being rolled out to be vanquished by righteous folks. Good guys play the role of party-poopers but only after the party has run its full course. This is also why Bernado Bertolucci’s THE CONFORMIST cannot be taken seriously as a morality tale. It’s essentially a fantastic fascist fashion show that luxuriates in beauty and decadence — rather like Luchino Visconti’s THE DAMNED — and unconvincingly pretends to deliver some message about the dark seduction of power. But even when the art/entertainment is more sincerely engaged with issues of goodness and morality, there’s often the fantasy that the good guys finally win and prevail when, in fact, most of history is not about the good winning but the smart-and-cunning winning and calling their victory ‘good’.)

Anyway, the Christian revolution in thought brought forth the idea of eternal damnation and eternal victim-hood. According to Christianity, if you’re sinful and don’t find salvation through Jesus, you shall burn in Hell forever and ever. As for the righteous and redeemed, they shall bask in the holiness of God forever and ever. Though these ideas mainly applied to afterlife, they also colored the Christian outlook of the real world. So, Christians, in association with the murdered Jesus and martyred Saints, felt themselves to be holy forever. And ever replaying the story of death of their Lord at the hands of Romans & Jews and His triumph over them through Resurrection over and over every Easter — which is why Google Jewish boys hate Easter — , Christians felt themselves as the eternal victims holy forever. So, even when Christians gained the power and were bashing and oppressing others, they sanctimoniously saw themselves as the saintly agents of God and Jesus. Since Jesus was victimized — and since His victimization was central to Christianity — , even when a Christian victimized others, he felt himself to be the victim in association with the memory of Jesus. (It’s like blacks identify so much with their past victim-hood that even their present violence is seen in terms of victim-hood resisting ‘racist’ oppression.) So, if a powerful Christian punched a weak pagan/heathen in the face, he felt that his holy fist was victimized by the sinful face of the wicked pagan. Those who are so wrapped up in their own righteous victim-hood are blind to their own acts of victimization against other groups. Whenever Christians bashed the Jews, heathens, pagans, and heretics, they rationalized the violence as righteous counter-measure against pagans/heathens/Jews who’d tormented and murdered Jesus. Never mind that the killing of Jesus happened long time ago. Never mind that the pagans of the present weren’t like the pagans of the past. Never mind that the Jews of today weren’t around when Jews did play a role in the killing of Jesus. And never mind that even when Jesus was killed, there were many Jews who knew nothing about it or took no part in it. Having so closely associated themselves with Jesus as the ultimate victim, Christians became blind to their own violence against non-Christians and ‘heretical’ Christians of other sects. (Paradoxically in some ways, Jesus’s pacifism inspired His worshipers to become even bigger bullies. As Jesus refused to fight back and died at the hands of the meanies, His followers were bound to feel some degree of guilt for having failed to fight for Him and protect Him from harm. Of course, Jesus wanted it that way and preached non-violence to His followers, but subconsciously there must have been some degree of shame among His Disciples who’d done nothing to save Him. Worshipers of Jesus through the ages would have felt likewise. On the one hand, Jesus was to be revered for His non-violence, His dying for mankind, and forgiveness of His enemies. On the other hand, His helplessness before the meanies made Him an object of great pity and sympathy. His torture and death makes His worshipers wish that they’d been there to intervene and beat up Jews/Romans and save Jesus from harm, especially because Jesus refused to save His own life. It’s like the scene in WITNESS where Harrison Ford’s character looks at townies mocking the Amish and gets spitting mad. He might not have felt so angry if the Amish were meanies themselves and told the townies to go to hell and fought back. But because the Amish are so virtuous and helpless, Ford’s character is infuriated by how the townies act toward them. So, he finally bashes a townie with intense fury. He doesn’t just fend off the bully a lesson but whups his ass real good. It’s same with Christians and Jesus. On the one hand, the example of Jesus’s pacifistic virtue inspires them to love and forgive. But because Jesus died so helplessly and horribly at the hands of meanies, Christians get especially angry when people don’t respect the Son of God who sacrificed so much for the salvation of mankind. It’s bad enough that Jesus suffered for the sake of mankind, but to have people mock Jesus or reject His love even after He’d suffered and died for mankind? Nothing infuriates more than unrequited love, and rejection of Jesus’ love is seen as such by many Christians. Why that’d be like beating and killing Him all over again. So, this aspect of Christianity brings out the counter-bully in Christians, but then counter-bullying can easily become a form of bullying in its own right — worse, a form of bullying that is blinded by its own self-righteousness. We see the same kind of dynamics among Jews, Negroes, and homos. Jews feel that they died for mankind in the Holocaust, especially as so many Jews didn’t resist but just followed orders and got killed in huge numbers. As for Negroes, they feel that they marched for freedom in the name of non-violence behind MLK. And homos think they’d survived the homocaust — the AIDS epidemic that supposedly was the fault of Reaganite indifference as if all the fecal penetration among homos had nothing to do with the spread of the disease. So, when some people remain critical of Jewish power, skeptical of claims of black holiness — as so many blacks act like apelike scum — , and hostile to the radical homo agenda, they are met with virulent bullying hatred. Jewish/Negro/homo fixation on their victim-hood makes them feel so holy that anyone who won’t kneel before them in forgiveness and prayer is seen as not only wrong but totally wicked and deserving of destruction.) Since Christianity was steeped in the eternal cult of victimology, even when Christians held great power and crushed others, they conceived of themselves as struggling like Jesus and the martyred saints.
Most figures in the Bible are more multi-faceted than Jesus. Moses was sometimes wise, sometimes stupid, sometimes heroic, sometimes vain, and etc. Same could be said of Samson, Saul, David, and host of other figures. Many of them were victimized at some point, but they also victimized others and had ups and downs. When we think of David, we think of the young David, old David, good David, bad David, happy David, sad David, triumphant David, the fallen David. Though the life of Jesus was also varied to some degree, it was essentially of spiritual purity followed/tested by horrendous physical suffering. The iconic image of Jesus is overwhelmingly linked with the Crucifix(ion). And since Jesus didn’t victimize others — though money changers might disagree — , His victim-hood is seen as purely holy and absolute. And since He’s the Son of God, His suffering to redeem the soul of mankind reverberates through eternity. There are lots of positive things to be said about this aspect of Christianity, and only a churlish anti-Christianite or radical secularist would deny the role Christianity played in the moral advancement of the West and the world. But on the negative side, it created a mentality of preening self-righteous piety and sanctimoniousness, and once such attitudes were secularized, it paved the way for stuff like communism, political correctness, and people-of-color ‘eternal victimization’.
Of course, the one great moral advancement of Christianity was in warning against the sin of pride and instilling a sense of individual conscience in each person. Though this wasn’t unique to Christianity, it went further because, ideally at least, Christianity was founded on universalist principles of non-violence and understanding. So, while Jews and Muslims also repented before God, they never felt that they should apologize for what they did to gentiles or to infidels. But ideally at least, Christians mustn’t commit wrongful violence even against non-Christians. So, there were many Christians who eventually came to be critical of Christian bloodbath during the Crusade, but how many Muslims ever felt regrets about all the blood spilt by Muslims all over the world? How many Jews read the story of Passover with disgust as it justifies the killing of first-borns — even babies — of Egypt? The entire narrative is especially perverse because the Pharaoh is willing to let the Jews go, but then, the Jewish God keeps changing the pharaoh’s mind in reversal of his decrees allowing the Jews to depart. The Pharaoh gets caught up in some kind of Kafkaesque paradox. God sends Moses to him to demand that he let the Jews go. But when he’s willing to let the Jews go, God makes it so that he won’t let the Jews go and have kingdom be punished more for not letting the Jews go. It’s like Joseph K. was ‘accused’ no matter what he did, and likewise, the Pharaoh was accursed no matter what he did. Putin surely feels much the same way. No matter what he does, Jews will find some way to get him one way or another. If Putin gets aggressive, he’s smeared as a ‘warmonger’. If Putin chooses peace, he’s derided as weak, and Jews pick at him with more aggressiveness.
TEN COMMANDMENTS - Jew driving Egyptian crazy.
Anyway, though the current PC victimological mania has deep roots in Christianity, there’s a difference in the mode of how whites and non-whites practice their quasi-Christian values. White Christian morality tends to be self-critical and self-accusing whereas non-white Christian morality tends to be self-righteous and self-pitying. Ironically, the non-white forms of Christianity tend to be closer to the spirit of the traditional Western form of Christianity when, for nearly 1500 yrs, white Christians were aggressive, self-righteous, and nationalistic. Back in those days, white Christians fought to defend their own civilization and win against other peoples. Righteousness meant ‘God on our side’ than ‘Repent to God for our sins done unto others, even non-Christians’. White Christians felt justified in battling the Muslims, using periodic violence against Jews, waging violent wars on ‘heretics’, carrying out stuff like the Inquisition, conquering the New World, spreading Western influence via imperialism, and etc. But white Christianity came to be more and more self-critical, not least because white power became so much greater than other powers. When white Christians had to struggle to survive against Muslims, Mongols, and other heathens, Christians had little time or energy for compassion and magnanimity. And during the early stage of imperialism, it was quite a struggle for whites to gain control of the world. They could not afford to play the ‘nice guy’. In the South, there were lots of muscled Negroes who wanted to beat up weaker white boys and rape white women. In the American West, plenty of white settlers were scared of American Indians with tomahawks acting like Chief Scar in THE SEARCHERS. Though white folks with advanced guns and technology had a decisive advantage over the natives, it was still risky for many whites to venture in new territories. Entire families could be and were slaughtered by childish savages. But as white power became more and more established, increasing number of whites could take their mastery over the world for granted. It wasn’t by coincidence that the anti-slavery movement flourished in the Northeast of America that had no ‘red savages’, ‘crazy niggers’, and ‘yellow peril chinks’. And it wasn’t by coincidence that the British, who were becoming masters of the world, became most compassionate and self-critical about their own policies around the world. More powerful a people become, the more they can take their power for granted and hope to do the right thing. Also, as Catholics and Protestants finally decided to stop bashing one another, Christianity became more idealistic than tribal. And as Britain, France, and Spain — the three great worldwide European empires — finally arrived at a mutual understanding of what belonged to whom, white powers were less likely to fight for spoils among themselves, and that also favored the priority of ideals over tribalism. But then, the disasters of World War I brought back ‘tribal’ antagonisms, and then the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust made white folks lose confidence in their civilization. But ironically, the rise of ‘white guilt’ wasn’t so much the product of the horrors of World War II but of the good times that followed. After all, though Germany did horrible things, many European nations had been victimized by Germany; therefore they need not feel any ‘white guilt’. Besides, Japan, a non-white nation, was one of the main aggressors in World War II. Also, a white-ruled nation, US, played the main role in crushing Japan. And Soviet Union, a nation that did most to defeat Nazi Germany, was also a white nation. So, World War II could have served as the basis for great Anglo/American pride and righteous victim-hood of smaller/weaker European nations that had been trampled by Germany.
The real reason for the rise of ‘white guilt’ was the good times that followed that made white folks softer, kinder, and more sympathetic. If World War II had been followed by great depressions in America and Europe, most white folks would have been mainly concerned with self-interest and racial/tribal unity than ‘doing the right thing’ by others. Indeed, the relatively depressed economies of the USSR and Eastern Europe didn’t lead to any kind of ‘white guilt’. Russians didn’t feel sorry for Russian imperialism. Poles didn’t hate themselves for not having done more to save Jews. It was in the US and Western Europe(where living standards improved dramatically) that came to embrace the new religion of ‘white guilt’. Of course, good times and prosperity don’t necessarily lead to compassion for others and feelings of guilt. Things are much better now in China, but how many Chinese feel sorry for the plight of Tibetans? Japan made huge progress in economic well-being — and there was a rise of the dynamic New Left in the 1960s — , but for the most part, Japanese are not into ‘yellow guilt’. So, there are other factors than economics. In the West, the Jewish domination of much of the academia and media was crucial to the rise of the cult of ‘white guilt’. Also, the Christian values of the West that had shaped the psychology of so many white folks — even secular ones — had made it easier for them to be manipulated with the notions of ‘guilt’ and ‘redemption’. After all, long before Jews gained dominance in America, white Christians had produced stuff like UNCLE TOM’S CABIN, which was considered as the greatest of all novels by Leo Tolstoy, a Russian Christian. So, the Christian-ized Western mind is more conducive to certain kinds of emotional states and manipulations. Though most peoples in both the East and West are susceptible to manipulation, the oddly paradoxical thing about the West is that its concept/cult of the individual soul can, in some cases, make Westerners even more obedient and slavish than people in the East. Eastern mentality is more passive and communal in relation to authority. Eastern concept of knowledge is much the same, which accounts for all the craze over standardized exams. Easterners are more into learning than thinking. They learn from their masters than strive to think freely as independent individuals. Confucianism stressed strict hierarchy and one’s harmonious place in the order of things, and Buddhism denied even the notion of the individual soul. There is no ‘me’ or ‘you’ in Buddhism as each life is merely just another station for the ever traveling soul that seeks escape from existence. Just like a train stops at various stations, the soul according to Buddhism uses various lives as points of departure before the re-boarding. So, the soul could stop at the ‘fox’ station, ‘spider’ station, man ‘station’, woman ‘station’, insect ‘station’, and etc. ‘Your’ soul doesn’t belong to you but only stopped in ‘you’ that serves as a station. So, the Eastern attitude to authority tends to be collective-passive than individual-active. Even in Confucianism, the emphasis on ancestor worship made one live for the continuation of the bloodline than for oneself as an independent individual. One was a mere a servant who, while alive, carried out the duties and carried on with the memory of his ancestors. In contrast, both Western paganism and Christianity posited that each person had his own soul, and that everyone was, to some extent, his or her own self with own body and mind. So, the Western mind should be more active than merely passive in its relation to authority. One possibility was being critical of authority, but the other possibility was being actively engaged WITH authority, a kind of contradiction in terms. If authority exists to be obeyed, and if obedience is, by its very nature, a form of passivity, what does it mean to be actively engaged with authority? If one is active as an individual in close association with authority, can one be truly obedient? Won’t the individual will, even as an active supporter of authority, eventually come to loggerheads with authority because the active will of individuality naturally wants to be independent and think its own thoughts? So, the active mode is more dangerous to authority than the passive mode is. And yet, there are cases when the active mode can paradoxically be more blindly supportive of authority because of the conceit of individual choice and independence. Among Easterners, there’s the understanding that one is suppressing one’s individuality for the sake of authority and/or community. But among Westerners, there’s the notion — often a self-deceiving conceit — that one’s beliefs and values are truly one’s own, and therefore, one should guard and fight for them with all of one’s might and zeal. While there are free thinkers in the West, the fact is most manifestations of so-called ‘individual’ and/or ‘independent’ thoughts, ideas, and values have been implanted by the powers-that-be that control the institutions. But since the Western cult of individuality has so many people duped that they are independent-minded agents, they are blind to the degree to which they’ve been fooled and manipulated by the elites. Take ‘gay marriage’ for instance. Most Americans who are for that nonsense truly believe that they, as free-thinking individuals, came to support it of their own accord. In fact, they’d been fooled and tricked by subliminal advertising, kitschy pageantry, mass propaganda, new taboos, economic pressure, celebrity worship, TV and Hollywood, massive Wall Street spending, and etc. If Westerners were passive-minded, they might submit to the ‘gay’ agenda but without much passion. They would be going along since the norm would be to just passively go along. Since the norm is to submit to authority, one doesn’t necessarily have to believe whatever one is acquiescing to. You just go along with the herd because that’s what’s expected of you. But as Westerners are active-minded, they tend to believe in their free will and their freedom of individual conscience. So, even when they mindlessly and blindly obey, they feel themselves to be masters of their own destiny. Of course, the Jewish-and-homo or Jomo elites who manipulate the Western masses are only too happy to oblige Westerners to feel that they themselves control their own minds, values, and destinies. So, the Jew-run media tell us that ‘gay marriage’ is inevitable since the vast majority of young people ‘demand’ it. But why did so many young people come to embrace something so patently ludicrous? Did each of them really think freely as individuals? Or were they merely duped and manipulated by the mass media and mass propaganda controlled by the Jomo Cabal? And is it merely a coincidence that the sudden rise of homo power has coincided with the rapid rise of the global oligarchy? How come the elites of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Washington D.C., London, Hollywood, Chicago, and etc. love this ‘gay’ business so very much? I’ve never seen rich oligarches so enthusiastic about any other agenda. Why not? Well, just think of what the main political and social issues would be if the homo agenda — and the transvestite agenda — were off the table. The main issues of the day would be "why are the blue city Liberal elites in places like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, London, and etc. so rich and privileged while everyone else is facing hard times?" This is why the global oligarches have used their media control and institutional power to make the homo stuff — and transvestite nonsense — into the dominant ‘moral value’ issues of the day. And most people have been duped, but because of the cult of ‘individual will’ in the West, these pathetic sheeple think the homo agenda is a moral campaign of grave importance based on their own conscience and courage. Though the homo agenda is the favorite tool of the super-rich globalist elites in the Western world, so many suckers think that their mindless support of the homo agenda is all about championing helpless victims against the powers-that-be. In fact, the homo-agenda is the favorite ‘moral cause’ of the powers-that-be since it puts issues of class and race in the back-burner. After all, the globalist elite classes, though ‘progressive’ in rhetoric, live in a world that is largely white, Jewish, haute mulatto, and Asian. In some globo-elite communities, there are so few blacks that white folks have to adopt black babies from Africa to add some ‘diversity’ to their community. And of course, it’s safer to adopt black babies than open their neighborhoods to black Americans from da ‘hoods since black African babies can be raised to be acculturated to white/Jewish/homo social norms. They will be like well-trained pet monkey Negroes. Anyway, in terms of class and race, most of the blue city Liberal oligarchs and elite classes are ultra-privileged, affluent, sneering, and snobby. They are filled with contempt for most middle class folks, most working class folks, and yes, even for most black and brown folks. If the main victim-narrative were about class, it would make blue city Liberal oligarches and elites look like total hypocrites since they are the main beneficiaries of globalism that made the top 1% richer than ever. If the main victim-narrative were about race, it would make blue city Liberal oligarches and elites look like total hypocrites since they’ve been busily gentrifying entire blocks of cities to make them whiter, more Jewish, more homo, and more yellow(as honorary whites). So, it serves the global oligarches to turn the ‘gay’ agenda into the main ‘moral’ issue, especially since so many homos love to live the luxurious lifestyle, shmooze with the upper classes, and put on fancy & hissy-snotty-bitchy airs. The homo agenda has essentially associated snotty elitist narcissism with ‘victim-hood’. It has ‘aristocratized’ the cult of victim-hood. But as too many Americans are obsessed with trash, celebrity culture, and the style of ‘radical bohemianism’, they don’t understand they’ve been hoodwinked and taken for a ride.
Indeed, the cult of ‘radicalism’ itself has had a paradoxical effect, one that actually benefits the elites. Many so-called ‘radicals’ consider themselves to be free thinkers, but the essence of radicalism is to be 100% committed to a cause, a form of mindless obedience to whatever the radical cause happens to be(which is usually fantastical and ridiculous). But, what’s especially useful to the elites is the fact that most forms of radicalism are so unrealistic and ludicrous that they will only keep the so-called ‘radicals’ hung up with silly fantasies that will never materialize and threaten the powers-that-be. The powers-that-be fear pragmatic reformers much more than radical dreamers who pontificate about abolishing capital, spreading anarchy, and other crackpot theories that won’t ever win the support of most people who know in their guts that utopianism is always bound to fail, often disastrously. Also, radicals, for all their yammering about changing the world, tend to be insular and take pride in their insularity. So, they love to spout some esoteric stuff about some 19th century Russian anarchist, some underground writer, and etc. It’s like Jean-Luc Godard was making a bunch of ‘Maoist’ films in the late 60s and early 70s that no one bothered to see — not even his fans. Of course, in his own mind, he was the true-blue revolutionary, but to the world, he was some insular solipsist who was foolish enough to take Maoism seriously and apply it to situations in the West. Libertarians who spout nonsense about Ayn Rand are also insular radicals. Though they claim to have the magic bullet that will save and remake the economy, their purist capitalist fantasies are so far-out that they will never see the light of day. So, elites need not fear most radicals who do a good job of rendering their own lives useless with mindless fantasies. And of course, to some extent, many radicals secretly love radical ideas precisely for the fact that such will never see the light of day. They can always tell themselves that their ideas are so good and pure that the stupid and idiotic world is too corrupt and compromised to adopt them. Also, since their ideas will never be tested in the real world, they can always be held up as pure and unblemished. This is the appeal of Ron Paul to many young people. As his brand of libertarianism will never see the light of day, they can hold it up as something true-and-blue.
Also, many Marxists came to be disappointed that their ideology actually saw the light of day and brought much ruination upon the world. If Marxism had never come to power in Russia and China, it would have remained as a pure idea unsoiled by reality. So, the fall of communism was something of a relief to the Left. They could use their control of media and academia to force a kind of amnesia over the entire history of communism and cook up a new brand of neo-Marxism that, of course, could never work. As for the homo-mania, it was brilliantly used by the Jewish oligarches and elites to undermine both the left and the right. A new ‘left’ that is all about privileged homos who dilly-dally with urban-globalist oligarches undermines the true left. It’s protects power, wealth, collusion, and the kind of decadence adored by the rich. A right that bends over to the homo agenda — and more and more Conservatives have decided to take the homo dick up the ass — is nothing but a slave to fashion and a servant to the elites with no deep roots in what it means to be human, to be part of a culture, to be part of a tradition, to be at one with the way of nature and true morality.
Al Sharpton. The Essence of Black Christianity. 
At any rate, while two modes of Christianity still exists in the West, the righteous-aggressive-judgmental mode is dominated by non-whites(especially black churches that holler about ‘racism’) whereas the repentant-redemptive-guilty mode is dominated by whites who want to gain penance for their historical crimes. Since ‘white guilt’ has, more or less, been spiritualized, it’s as if non-whites — especially blacks and Jews — are eternal victims of white gentiles forever and ever AND whites are eternal villains who must atone for their wickedness forever and ever. It’s as if non-whites are in the hellfire-and-brimstone mode to self-righteously and self-pityingly accuse and whites forever AND whites are in the apologetic and atoning mode to apologize and beg forgiveness in self-abnegation for all eternity. Of course, much of this is more symbolic than real. After all, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles are full of rich Liberal white folks who live on the hog, love their privilege, and maneuver to rack up even more wealth. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet sure love their billions. Indeed, the ‘white guilt’ shtick can serve to justify the wealth and privilege of lots of whites. They can rake in tons of dough and then support some ‘worthy’ cause to ‘save the world’. That way, they can have the cake and eat it too: be super-rich but also admired for their ‘guilt’ conscience that inspires them to ‘give back’ to society, especially for the benefit of the non-white folks around the world.

There was a time when the two modes of Christianity existed within whites, with righteousness being balanced with self-examination and self-criticism. But today, whites are in self-critical mode while non-whites, especially blacks, are into the righteous/judgmental mode. A people who seek atonement without fighting for survival will eventually lose. A people who judge others but don’t genuflect on their own failings will just grow stupid and corrupt, and this can be said of many black churches. The core message of Christianity is not that only the rich and powerful can be evil. It is that every soul, even that of a poor person, can be evil if devoid of divine spirit.
Though Jesus saw wealth and privilege as materialistic hindrance to salvation, it’d be a fallacy to assume that He thought a rich man was intrinsically evil or a poor man was intrinsically good. For Jesus, it wasn’t enough to be poor. What mattered was the reasons behind the poverty. A rich man who wished to abandon his wealth was better than a poor man who dreamed of becoming rich. If we were to adopt a purely ‘Marxist’ form of Christianity, Adolf Hitler would be a righteous victim if he were poor and without power. Indeed, there was a time when Hitler was poor and destitute. So, was he a good person because of his low economic status? Or was he still a rotten person because he had a venomous outlook on life and humanity? A lot of black churches seem to think poor blacks are holy and righteous because they are poor, but they don’t take into account Jesus’ teachings that poverty isn’t the same as holiness. Though Jesus felt sympathy for the poor, He understood that the human heart of a poor person could be just as rotten and foul as those of the rich and powerful. What do most poor blacks want in life? They are vain idiots who wanna be like millionaire rappers with limos and gold-plated guns and lots of ho’s who be sucking their dicks. What do most black women want? They wanna be some she-boon mama who be twerking their gorillian-horny booties and acting diva-like like Whitney Houston who done thought she be the center of the universe. Consider the character Diane Selywn in MULHOLLAND DR. She is a poor nobody who dies pitifully. But what was her great dream in the world? Success, money, fame, vanity, and etc. Just because she ended up poor and pitiful doesn’t mean she was good of soul. One could argue that she had a desire to be good, but her desire for goodness was really all about her own self-justifying ego. In her fantasy, she would be the nice caring woman who would take a lost amnesiac woman into her life and help her. She wanted to be nice and good but from the position of power that would allow her to play the role of savior. So, her ‘goodness’ really depended on her having the advantage over the other woman. Of course, in real life, the other woman had the advantage over her, and Diane, in a fit of jealousy, hired someone to have her killed. So, the desire to be good isn’t the same thing as being good. Many people who desire to be good wanna be ‘good’ in their own terms, but it is a kind of fantasy, and fantasies are really about vanity. The goodness their aim for is just another form of narcissism. It’s not the goodness of giving oneself to others but of incorporating the plight of others into a narrative where one plays the role of noble-hearted savior. In the fantasy in MULHOLLAND DR., Diane-as-Betty seems to offer her services to ‘Rita’ out of goodwill, but it soon turns out Betty really wants possession of ‘Rita’. She wants ‘Rita’ to love her and belong to her.

Though white Christians have, more or less, adopted and accepted the apology-atonement-guilt mode of Christianity, human nature also craves for pride, righteousness, and confidence. So, while one part of white Christianity is into ‘white guilt’ mode and accepting of the criticism from non-white churches and folks who yammer and pontificate about ‘white guilt’, there’s another part of white Christianity that seeks to regain some of the old pride and righteousness; and this may explain, at least in part, the sudden popularity of the homo cause in the white mainline — and even some Evangelical — churches. Since the homo agenda is essentially a ‘white thing’, it has a way of re-whitening the church, handing the leadership to whites than to non-whites who generally tend to look upon the homo agenda as something wicked, hostile, decadent, and pooey. Also, by pontificating about ‘homophobia’ among non-whites, white Christians finally have something to judge and condemn the non-white world with. So, if some black church says, "white folks done enslave us and must give us reparations like Jesus done say", a white church can say, "so-and-so black church deserves condemnation for its opposition to ‘gay marriage’." Indeed, many white Christians can’t seem to get enough righteous joy by condemning the persecution of homosexuals in the blackest churches of Africa.

Anyway, the White Right must rethink its position on victimology. Just because victimology has been associated with non-whites and the Left doesn’t mean that it solely belongs to them or is essentially ‘non-white’ and ‘leftist’ in nature. If anything, ‘victimology’ is an emotion in all advanced animals. Though animals aren’t capable of forming concepts, their emotions do revolve around resentment. Elephants, hippos, dogs, wolves, bears, lions, tigers, apes, and hyenas maintain clear memories of who ‘did them wrong’. Though their main objective is fight-or-flight than complaining about grievances, they do store ‘hurt feelings’ in their brains and perceive the world accordingly. This is why, once an animal has been badly treated by a certain person or animal, it has a very hostile and/or anxious reaction if it were to come in close proximity with that person or animal again. Animals store their memories as emotions of fear, hate, anxiety, and even revenge. Prior to the rise of victimology, the dominant emotional mode of many peoples/cultures was avoidism or revanchism. Avoidism seeks to avoid reencounters with fearsome/frightful elements as much as possible. Even today, many Americans seek to move out of black areas and remain away from blacks because they remember blacks as tougher, meaner, more aggressive, and more troublesome. But there also exist powerful feelings of revenge that seeks to ‘return the favor’. Many action/violent movies work on the theme of revenge. Consider ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST where Charles Bronson’s character spent much of his adulthood tracking down Frank — Henry Fonda — who’d killed his brotherlong ago. And THE SEARCHERS, possibly the most famous of all adventure movies, is about an angry white man’s revenge against the Indian savages who murdered his kind and ran off with a white girl who will be raised to serve as a sex slave to the Red man. There’s an element of righteous victimology in all forms of revanchism and revenge-fantasies. Revenge is about righting previous wrongs.
There is rightness in the objective sense of fairness(issues of right vs wrong), but there is also rightness in the sense of one may feel wronged even when one was clearly in the wrong. So, even if someone attacked and humiliated you for justifiable reasons — and even though the facts and the moral advantage are on his side — , you may still ‘feel wronged’ because your ego and vanity have been hurt. (Of course, sense of grievance could also be a matter of style. You could have done something wrong and therefore duly punished for it. But the manner of punishment could have been excessive or needlessly humiliating. After all, there’s the proper way of administering justice and a cruel and sadistic way. When the wrong in substance is wronged in style, does he deserve to feel righteous in his anger?) It’s like in CAPE FEAR. The thug feels he’s been wronged by the lawyer. But then, even generally good people have an ego/vanity problem, and when they’ve been proven wrong, they feel humiliated and feel ‘wronged’ and want to get revenge against the person who exposed him. This is why so much of politics is so crooked and ugly. Too often, it’s less about right vs wrong but about bruised egos and clash of vanities. Even if a politician could be persuaded with all the facts and evidence that he was in the wrong, he resents the fact that he was made to seem like a fool. Even though he has been proven wrong, he still feels wronged. Therefore, a lot of righteous indignation has little or nothing to do with actual right-or-wrong but with feelings of righteousness that accompanies from the feelings of being wronged.
Given everyone is wrong so often about so many things, one may ask why the powers-that-be are so much more committed to exposing the wrongs of some individuals/groups than of others? Why do we hear over and over and over that David Duke was once a member of the KKK, but we hear little or nothing of how so many Neo-Cons had been former communists who cheered on the communists when they were killing millions of people? Also, many people expose wrongs in other people less out of general interest of right-vs-wrong than in the vain narcissism of being holier-than-thou. This is why some people can’t warm up to the likes of Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden. While many people acknowledge Snowden and Greenwald’s roles in exposing government abuses, they wonder what the true motives were. Justice or holier-than-thou vanity?

Feelings of revenge are natural and still the prevalent form of justice in the world. We use the government institutions to take revenge on those who do us harm. So, if someone cheats you, you take him to court and you leave it up to the judge to punish him and redress wrongs. When Muslim radicals attacked NY and Washington DC on 9/11, US launched massive military strikes on Afghanistan — and even extended the war to Iraq in the name of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and WMD. When Gazans shot some homemade rockets in Israel and killed one person, Israel flattened large areas of Gaza, killing scores of Palestinian women and children. So, one way or another, through the military hammer or the courtroom gavel, various sides seek revenge/redress. Despite the billion-plus Christians around the world, only a tiny number live by Jesus’ creed of "turn the other cheek" and "forgive others for their trespasses". Beside, the few who do live by such creed generally can afford to be saintly because the social order in which they dwell are well-protected and well-maintained by secular forces of the military and government. Amish and Quakers are committed to pacifism, but why are they able to practice such virtues without being harmed? Because America is protected from foreign nations with its massive military and because every American community has its police force and judiciary. And Amish can maintain pretty good lifestyles by doing business with the non-Amish community that is pretty materialistic and ‘greedy’. But if all of America were run according to pacifism, it would be conquered and taken over by others in no time. It’s like the community of peaceful Christian-folks in THEY CALL ME TRINITY is saved by tough guys who are good with fists and guns.
Victimology wouldn’t be so troublesome IF Jews and non-whites truly appreciated the full implications of victim-hood. But paradoxically, those who place their own victim-hood on highest pedestal are most eager for victory and domination over others. Self-Righteousness leads to self-Mighteousness: "Because we’ve been especially wronged, everything is ‘rightfully’ and ‘mightfully’ ours." Such cult of victim-hood conceals an hidden agenda that is essentially supremacist, and that’s all the more reason why the victim-hood mentalities of Jews, blacks, Muslims, and Chinese are most dangerous. They are not only bitching that they’d been victimized but bitching that they, as the superior people, had been victimized by inferior peoples. If indeed a people are committed to victim-hood as a genuine ideal, they would not seek revenge and domination. After all, if it’s so holy and righteous to be victims, why not remain victims forever? Indeed, this was Jesus’ message for mankind. Choose victim-hood and seek no revenge. Turn the other cheek. (If there’s to be revenge in Christianity, it’s in the afterlife where God will punish the wicked for all eternity. As the Good Book says, "Vengeance is mine". The modern state says the vengeance should be handled by the State. According to the New Testament, it’s up to God to decide who will get what punishment for what transgressions. Since ultimate justice will be sorted out in the afterlife, there’s no need for victims to seek revenge in their lifetime. They should just be meek and choose the life of victim-hood and be rewarded in the afterlife for all eternity.) But it was nearly impossible for most people to feel, let alone live, like that. It went against human nature. So, even Christian societies, while preaching the virtue of meek victim-hood, gained power and got revenge through violence, aggression, and ass-whupping. We often hear Conservative Americans say about American wars where tons of bombs were dumped on other nations: "Let God sort it out." So, instead of leaving the right of revenge up to God, Americans prefer to blow nations up and let ‘God’ decide who will live and die in the mayhem. Most people don’t want to be victims, therefore, their cult of victim-hood is more a crutch, a tool, and weapon than an ideal. Negroes don’t want to be eternal victims. (They just want to hog the cult of eternal victim-hood.) Neither do Jews or Chinese or anyone else want to be eternal victims. (Jews want to be eternal victors over us all.) Now, if they want revenge and victory, why don’t they embrace the cult of revenge and victor-hood? Well, it would give the game away, and white folks would wake up to what’s really happening. So, Jews and non-white groups bitch endlessly about how they are victims and deserving of endless sympathy. They are really motivated by revenge, power, and privilege than by any genuine adherence to victim-hood. When Jews yammer about their victim-hood, they are really saying, "Because of the Holocaust, we deserve to rule the world, control all the banks, hump all the shikses, cheat the dumb goyim, dominate all the media, destroy any people or nation that we don’t like, and etc." When blacks bitch about their victim-hood, they are really saying, "Because of slavery under whites, we deserve to kick white ass, take white women, sing violent rap songs, act like thugs and punks, milk white folks for freebies endlessly, taunt and humiliate the ‘faggoty-ass’ white boy, invade all of Europe through massive immigration, and etc." It’s all a Trojan Horse ruse. And Jews and Negroes, like Chinese and Muslims, are dangerous because they harbor supremacist tendencies. It is also true of hissy, bitchy, and snotty homos who make poor egalitarians due to their naturally finicky and narcissistic nature.
The reason why the indigenous peoples of the Americas have been less troublesome even though their victim-hood is probably the greatest of all time — after all, black Africans still have Africa, Asians still have Asia, Arabs still have the Middle East, and whites still have Europe(though maybe not for long), whereas the indigenous peoples of the Americas(both North and South)lost their ancestral lands to invaders for all eternity — is because they harbor no supremacist tendencies. Though they are resentful of what happened to their ancestors, they know that they are not intellectually, athletically, sexually, musically, charismatically, or in whatever manner the best in the world. They feel mediocre and have accepted their mediocrity. So, they want improved conditions socially and economically but don’t expect to rule the world or be seen as the greatest people on Earth. In contrast, Jews do feel that their culture is superior to all others, their history is richer than all others, their intellects are higher than all others, and their skills outshine all others. Negroes feel that they are the baddest mofos in the world with big-ass booties that be going bouncy-wouncy, big-ass dicks that be swinging like baseball bats, big-ass fists that can knock out any ‘faggoty-ass’ white boy, big-ass lips that can out-blow any saxophone and cornet, and big-ass thighs that can out-run and out-jump anyone. So, blacks have a superior thug complex in relation to others. Blacks hate the fact that, despite being most superior mofos in the world, they be in the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Of course, this is because blacks are too aggressive in behavior and inferior in IQ, but blacks pride and vanity simply cannot accept that anything is wrong with their own kind. It all be da fault of da ‘honkey’. Even when blacks blame blackness, they are likely to blame OTHER blacks, i.e. black men blaming black women or vice versa. This is why neither Jews nor blacks could ever be satisfied with equality with gentiles or whites. They seek supremacy. Indeed, today Jews are far richer and more privileged than white gentiles, but they still bitch about their own ‘victim-hood’. Why is that? It’s because such rhetoric works wonders on ‘white guilt’-ridden gentile suckers who will keep bending over backward and forward for Jews who still act like they just staggered out of the shtetl of ‘antisemitic’ Europe. Similarly, your average Negro male wants to be like rappers who be flashing their gold rings, diamonds, guns, and be humping every blonde woman in sight, but they act like they still is traumatized by slavery and the KKK. Of course, the Jew-run media have spread the notion that all blacks were living in abject fear of being lynched in the South when, in fact, lynchings were quite rare, with less than 2,000 blacks having been lynched in the 100 yr period from the end of the Civil War to the 1960s. Indeed, many more whites are brutalized, robbed, raped, and/or murdered by blacks in any given month than all the blacks were killed by whites in a hundred years. For the most part, whites fearfully sought distance from blacks who were perceived to be more muscular and stronger — even though vain white male pride prevented whites from admitting this fact. As for the Chinese — at least those in China as yellow power depends on numbers and homogeneity because individual Asians aren’t the tops in brains or brawn — , their victim-hood isn’t merely about how they’d been wronged by other nations but about how their innately superior Middle Kingdom had been ‘raped’ by barbarians and ‘foreign devils’. Thus, China has the ambition to become the top power in the world, and, like Jews, want to play forever-victims and suppress any criticism of their power by Western nations and Japan. Chinese are learning the art of victor-hood-via-victim-hood from the Jews. As for Muslims, they take their victim-hood very seriously since most of them are still convinced that Muhammad was indeed the final Prophet and his wisdom shall eventually prevail and dominate the world. And unlike Christianity, there is no guilt complex in Islam except to God. Muslims may apologize to Allah but never to ‘infidels’ whom they’d crushed all over for over a millennia. So, whenever a people bitch about their ‘victim-hood’, we need to probe into the nature of their mentality behind the facade of holy victim-hood.
Indeed, this was why National Socialism, Japanese militarism, and communism were so dangerous. All played on victim-hood and grievances, some of which were legitimate. Germany did get a raw deal after World War I — despite what some historians say — , and National Socialism was a victim-ideology that sought to redress those problems. If that had been Hitler’s only goal, National Socialism would have been workable for Germany and acceptable to the world. But he didn’t merely go after bad Jews but all Jews. He didn’t merely reclaim the Rhineland and merge with Germanic regions but swallowed up the Czech region and then invaded Poland. He then even waged war on Russia. Hitler used righteous victim-hood-ism, but at the core of his world-view was the supremacist ideology of ‘Aryanism’. Similarly, the Japanese militarists went far beyond protecting Asian from Western Imperialism, a rationale that was mainly used as a ruse to further Japan’s supremacist ambitions all across Asia. As for communism, it didn’t merely address the problems of the working classes who had it tough in the early stages of capitalism but was absolutely sure of the correctness of Marxism’s understanding of the past, present, and future, and thus, it sough to impose its ideological and moral supremacism over all mankind, in the process destroying countless lives, banishing property rights and freedoms, and instigating useless wars all over that led to all sorts of horrors — by both the far left and far right in counter-revolutionary mode. Some like to believe that Russians are dangerous for the same reason — Great Russian chauvinism — , but Russians today aren’t into world domination. Most of the problems with Russia aren’t the result of Russian aggression but of Jewish aggravation of Russia by bribing and encouraging neighboring nations to provoke crises with Russia, thereby giving Jews-who-run-the-media fresh opportunities to smear Russia as the ‘aggressor’ — as happened when Zionists encouraged Georgia to attack South Ossetia.
(Jews use the ‘Bill Laimbeer Tactic’ with Russia: Laimbeer would sneakily foul other players, but when other players responded by pushing back at him, he would pretend to be fouled and play the drama-queen-victim of aggression. Jews use their proxies to provoke Russia, and then corrupt referees in the global media call foul on Russia.) Jews salivate over Russia as Jewish ambition is even greater than that of Hitler. Hitler only wanted to dominate Europe and Russia, and if he could have avoided wars with other nations, he would have been okay with that. Indeed, he was very admiring of British Imperialism and rather admiring of French Imperialism, and he was satisfied with the Brits ruling over their domain and the French — even under Nazi Occupation — controlling their domains. Hitler wanted vast areas of Eastern territory; he didn’t want the entire world. Of course, he was confident that the New Germania that would be formed under him would be the premier power in the world, but he didn’t want to ‘conquer’ and control the world. Jews, in contrast, do want to conquer and control the world. Since there aren’t enough Jews to do this, they gain control of goyim and make goyim fight Wars-for-Jews, and US has become the premier state serving the agenda of the Jewish supremacists, and this could be said of most parties. (And as homos constitute a sexual minority in every nation, Jews form alliances with homo groups all over the world to promote the ‘new normal’ of ‘minoritarian’ elite power. Thus, homos all over the world, bankrolled by Wall Street/Las Vegas/Hollywood Jews, serve as proxies of Jewish global domination.) Though Democratic Party is dominated more by Jews than the GOP is, it’s the Republican Party that is paradoxically more slavish to Jewish foreign policy. As Jews control the Democratic Party, Democrats don’t need to suck up to Jews. They are totally owned by Jews. Republican Party still has a lot of white gentiles at all levels, but these white gentiles know that Jews control the elite institutions. Since white Conservative gentiles cannot deliver on all the social and cultural policies demanded by Jews, they try to go all out to appease Jews on foreign policy, which is why Republican attack dogs are barking madly at Russia, Iran, and Palestinians to send a message that there is no greater friend of Jews than Republican running dogs. Jews have US and EU. They’ve wreaked havoc all over the Middle East by the divide-and-rule strategy of pitting various sects of Muslims and various ethnic groups against one another. Jews look at Russia as a land of stupid drunken fools and look to conquering it financially, politically, and culturally as they’d done in the US and EU. That is why Jews are upset about Russian revival of Christianity and its pro-moral and pro-normal policies that have pushed against the radical homo agenda. Jews see it not so much as an affront to homos but as an affront to Jews.

Though Putin’s Russia is very nice to Jews, the imposition of mainstream Russian culture and values means that Russian government stands for Russian rule over Russia, Russia dominance in Russia. It means that even though Jews are treated well, they are seen as a minority than as the rightful rulers of Russia. Jews aren’t content to be well-treated minorities. They want to play the role of Jewish Fuhrers or Jewhrers all over the world. Jews want Putin to bow down before the likes of Sheldon Adelson and George Soros just like the whore gentile politicians of the US groveling before Jewish masters at AIPAC conferences. Jews use the homo agenda to loosen, weaken, and subvert the majoritarian agenda of the Russian government. And Jews can smell the blood since, even with Putin at the helm, so many Russians are drunken idiots with little self-control who rely on Jews and other non-Russians to make things run in Russia. Also, even under a nationalist government, much of Russian entertainment and institutions are steeped in homo perversion, Jewish agitation, and other filth concocted by globalist Jews who, with their many billions, fund all sorts of movements, think-tanks, and institutes all over the world that claim to be for ‘human rights’ and ‘social justice’ but are really Trojan Horse instruments of globalist Jewish supremacism. The dirty homo-Jew James Kirchick is one such Jew, and his foul tricks on RT — and his chummy relations with the Jew-run US media and think-tanks — should wake Americans up to the true nature of the Jew. Of course, Jews don’t call their agenda ‘Jewish-supremacist’ and hide behind institutions with name like ‘Foreign Policy Institute’ — just like Jordan Belfort hid behind Wasp respectability by calling his fraudulent company ‘Stratton-Oakmont’, though to be sure, the irony is that Belfort the Jew ‘hid’ behind the non-Jewish screen presence of Leonardo DiCaprio in the film — , but all their agenda is about nothing but ‘Jewish-Global Domination’. (Is there any substantive difference between Belfortism and Saul-Alinsky-ism or homo 'new normal'-ism for that matter? Belfort tells his co-conspirators to first sell blue chip stocks like Disney and ATT to win the trust of the public. Be respectable and ‘conservative’. But once Stratton-Oakmont has been established as a trustworthy 'normal' brokerage firm, then unload the penny stocks on the all the trusting suckers. What was the gist of Alinsky’s RULES FOR RADICALS? He advises radicals to dress up in suits and ties. He urged them to be respectable and come across as American-as-apple pie. Wrap themselves in the American Flag at every opportune moment. Pretend to respect Christianity and the white middle class. But once you've hoodwinked the nation that you activists are mainstream and respectable, sneak in all the radical ideas as the 'new normal'. It's just like winning the trust of the public with blue chips stocks and then dumping worthless penny stocks. Same with the homo agenda. First take over the media and advertising. Pretend to be mainstream and normal. And then sneak in more homo stuff into movies and prime time TV fare until homomania has been sold as the 'new normal' even though only 2% of the Americans are homo.) There are good decent Jews and there are bad vile Jews, but never trust a Jew since so many bad vile Jews shamelessly pretend to be good decent Jews.
Foul Dirty Jew James Kirchick & Shikse Running Dog Whore Liz Wahl
One major problem with historical victim-hood narratives is it’s never easy to ascertain the extent of the damage and what can be done to redress the wrong. Also, there’s the matter of direct victims and indirect victims. If we were to argue that Israel was the produce of the Holocaust since World War II led to mass exodus of the Jews, then shouldn’t Germans be paying reparations to Palestinians as well as to Jews. If Jews were pushed into Palestine because they had no place to go as the result of German aggression and mass violence in World War II, then it means Palestinians are also the victims — albeit indirect ones — of the Germans. If I hit a car and cause that car to hit another car, then I’m responsible for both collisions. But then, did Jews really need to leave Europe after World War II. If Jews had left for Palestine DURING World War II and the Holocaust, they would have had a better case for fleeing Europe. After all, Europe was dominated by Nazi Germany and Jews were being rounded up in various places. But in fact, Jews filled up Palestine AFTER World War II when the great enemy of the Jews, the Nazis had been vanquished once and forever. So, Jews could have remained in Europe following World War II. Of course, we could argue that Jews had been so traumatized by what had happened during World War II — when so many of them couldn’t escape — that they took the first opportunity for escape when the time came. But one could also argue that many Eastern European Jews fled because they didn’t want to live under Soviet domination, in which case, Soviet Union is just as responsible for the creation of Israel on Palestinian territory — and of course, Stalin was a great supporter of the Zionists, at least until the Zionists turned on him in favor of allying with the US. But if we look into the history a bit deeper, there are other complications. Don’t Jews who participated in communist tyranny owe something to the Slavic populations who were killed in the millions and whose culture was demolished by Stalin with the full help of Jewish commissars? Wasn’t support for National Socialism in part a response to Jewish mass-bloodshed in the East, especially as the likes of Trotksy, Zinoviev, and Kaganovich were hellbent on destroying traditional Christian culture for good in the Slavic areas? If many innocent Japanese died in World War II because nasty Japanese imperialists acted viciously against other nations, couldn’t one argue that many innocent Jews died because of so many foul radical Jews went about demolishing the established order and moderate norms in favor of a totalitarian system in which the secret police and vast prison systems banished all freedoms and rounded up people like cattle for re-education or worse?

And in the case of blacks, does it make sense to trace all black problems to slavery and Jim Crow — especially when so many people in other parts of the world had suffered far worse and subsequently did much better than blacks? Also, considering that blacks had been primitive savages in Africa, wasn’t even slavery under whites a kind of social/civilizational progress for blacks? After all, Germanic barbarians weren’t only enslaved by but also civilized by Roman rulers. In the US, there’s a tendency to pretend that black problems are the product of slavery and past discrimination. Though we need to look to the past for answers to the present, how much of today’s black pathologies are the result of few centuries of slavery and racial discrimination under whites and, and how much are they the result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution in the hot, violent, and crazy areas of sub-Saharan Africa? After all, it’s not like black Africans had high civilization before contact with the rest of the world. Most black Africans lived in mud huts, and even relatively advanced African kingdoms were far behind the civilizations outside Africa. Also, it was the more advanced African kingdoms who captured the savage Africans and sold them to Arabs and Europeans. There’s no doubt that the oppression of blacks in the United States led to retardation of black history, culture, and progress, especially among the black elites. As even the dumbest free white person could own the smartest black slave, there’s no question that slavery did hold back blacks. Imagine if Crackhead Bob had the power of slave-master over Arthur Ashe. Of course, that would have been unfair and unjust. But on the other hand, the orderly progress and development of America also owed to white domination over blacks because too many blacks are naturally overly aggressive and crazy, and indeed would have run riot and crazy if they’d been granted freedom and equality at the founding of the Republic. If blacks had been bestowed freedom fresh off the boat in the New Land, many of them would have acted like the wild-ass lunatics who run around in Africa with machetes and bongo drums. Or they would have turned all of the South into a giant Liberia or Detroit since savagery was all they knew. And even attempts to educate blacks would have been difficult because blacks generally have lower IQ, higher aggression that makes them rude and unruly, and are physically stronger than whites, thus likely to feel contempt for whites as ‘faggoty ass pussy boys’. What was the cause of the fall of Zimbabwe? Black rule. Since the end of Apartheid, a new black elite has risen, for sure. But all the new freedoms have allowed lots of crazy blacks to run amok and destroy entire parts of cities and towns. And despite all the yammering by black elites about ‘justice’, once they grab the power, they are likely to be even less conscientious than white oppressors. White folks have some sense of duty and obligation to others, whereas blacks, with their self-centered and uninhibited egos, be thinking they is the greatest thing since sliced watermelons. Surely, white rulers under apartheid had more of a conscience — even toward blacks — than do the likes of Jacob Zuma and other ANC freaks who only care about looting the entire nation for their own benefit. Also, if South Africa had switched to black rule in the 1945, would it even have developed a first-rank economy? Of course not. Nigeria now has a bigger GDP than South Africa, but the black elites hog everything while the rest of the nation is a foul morass of jiggerishness. Of course, it’d be wrong to scapegoat the black elites since blacks are corrupt and venal at all levels of society. Everyone from the big bosses to punks on the street, Detroit is a hell-hole of black dysfunction and idiocy. Though blacks yammer about solidarity against whites, among themselves there is no solidarity but only a return to tribalist gansterism as blacks are emotionally, morally, and intellectually lacking in qualities that think beyond ‘myself’ and ‘my tribe’.
So, when blacks bitch about their victim-hood in the US, how much of black problems are their own? I would say 80% of black problems are of their own making, and it owes to black DNA being more violent, childish, snaky, jive-ass, and punkass. Of course, the black African DNA is suited for the environment in which it was created. It’s like wolves are perfect in the nature where they must live like wolves. It’s like baboons are perfectly fine as red-assed big monkey-like creatures that prowl the jungles and savannahs of Africa. But wolves and baboons aren’t fit to live near humans, and blacks are generally not amenable to civilization. Of course, this could change if we were to mate only nice Negroes to produce nicer Negroes and weed out the bad Negroes. Over time, if we only chose and mated people like Arthur Ashe, Negroes might end up like Asian-Indians who can build and co-exist in a civilizational setting. It’s like pitbulls could be made gentler if we just make the nicer ones mate with one another over the generations. But as white folks no longer have control over the wild-ass Negroes and as Negroes take too much pride in their badass-ness — and as the violent Negro males tend to have the most kids with wild-ass black bitchass ho’s — , the future isn’t looking too good for the black race or the white race that has to live with them. Some white Liberals and even Conservatives hope for a massive race-mixing so that a form of dilute-o-cide will turn the black race blander and nicer, but given how Brazil turned out, I wouldn’t place any hope on such pipedream. Besides, the black males who be impregnating the white women will also go off and impregnate black ho’s too. Race-mixing with blacks is just racial suicide. If blacks were only 2% of the US population, it would be worth it and could be done. But there are too many of them, and US will just turn into something like Brazil or Morocco, and who the hell wants that? If such nations should be the ideal, I suggest that all white Liberals and Jews move to Morocco and Brazil and live over there and leave the rest of us ‘racists’ alone who prefer more homogeneity of the European genes in the West.
If White Liberals must have Brazil-style Diversity right away, I suggest they pack up things and move to Brazil right this moment and live with non-whites in favelas. Don't wait for the West to become darker. Get your darkness right away.
Anyway, victim-hood is here to stay, and it makes no sense for the White Right to reject it out of hand. White Rightists must stop thinking in terms of pro-victim-hood and anti-victim-hood, and instead, they should be thinking and talking in terms of ‘our victim-hood’ and ‘their victim-hood’. When Jews yammer about their victim-hood, the core of the debate is about Jewish suffering and Jewish victim-hood, which gives the Jews an edge in morality and sympathy-pleading. For Jews, ‘victim-hood’ is not an abstract universal concept that applies to all peoples(as, after all, all peoples have narratives of victim-hood as all peoples have stories of victories and stories of defeat and subjugation.) For Jews, victim-hood is a tribal concept that concentrates on their own victim-hood and those of their current political allies. Why do Jews care about black victim-hood under whites but not about Slavic Christian victim-hood under Jewish communists? It’s all about ‘Is it good for the Jews?’ Jews push black victim-hood in order to guilt-bait whites in America into shameful paralysis so that whites will lack the confidence to unite and fight as a racial bloc.
Given the nature of Jewish consciousness and ideology, white rightists need to respond in kind by promoting the legend of white victim-hood under the Jews. If Jews mention the pogroms and the Holocaust, white rightists need to invoke the history of how Jews had played a major role in European slave trade — where many whites were sold by Jewish slavers to the Middle East, Turkey, and North Africa — , invoke the history of how Spanish Jews had collaborated with Moorish invaders in the humiliation, rape, and oppression of Christian Spaniards, invoke the history of how Jews had collaborated with the European elites to tax the goy population toiling from sunup to sundown, invoke the history of how Jewish financiers had rigged markets to steal massive fortunes from the gentile population often driven to hunger and desperation, invoke the history of how Jews had played a key role in communism and killed millions of Christian Slavs, invoke the history of how Jews ran much of Stalinist Eastern Europe after World War II, invoke the history of how Zionists carried out the Nakba against the Palestinians and still continue to oppress those people, invoke the history of how Jewish agents in the US spied for the USSR and sent top secrets to mass-killer Stalin, invoke the history of how Jews agitated for black rule in South Africa — thus paving the way for mass killings and rapes of whites by blacks over there — , invoke the history of how Jews on Wall Street fleeced the economy but bought up all the whore politicians who do nothing but serve as running dogs to Jewish tycoons, invoke the history of how Jews were the main pushers of porn that uses white women as sex meat for Negroes, invoke the history of how Jews have been the main instigators of the homo agenda — thereby equating fecal penetration among homo men as the moral and biological equivalent of real sex between men and women — , invoke the history of how Jews manipulated the media and government to spread wars in the Middle East for the interests of Israel — in the process, destroying 100,000s or even millions of lives in that region since the 1990s — , invoke the history of how Jews have been the main proponents of massive immigration to the West, thereby pushing what is effectively a form of democide of the original inhabitants and/or settlers of lands associated with Western Civilization, invoke the history of how Jews have been prominent in gangsterism, white slavery, and in the gambling industry that is really just legalized theft of untold billions of gentile wealth into the coffers of degenerate thugs like Sheldon Adelson, and etc.
Don’t complain that Jews are too victimological in their thinking. Be counter-victimological toward the Jews, and drudge up every foul thing that the Jews perpetrated against the white race, Christian folks, and gentiles. Jews will say that the Holocaust is especially evil and nothing comes close, but I beg to differ. What Jewish communists did during the Great Famine is almost just as gruesome and evil. Worse, Jewish communists working with Stalin carried out their mass killings before Hitler got his own mass-killing enterprise underway. If anything, Jewish violence as communists drove many Europeans toward the right, even the far right. Though Jews bitch about how some Catholics and Protestants had sympathized with and supported Fascists and National Socialists, they willfully overlook the historical context in which such alliances took place. The fact is Jewish communists worked with Stalin to destroy 50,000 Churches in Slavic territories and also killed scores of Christian priests — today, Zionist scum Jews don’t seem to care that the wars they unleashed in the Middle East have led to horrible suffering for the Christian Arab communities — , and that is why many Christians came to see(understandably at the time) that Fascism and even National Socialism were preferable to Communism and radical Jewish venality. (Of course, the ideological commitment of Jewish leftists changed over the years for many reasons. Paradoxically, the passage of time can make a people both more principled/idealistic and cynical/mercenary about the prevailing socio-political dogma. As time passes, new generations are likely to grow more cynical as all ideological passions fade and as they notice that the promises ring hollow. In contrast, the first revolutionaries were likely to have been true-believers willing to kill-and-die for the cause. But in some ways, the first revolutionaries tend to be less principled and less ideologically pure since, despite their commitment, they were emotionally and culturally shaped by the pre-revolutionary order. Despite their conscious belief in the new dogma, they may be subconsciously and/or habitually tainted by ‘bourgeois’ or ‘reactionary’ tendencies. In contrast, the new generation is raised from cradle on the milk of radical purity. They have little or memory of what-had-been-before-the-revolution except the negative stuff they’ve been taught by their teachers and told by their leaders. So, in that sense, the young ones are likely to be more idealistic and principled than the older generation who, despite their rebellion against the old order, was profoundly shaped by it nevertheless. It’s like Karl Marx himself was steeped in bourgeois habits and attitudes despite his anti-bourgeois ideology. This is why younger Americans are more politically correct and ideologically purist than the older generations despite their boundless cynicism. Liberals of the past had been deeply influenced by traditional society, whereas white Americans who grew up since the late 80s know nothing but MLK worship, political correctness, and all this yammering about ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and ‘homophobia’. And yet, as time passes, young ones come to grow bored of all this ideological correctness and come to realize that it’s the same-old-song played by the elites to control the masses. Indeed, even ideologies that are mass-oriented are really controlled by the elites. This was true of all communist nations where the New Boss manipulated egalitarianism to lord over the sucker masses. And today, we see it in the West where the elites use rhetoric about ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ in order to intimidate, shame, and silence the masses of native born whites. So, privileged whites tell working class and middle class whites to shut up; the former; being so much better educated, more intelligent, and more caring, feel utterly justified in symbolically allying with the ‘people of color’ in order to suppress the mass rage of the white majority that is browbeaten at every turn.)

If victimology is specific and limited in its complaint and redress, it should be no problem. If you do something wrong to another person, of course you should to redress the problem. But if the descendants of your victim take on his mantle of victim-hood for all eternity, victimology turns chronic and aggressive. It is not about "you did me wrong" but about "I get to do you and your descendants wrong for all eternity". It means, "since you victimized ‘my people’ in the past, I get to victimize your people forever." This kind of victimology is poisonous, but if a people use it against your people, you must use the same kind of victimology against them. As all peoples have violent histories, it’s not difficult to find some reason or excuse to denounce a people. Japanese have complained about American overkill in Japan during World War II, and perhaps a case can be made that Americans unnecessarily killed a lot of civilians in lopsided fashion. But as Japanese are not a very scrupulous people(on matters of morality), Americans have pointed out that Japanese victimized lots of Asians in China and Southeast Asia. So, even though Japanese brutalized and killed many more non-Americans than Americans, Americans have found Japanese brutality in Asia useful to counter the victimology of Japan.
If blacks talk about slavery and Jim Crow, whites can talk about 10,000 yrs of slavery in Africa where nasty blacks brutalized other blacks — just like Japanese brutalized other Asians. Whites can talk about millions of whites who’d been robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered by black thugs since the 1950s. If blacks bitch about Emmett Till, whites can talk about Willie Horton and other ghastly black thugs. If bitching about Emmett Till isn’t race-baiting, then bitching about Willie Horton is fair-game too. Of course, whites will be unduly attacked for being insensitive, but if more and more whites stand up and shout back, the rising tide will be unstoppable. This is exactly what John Derbyshire did with ‘the talk’. It’s a kind of a ritual among black parents to tell their kids that America is a ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ society in which black kids, especially black males, have to be extra-careful and on the lookout for KKK white southerners like George Zimmerman since there are so many bigots out there who are just itching to lynch Negroes and hang them from trees. Or, there are all these ‘racist’ cops who’d just to drag any number of black youths into stations and beat them to a pulp. But, in fact, racial lynchings were, in fact, very rare in American history even before the Civil Rights Movement. A few thousand in the 100 yrs from 1860s to 1960s. In contrast, many more whites before and since the Civil Rights Movement were beaten, raped, or murdered by stronger and more aggressive blacks. All the histories of New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and Milwaukee focus on white hostility against blacks, but they never ask why whites felt as they did. Sure, there were some whites who were just plainly bigoted against anyone non-white. But much of the hostility stemmed from the fact that blacks, even before the rise of black rage politics of the 1960s, tended to be more aggressive, thug-like, dangerous, and psychopathic. Though the sight of white folks getting together and yelling ‘nigger’ at MLK in places like Chicago makes the whites look hostile, aggressive, and nasty, the fact is, more often than not, whites were acting in self-defense as they feared integration with bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and nastier blacks. Indeed, even white liberals discovered the truth about Negroes, and even though they were loathe to discuss the problems — especially in the media — , their residential habits were hardly different from those of ‘white racist bigots’. It’s like even white ‘leftists’ like Dave Marsh — the rock critic — bolted for whiter areas when Negroes in Detroit began to whup white ass and riot and commit crime all over the place. Sure, these progots — ‘progressive’ bigots — like to pontificate theoretically about how blacks are filled with righteous rage because of the history of inequality and that all that can change IF our society were to ‘radically’ commit itself creating a genuinely equal society, but this is just a lot of bogus hokum, and despite self-serving white Liberal self-delusions, they too know it’s BS in their hearts. Theorizing is just a crutch against reality that won’t yield to nonsense. It’s like Jean-Luc Godard pretending to be some Maoist. If all the evil corporations and evil ‘white racists’ were to vanish from the face of this earth, the problems caused by Negroes will remain just the same. Indeed, suppose we divide US in half. Since white Liberals and progots are always blaming white ‘conservatives’ and ‘racist’ — and ‘sexists’, ‘homophobes’, and ‘xenophobes’ — for all the problems, suppose we create two separate Americas. All the white conservative and their non-white allies — 3% of blacks, 30% of Hispanics, 30% of Asians, 10% of Jews, and etc — go over to one side. Meanwhile the other side would be populated only with ‘wonderful progressives’. All the Liberal whites, 90% of Jews, 97% of blacks, 70% of Asians, 70% of Hispanics, most homos, and etc go and settle there. And since they love open borders, they welcome endless number of immigrants, even illegals who are deemed to be "God’s Children". So, would the problems of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘homophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, and etc. vanish from Liberalandia? Will billionaire Liberal Jews convincingly persuade underclass blacks and browns that there will be perfect equality some time in the future since their nation is now totally absent of people like John Derbyshire and Jason Richwine? Will effete homos and drone-like yellows and nasty blacks and tacoheaded browns all get along perfectly? Will there be perfect sexual parity between men and women? Will Liberalandia grow richer and ‘more beautiful, intelligent, and wise’ as tons of new immigrants, illegal and legal, pour in from the Third World and racially mix with Jews and whites? Will blacks stop singing violent rap songs about how great it’s to be a thug whupping white boys and conquering white women to be used as sex meat? Will Jews and Muslims come to any kind of understanding? Of course, no sane Liberal really believes this, and this is why even Liberal whites need the ‘bigots’ as scapegoats that are preventing ‘progress’. While all systems try to root out the Problem, they also fear facing the problem of no more Problem. Without ‘the Problem’, on whom do you fix the blame for all the problems of society. In the US, the Liberals can blame it all on ‘racist conservatives’ who are deemed to be the Problem. But in a society without ‘racist conservatives’, there will still be lots of problems. Now, why would such problems linger when Liberalism promised that society will be so wonderful if everything comes under the rubric of Political Correctness? Every system needs the Problem in order to explain the problems, the myriad real problems. This is why even communist societies always raised alarms about ‘bourgeois elements’ and ‘bourgeois tendencies’. So, if anything went wrong in communist societies, it was never blamed on the countless problems of communism — a system deemed to be perfect — but instead on ‘bourgeois elements’ and ‘bourgeois tendencies’ that still supposedly subverted the system psychologically, habitually, economically, or politically. But then, libertarian looneys are no different. Everything is the problem of ‘too much government’ even when the reason is clearly too-little-government in some cases. (Neo-fascists need to move away from strict ideological thinking. The problem of society isn’t always ‘too much government’ or ‘too little government’. If a society is too socialist, then the problem is obviously ‘too much government’, and the solution is lesser government. But if a society is overly capitalist, then the problem is obviously ‘too little government, and the solution is more government. But an ideologue will always say the problem is either ‘too little government’ even in a totalitarian system or ‘too much government’ even in a laissez-faire system. An ideologue is someone who says a dehydrated person wearing a winter coat under the hot sun needs another coat. Or he’s someone who says a freezing person in the cold needs to take off another layer of clothing. Neo-fascism teaches us to wear a coat in winter and take off the coat in summer. What is right is dependent on the situation. In DEAD POETS SOCIETY, the teachers inspires the students to loosen up, and in STAND AND DELIVER, the teacher instructs students to shape up. Both are valid situationally. In the New England Boarding School, there’s too much discipline and tradition, so it’s refreshing to encourage individual self-expression among the students — though Robin Williams’ character’s way is too cutesy. In the Latino-dominant school, more discipline and focus are what the students need. In a way, though Jews rail against ‘fascism’, they are expert neo-fascists. They are pro-majority in Israel because it serves Jewish power, and they are pro-minority in goy nations because it serves Jewish power. Jews think neo-fascistically than ideologically.) For Jewish anti-Europites, the problem is always with Europeans or whites. So, if blacks fail in school in Europe and America, it’s whites’ fault. If blacks fail in Africa, it’s whites’ fault. If Mexicans fail in Mexico, it’s whites’ fault. If Mexicans trail behind in America, it’s whites’ fault. White gentiles are forever ‘the problem’.
This is why John Derbyshire turned the tables and came up with his own ‘talk’ where he spelledo out the truth. Black males have most to fear from other black males. And males and females of all races have most to fear from black males who are, due to genetic factors, far more likely to be thugs, lunatics, punks, louts, and scumbags. Of course, Derbyshire’s piece was a shot in the dark, and Derbyshire was attacked all around — even by cowardly and craven Conservatives at the Neocon-dominated National Review — , but Derbyshire stood his ground and refuse to apologize like so many white pansy boys. Now, suppose more and more whites talk back with such attitude? It can turn into a political tsunami. Imagine every white parent giving the ‘talk’ about the nature of Jewish power, privilege, hate, subversion, contempt, and arrogance. Imagine every white parent giving the ‘talk’ about how Jews are working with homos to undermine and degrade our moral traditions and culture. Imagine white parents giving the ‘talk’ about how stronger and more aggressive blacks are going around whupping, humiliating, robbing, raping, and murdering white folks all around the Western World. Imagine white parents warning their kids that the reason why some white women go with black men isn’t to overcome ‘racism’ but because white race traitor whores find black men to be racially-sexually superior to white men; they are interracist mudsharks.
Imagine white folks talking back to Jews and blacks, spelling out so many cases of Jewish or black attacks on gentiles and whites. This is why Jews use all their might to crush people like John Derbyshire. They figure they must nip it in the bud before it blooms and spreads its seeds all around.
John Derbyshire the Owl Man who refused to budge.
If you want to find dirt on a people, just do a little digging. US did horrible things to Japan but justified them by Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and its atrocities in Asia. Zionist Jews did horrible things to Palestinians but used the media to emphasize Palestinian terrorism against ‘innocent Jews’. White Americans drove American Indians from their lands, but throughout US history, the narrative of ‘innocent white women and children’ threatened and murdered by ‘red savages’ worked its magic. Indeed, white justification of westward expansion overlooked the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians and generally focused on Indian atrocities on white folks. And even though US was essentially the aggressor against Mexico, the rallying cry among white folks was the victimological ‘Remember the Alamo’. Even though Christians killed and oppressed so many pagans and roughed up Jews now and then, their victimology focused on pagans feeding Christians to lions, pagans looting and pillaging Christian villages, and pagans laying waste to civilization. And when it came to Jews, Christians generally overlooked their own violence against Jews and focused on Jewish exploitation of goyim, Jewish collaboration with Muslims, and of course the never-forgotten Jewish ‘murder’ of the Son of God. And even though Soviet Communists killed countless people, they suppressed facts about communist horrors and emphasized dirty capitalist exploitation of labor, fascist atrocities and aggression against communists, and subversive elements that were supposedly sabotaging the communist enterprise. And even as the Nazis were beating up & killing Jews and wreaking havoc on the Eastern Front, they always made Germans out to be the noble victims. And though blacks have been going around robbing, raping, looting, mauling, and murdering whites, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Arab-Americans, and etc. for many decades, they ignore their own transgressions and only throw fits about fantastic news stories of ‘white racists’ raping black women(!) or murdering ‘innocent’ black lads like Trayvon Martin(who, at any rate, was killed by the mestizo George Zimmerman who trailed him because the neighborhood had come upon a series of burglaries perpetrated mostly by black males). So, blacks don’t have an ounce of sympathy for all the victims of black crime and violence but throw a giant fit about fictional fantasies of ‘white racist’ violence against blacks.
Victimology is selective. Though it invokes some degree of facts, it picks and chooses and cuts and edits according to its preferred agenda. It’s like how the Chinese Communist Party suppresses the facts about the Great Leap Forward(where Mao’s policies led to death of 25-40 million people) and the Cultural Revolution(where much of Chinese arts and cultures destroyed forever), but makes a huge deal of the Opium Wars and Japanese invasion of China. What Chinese do with history is no different from what Jews do with history.
Recently, even though it was Jews who instigated the coup in Ukraine, they made Russians out to be the aggressors by playing on old Cold War tropes. Though homos in Russia are free to be homo and do their fruitkin-ish things, the Jew-run Western media would have us believe that a kind of homo-caust is happening Russia because... Russia doesn’t allow homo poo-ride parades and won’t teach homo propaganda in school. It’s all very ludicrous — and during the Cold War years, never would I have imagined a day when more than a few Americans(including Conservatives) would be arguing for another Cold War on the basis of such ridiculous charges. Let’s have another ‘cold war’ because Russia doesn’t have ‘gay marriage’? Are we living in a crazy world or what?

We are living in confused times because it’s supposed to be the End of History. Though Francis Fukuyama is a (mildly)controversial figure, most Liberals and most Conservatives are agreed that the Western way is the best, and it is up to the rest to emulate and catch up to the West — or even be forced in that direction by military and/or economic pressure, thus explaining why so many on both the ‘left’ and ‘right’ are in agreement with US and EU policies against Iran and Russia. Iran is to be destroyed for being independent of Jewish influence — direct or indirect via the US — , and Russia is to be destroyed for resisting homo supremacist influence(which is really just a proxy for Jewish power). Jews hate the Chinese too, but for the time being, Jews figure they need the yellows as allies in their undermining of white gentile power in America. After all, it was globalism that undermined the white middle and working classes. Globalism allowed Jewish finance to grow bigger and richer, whereas the US manufacturing class made up mostly of white middle and working classes saw their power shrink in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Also, cheap cost of Chinese labor relieves inflationary worries, and that means the Jewish-controlled Fed can print a lot more money. Of course, once white power is utterly destroyed in America(along with Russia and Iran), Jews will fixate on China as the main enemy and villain in the world. And whatever problems are ailing America, the blame can easily be affixed on the Chinese by the Jewish-controlled media and government.
Anyway, given Russia is now less powerful than China — except in some military hardware — and more Liberal and freer than China, why are Jews tougher on Russia than on China? Because the Russian model of white majority power is far more threatening to Jews as it may inspire similar political mind-shifts in other European nations and even in the Anglo-sphere world.
After all, white Europeans and even white Americans are more likely to identify with white Russians than with yellow Chinese or even with yellow Japanese. Race does matter in racial comity and identification. If UK were to become a great power again, most white Americans will not be alarmed. But if Japan were to become #1 even as a liberal democracy, white Americans will be alarmed. Also, as Jews have deep roots in Russia, they have a personal stake in what happens there. Jews also came close to owning Russia twice in the 20th century. In the 1920s and early 1930s before the rise of Stalinism and in the 1990s when Jewish oligarches came within inches to gaining total control of Russian economy and government. Even most Liberal and Leftist Jews will side with Jewish oligarches against the Russian peoples. For all their yammering about principles of ‘equality’, it all comes down to Jewish power, privilege, and influence. But in the future, Russia might also fall to the Jews. After Putin, what? Putin himself isn’t anti-Jewish at all even though Jews are out to get him. Though Putin has key allies on the Russian Right, most Russian conservatives are as dumb and untalented as their American counterparts. So, once Putin passes from the scene, future Russian rulers could easily hand their nation to Jews just like American Conservatives and American white Liberals handed over the keys of control to the Jews.
As for Iran, it will never amount to any kind of significant world player. So, that leaves China as the big bogeyman for Jews to use as scapegoat once white power is totally destroyed and broken in America. Then, Jews will try to start a new cold war framed as ‘wonderful democratic diversity of America’ vs ‘oppressive tyrannical monolith of China’. Liberals will go with that since they don’t like the idea of the ‘people of color’ rising over them. White Liberals prefer compassion than competition with the ‘people of color’. As Chinese yellows are in heated competitive mode, white Liberals will sign onto seeing yellows as the main bad guys. As for white Conservatives, they’ll be relieved to be allowed to hate and badmouth at least one non-white group. As lots of white Conservatives are awfully frustrated because they are no longer allowed to badmouth Jews, blacks, and homos — and even illegal aliens from south of the border — , they’ll be grateful to be allowed to rag on and on about yellow peril. White Conservatives loved hating the Muslims after 9/11 — and relished the permission to hurl abuse at the ‘ragheads’ and ‘Islamo-fascists’ — , but the War on Terror became rather sour after the debacle of the Iraq War. Also, Jews got nervous as all this talk about ‘evil Mooslims’ began to sound like the kind of hatred that had once been heaped on Jews in Europe in the early 20th century. It was all the more ironic since white Conservatives were being ‘antisemitic’ against Muslims in the name of defending Jews and fighting antisemitism. Jews worry, "what if the white Conservative hatred of Arab Semites eventually morphs into hatred for Jewish Semites?" Anyway, as China is a vile and cruel place(especially to dogs and cats), it won’t be easy to persuade Americans of all stripes to see it as the land of Ming the Merciless. For the time being, the Jewish-controlled US media go easy since they still need an alliance with China in order to dismantle the power of the white middle and working classes and Russia. But eventually, Jews will turn on China. What about the Asian-American population that will be much bigger in the future? Won’t it protest Jewish power? This is unlikely. For one thing, there will also be many non-Chinese Asians, and they have no love for China as a nation. Why would Vietnamese-Americans and Indian-Americans care about China? Also, even though many Asians will become successful, most will be stuck at middle-management and won’t rise to the levels to challenge the power of Jewish oligarches who will continue to command the heights of American power. Also, yellows tend to be timid and, unless they are the great majority in power — like Chinese protesting in the streets in China — , they will just hunker down even when they’re wronged or scapegoated. Consider the docility of the Japanese-American population during the ‘Internment’. Also, there won’t be much in the way of non-Asian sympathy for Chinese-Americans since the yellow-victim narrative in American history has been comparatively suppressed. And as Chinese-Americans are seen as gawky geeks and dorks, there’s no admiration and sympathy for them as a whole. Notice that neither Sarah Silverman or Stephen Colbert got in any trouble for their jokes about the Chinese. Also, as most Chinese-Americans will be yellow dogs and drones who will suck up the teachings of the Jews, they will prefer to serve their Jewish masters against their brethren back home. Besides, there’s hardly any Chinese-male and Chinese-female solidarity, what with so many Chinese females marrying Jews or whites. Thus, Chinese-America will essentially just be a vagina for Jewish power. It will not stand up for China against Jewish power, and even if it did, Jews will outgun them in the top institutions, and furthermore, Chinese America won’t have any allies among whites, browns, and blacks who will just despise them as geeks & dorks and resent them as geeks & dorks who make more money.
Given the sexual divergence between Chinese-American males and Chinese-American females, I wonder if true leftism is ever possible as long as sexual freedom exists. In some ways, the mixing of the races seem like the triumph of leftism, a universalist blending of all peoples. But if sexual pairings don’t happen evenly or equally, what we’ll have is a form of sexual-racial hierarchy whereupon some races come to be associated with superiority/domination and some with inferiority/submission. Despite all the feminist brainwashing, there is still the natural sense that the male principle is superior since it is more dominant. When man and woman get it on, the man wants to dominate and conquer the woman, and the woman wants to be dominate and conquered by the man. Even a woman who wants total legal and political equality in society wants a man to dominate her in bed. After all, sex is about the man sticking it into her and ramming it in and out. If a lot of attractive Asian chicks go with white or Jewish men, but most white and Jewish women — except the ugly ones — won’t even look at yellow men, then a certain cultural image of racial-sexual differences arise. Whites and Jews will be associated with masculinity/domination and the yellows will be associated with ‘me so horny’ femininity/submission. Since the best yellow girls will go white/Jewish whereas a lot of yellow guys will be left with nothing, the worth of yellow-ness in America will essentially be feminine. Of course, this is the dynamics between whites and blacks as well. As white-black sexual pairing is mostly black male and white female, blackness has become associated with maleness and domination whereas whiteness has become associated with femaleness and submission. It’s no wonder that Ramzpaul the white dork rightist watches yellow porn. The sight of all them big Negroes doing white chicks probably has deflated his whanker whenever he looks at a naked white woman. But when he sees a small yellow guy doing a yellow chick in some Japanese porn, he can fantasize interjecting himself into the picture as the ‘white stud’ with the big pud.
Because the races are different, sexual choice and freedom have a way of undermining leftism. If all races were equal and having sex on equal terms, they might become mixed into universal mestizo-hood on equal terms. But the men of some races feel they’re unequally losing out to other races. So, there are some yellow guys fuming about white and Jewish guys taking their girls. There are Mexicans who get angry when some Negro takes some Mexican chick. And there are lots of white guys who are bitching about big strong Negroes taking white women — but they’re too ashamed to admit their defeat in this arena, so they prefer to discuss IQ differences where whites have an advantage. Perhaps, the only truly leftist way to mix the races into universal mogrel-hood is to use sexual collectivism where each man and each woman is assigned whom to have sex with and marry. And no one should complain since leftism teaches that all people are equally attractive and should be equally loved. So, if a guy is angry that the woman assigned to him is ugly and gross, he could be accused of aesthetic ‘sexism-racism-capitalism’. Same goes for a gal who is angry that the man assigned to her is not ‘man enough’. If all people are equal and should be loved equally, then any man would be good for any woman. But in the real world, things don’t turn out that way. Rich black guys only prefer to marry blonde women. Rich Jewish guys prefer to marry some Chinese chick than some Bolivian Indian chick. With so many white women marrying big strong Negroes or rich Jews — or deciding to forgo marriage altogether — , lots of white men(especially Conservatives) are having to marry yellow or brown. As this continues, the white race will grow weaker and feebler. Why? The kind of white women who go for Jewish men and black men tend to be bolder and more ambitious. A white woman who goes for a rich Jewish guy obviously wants the best in life. A white woman who goes for a Negro obviously is a bold and passionate ho. They are white women with the aggressive and passionate genes. As such traits will pass to Jews and Negroes, it means that white men will be left with more passive white women who lack boldness and initiative. The white alpha females will go with Jews and Negroes, and white males will be mating with beta-white-females. Thus, the white race will become less edgy and less passionate — as white women who tend to be bolder and more ambitious marry and have children outside the race. Also, semi-white kids produced by white men who marry Asians or Mexicans will be lacking in passion and boldness since Asian and indigenous Mexican genes — which is essentially Asiatic — tend to be more passive and submissive. So, the white race will be losing more of its edgy and passionate genes to Jews and Negroes while absorbing more passive and submissive genes from Asians and Mexicans. Just look at George P. Bush — aka Pee Wee Bushez — , and he’s even dorkier than George W. Bush. White race is so badly ‘fuc*ed’, but most white folks are too dumb to see the dirty trick pulled on them by the wily Jews.

Though higher morality is something we should aspire to, it’s like the saying, "it takes two to tango". If the other side doesn’t aim for higher morality, neither should your side. If the other side goes for low blows, then your side must grab the other side’s balls and moosh them real good. Also, your side must be careful to see if the other side is acting venally or in good faith. Consider the thing with the Trojan Horse. The Greeks pulled a dirty one on the Trojans, and the Trojans sure fell for it real good. In American history, the white elites and the white majority forgot the nature of the games of power. (Considering that white folks pulled all sorts of ‘dirty tricks’ to take land from Indians, Mexicans, Spanish Empire, and other folks, why did they think others might not pull the same trick on them? If it was foolish for Indians and Mexicans to trust Anglo-Americans, why would it be smart for white gentiles to trust devious and fiendish Jews?) Jews and blacks have no interest in higher morality. Jewish leftists, after all, didn’t shed a single tear for the millions killed by Stalin and Jewish communists in the Soviet Union. They didn’t care that Eastern Europe fell under communism during World War II and thereafter. And Jewish leftists, for all their ideological noise, had no qualms about working for common tribal interests with the Jewish capitalists, and vice versa. Armand Hammer, the Jewish billionaire tycoon, made his fortune by doing business with the Bolsheviks when Lenin and Stalin were killing millions of Christian Slavs. And Negroes never had any kind of higher morality. The image of the Noble Negro or Magic Negro was always a white invention. Blacks didn’t write stuff like UNCLE TOM’S CABIN. Such were merely white fantasies of the Noble Negro whose souls had supposedly been ennobled by suffering and oppression. But suffering and oppression had been the norm throughout 100,000s of yrs of black existence in Africa, and they’d only made blacks more savage and aggressive. And there was no indication that black existence in America made them any nobler. All that happened was that blacks came to realize that they must act ‘nice’ if they wanted to be in good graces with the white massuh. It was all just an act. But then, non-white peoples of all color all over the world learned to act in similarly slavish manners toward their white imperialist bosses — and of course, they had training in the art of subservience even before white imperialists/colonialists arrived since their own societies had been highly oppressive and tyrannical; if anything, the white imperialists were, in many cases, more lenient and kinder than the native elites and tyrants. Consider the lot of Chinese under British imperialists in Singapore and Hong Kong in contrast to the lot of Chinese who lived under the vile Mao. Consider the conditions of blacks under British rule in Uganda and Zimbabwe in contrast to conditions under black rule. There was nothing inherently noble about blacks, and ‘nice’ Negroes were only faking it to fool the massuhs and other whites. And if Negroes under slavery sometimes used their powerful voices to sing some nice spiritual songs, it was only because they weren’t allowed to revert to their savage ways and sing ugabuga music. So, it was really just a put-on. But white folks thought all that Negro spiritual-singing and ‘nice Negro’ act were in earnest, and they created the image of the Magic Negro. But it was all just a fantasy. Of course, some clever and shameless blacks — like MLK, Oprah, Obama, and etc. — studied white psychology and learned how to push the buttons to manipulate ‘white guilt’ and ‘white hope’. And they also got great advice from Jews who’d been studying the white mind for over a century via the new theory of psychology. But even before the rise of psychology, Jews had been skilled mind-readers since finance, middleman marketing, and such endeavors require a high degree of mental manipulation — like the one practiced by the Jew in Veit Harlan’s JEW SUSS. And as Judaism had essentially been about psycho-analyzing God for deeper profundities — instead of just earnestly obeying Him as Christians did — , Jews had a long history of mind-reading. If you can probe the mind of God, you can probe the mind of man. Jewish mind-reading rooted in merchant enterprises and finance was a form of empathy but not to be confused with sympathy. A businessmen accesses and reads the minds of others not out of good-will but to sell stuff and gain profit. It’s like how the salesmen and con-men in David Mamet’s plays are into reading the minds of others but never for their benefit. It is to manipulate others for one’s own advantage and profit. In HOUSE OF GAMES, the psychoanalyst in the beginning of the film tries to read and understand her patients for their benefit. She sees herself as a doctor helping and serving others. But the con-men whom she mingles with later are into reading minds of others for their own advantage. It’s how the game of power is played, and only suckers try to understand others to help others. Those who know the game of power try to understand others to help oneself. And this is how Jews and Negroes play the game. They try to understand whites to defeat and fool the whites. To fuc* up the whites. But whites try to learn about others to help others. Worse, what whites learn about others — or are allowed to learn about others — are closely supervised and dictated by political correctness, so whites are thus duped into thinking that all Jews are wonderful and all Negroes be all spiritual, holy, and shit. So, even though South African blacks are the scum of the earth, a lot of white dummies think they ‘understand’ the noble hearts of Negroes who be inspired by Nelson Mandela. Though Jews in Israel are tribal, self-centered, and arrogant, most American whites think they ‘understand’ Zionist Jews as wonderful, honest, and noble survivors of the Holocaust. Consider the film SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION. The Negro played by Will Smith seeks to read and understand the white Liberal couple to manipulate and fool them, but the latter are merely content to ‘understand’ the Negro guy as some wonderful Magic Negro. For all their ‘rationalism’ and ‘skepticism’, white Liberals are only capable of seeing the Negro as a noble figure. Reason and irony melt before powerful sacro-taboos combined with sensual-worship. Americans paradoxically worship power and powerlessness. America is the most powerful nation founded upon the myth of heroic powerless rebels defeating the all-powerful British Empire. Americans love champions in sports and the loudest singers, but Americans are also holier-than-thou about victim-hood. This makes Negroes especially appealing to Americans. Negroes are champions of sports and loud music-making. But they also claim the nobility of suffering as the oppressed powerless. Jewish King-makers used the cult of MLK to fashion a cult around these contradictory emotions.

Since so many Negroes in reality are awful, privileged Liberal whites live in a world of their own away from Negroes. But this causes unease since it means they’ve racially segregated themselves from lots of blacks, implying a certain degree of ‘racism’. So, the Negro guys understands this dilemma and plays the kind of ideal Negro that the white couple would love to be associated with. He acts like John McWhorter or Obama, and the white suckers fall for it all the time. Furthermore, the Negro guys enters into their lives as a playacting ‘victim of a crime’, presumably of other blacks. This flatters the white couple even more. They’d be loathe to admit that they’re afraid of black criminality, but this ‘Nice Negro’ admits to being a victim of street crime committed by blacks. So, this ‘good’ Negro presumably understands and shares the anxieties of white Liberals. Of course, such a Negro is too-good-to-be-true, just like Obama was too-good-to-be-true for anyone with sense and eyes. But white Liberalism, despite or precisely due to its elitist education, is blind because privilege is addicted to intellectual and moral narcissism; and in the post-WWII order, the greatest moral sin is said to be ‘racism’ — though we may be moving toward a day when ‘homophobia’ is considered even worse; after all, if ‘racism’ is the worst, it makes Zionists look bad for oppressing Palestinians. But since homos are so closely allied with Jews, no one could use ‘homophobia’ to get at the Jews — unless ultra-religious folks take over Israel and go after homo power. Charges of ‘homophobia’ are routinely made against Muslims and Arabs even by Western Conservatives, especially those who seek to win favors of super-rich and super-powerful Jews.
In order for white folks to understand the real Jew(rather than the ‘wonderful Jew’) and the real Negro(instead of the ‘Nice Negro’), they must think and speak with courage and honesty under a system of free speech. We must speak of the Jew that is real than of the fantasy Jew propped up by the Jew-run media. We must speak of the Negro that is real than of the Magic Negro that is a creation of the Jew-run media and sly black jive-ass bullshit. Once the real Jew and real Negro are seen for what they are, white folks will finally begin to realize that higher morality is impossible with them since Jews and Negroes only insist on ‘higher morality’ for the other side while going for low blows for themselves. Jew aim low but ask you for a blow.

Where Conservatives have really messed up is in universalizing particular realities. While universal truths are valid in a general way, they cannot be universally applied to the reality we must deal with. (Even when we worship a universal God, we must find our special meaning in relation to Him. The idea of a universal God, universal Truth, or universal power is valid and even necessary. After all, higher/highest truth cannot belong to any single people. To say that ‘our tribal interest’ is the highest truth would be akin to saying our people are gods. That’s just hubris and megalomania. In this sense, Christianity did much good for Europe. It reminded Europeans that there’s a higher truth/power than the interests of Europeans or any people. There is God who is the master of all things. It’s like gravity is beyond any people or nation. There is no German gravity, no Russian gravity, no Chinese gravity, no Muslim gravity, and etc. The laws of gravity constitute a power that is universal and same everywhere on Earth and across the universe. No people can own this truth/power of gravity, just like no people can own God. But each people must develop and form their own special relation to God. Judaism doesn’t say Jews own God, but it does say Jews have a special relationship to God, and the Torah records the history and philosophy of this special relationship. Then, every people should develop and write of their special relationship with God. It’s like, even though the force of gravity works the same all over the world, how different peoples use gravity depends their places in the world. If one people live up high and another people live down low, and if they must battle one another, those up high will use gravity differently than those down below. Those up high can throw stuff down, and those down below will have to build catapults to hurl things high. The two peoples have a special and contrasting relationship with the power of gravity. Jews have a sense of special relationship with God, but Europeans lack a comparable consciousness in relationship to God. The Catholic Church today is trying to embrace all of humanity. Even the Mormon Church has fallen into this one-size-fits-all mode. If white Christians admire Jews so much, then white folks should approach Christianity in a more Judaic way. They should conceive of and formulate a special relationship between the white race and God. Surely, that relationship is different than the relationship between God and Negroes or God and Muslims.) All forms of reality are particular to a certain degree, and it’d be foolish to enforce universal moral absolutism on them. For example, it’s a universal truth that it’s evil to kill an innocent baby. Surely, all cultures — except for the most pathological — would agree on that principle. But what about in war where a bomb must be dropped, and it’s almost certain that some children will be killed. Though the universal truth still holds that it’s wrong to kill babies, situations in war call and demand their own particular necessities.
Or suppose a farming family just had a baby but barely has enough food for the existing family members to survive. While infanticide is evil in the general-universal sense, we can surely understand why a family feels compelled to kill a newborn child since there isn’t enough food.
In a general sense, it’s true that blacks had been enslaved in America. It’s true that they’d been denied the rights enjoyed by whites, and that they had to suffer indignities that whites didn’t have to worry about. So, in a general historical sense, one could say that whites owe something to blacks and that it’s wrong for whites to continue to harbor ill will toward blacks. If this was the only thing we need to be concerned about, it’d be correct to sympathize with blacks. But there are certain particular factors that make such general narrative close to meaningless. After all, it’s also true — for any honest person with eyes and integrity — that blacks are physically stronger, more aggressive, and more psychopathic and that these problems are the products of 100,000s of evolution in sub-Saharan Africa and not the result of black experience in the New World. So, if the only difference between whites and blacks were skin color, we should be more sympathetic toward blacks. But since there are other crucial differences rooted in biology and evolution, it’s crazy for whites to believe that it’s wrong to feel hostility and fear in relation to the Negro. Though white folks should sympathize with the wrongs done to blacks in the past, there is more to race relations than that single consideration. It’s like if a circus trainer has mistreated lions and bears, he needs to feel a degree of guilt for what he’d done to the beasts. But that doesn’t mean he should reject and suppress all fearful or hostile feelings about lions and bears. After all, lions and bears are naturally bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than him. And it wasn’t his cruelty toward them that made them so strong, aggressive, and dangerous. Evolution over millions of years made them the way they are. He should feel guilty for what he did wrong to them, but he has every right to feel fearful of what might be done to him if he were to just set them free. He should come up with a plan where the animals are no longer abused but also one where they won’t be able to harm him or other humans. It’s like many decent Britons were right to feel sorry for what had happened to Germany after World War I when the entire nation was collectively punished and made to suffer. But the Britons made a mistake in generalizing their guilt about Germany. Many failed to see the true nature of Hitler and the Nazi regime, i.e. that the Nazis were beastly and were on the prowl for something more than national renewal and revival. The same goes for Negroes. Yes, Negroes had been done wrong in the past, and there should be efforts to redress the racial problems. If Negroes need some kind of wealth-sharing, that could be arranged — despite all the welfare and benefits they’ve received already through the yrs. But we also need to consider the fact that Negroes, due to 100,000s of years of evolution, are stronger, tougher, rougher, and more aggressive and a danger to other races. So, the proper solution would be REPARATION AND SEPARATION, which is what Abraham Lincoln wanted in the first place. He said something like, "Free the Negroes, give them some stuff, and send them away as they’re too tough and rough to live amongst us." A truly great man, Honest Abe was. Of course, there are plenty of white, Jewish, and Asian Liberals who’d deride what I say and insist that race is just a ‘social construct’. In that case, how about sending all the Negroes to white, Jewish, and yellow Liberal areas? Send all the Negroes in the South to places like Rhode Island and Vermont and Maine. And the rich parts of Manhattan. And Chinatown in San Francisco. Maybe the love and compassion of wonderful white, yellow, and Jewish Liberals will finally uplift the tragic hearts of Negroes who will then all become like John McWhorter or Malcolm Gladwell.
Though there are universal moral truths we uphold and rely on for guidance, reality is never so simple and straight for any person to grasp and control through universal values. How long would anyone last if he tried to live the life of a perfect Christian? And we know that pure libertarianism and pure socialism won’t work either. So, universal values must be handled as general truths, not as the absolute truth for everything at every place at every time. If one attempts such foolishness, he will end up like the character of the Luis Bunuel’s film NAZARIN.
But even more dangerous than applying universal values to reality(with all its particularities) is to universalize a particular reality. The notion of the Noble Negro is a prime example. A Negro is a complex creature. There are good Negroes, bad Negroes. There are Negroes who are a mix of good and bad. Also, what is good and normal for Negroes may not be good and normal for non-Negroes as different societies and cultures have different social norms and expectations. Historically, Negroes have been wronged at certain times in American history, but plenty of Negroes have done horrible things to other peoples. Many victims of Negroes violence are not descendants of white slave owners but whites of immigrants who arrived after the Civil War. Many victims of Negroes are Mexican-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, and etc. Also, what makes many Negroes so difficult in the classroom is that they’re naturally more aggressive and wilder than other races. So, Negroes and their problems comprise for a complex set of issues. The Negro race has its many particularities that pose many problems — or may be the stimulant of certain ingenious expressions of creativity that are uniquely Negro-ish. But the Liberal and even the Conservative concept of the Negro has been universalized into the Noble Negro ideal. So, we are supposed to close our eyes to the real MLK — a foul apelike punk — and just pay attention to his bloated pompous speeches. We are supposed to wax reverential about the mythic Oprah but not supposed to think about the real Oprah who’s just a fat, vain, and greedy pig. We are supposed to sympathize with and love the Negro despite the fact that there are so many aspects of the Negro that is so ugly and hateful. Sure, there are things of black culture to love and appreciate. One would have to be deaf and jaded not to be moved by Marvin Gaye’s WHAT’S GOING ON or Diana Ross and the Supremes’ many great hits. And only a moron would deny the greatness of a musical artist like Jimi Hendrix. And some Negro recipes for fried chicken are damn good, especially with some of that hot sauce that they be concocting. But there are other sides to the Negro that are ghastly, foul, disgusting, and dangerous. So, it’s ridiculous to universalize the good side of the Negro as something noble and soulful. As with all races and peoples, there are elements of nobility among Negroes, but there are also other things about Negroes that are downright dangerous to the survival of the white race.
Fred G. Sanford - Not a Noble Negro
Same goes for the Jews. Sure, there are lots of great things to be said about Jews, and only a fool would deny all the great, profound, and brilliant thing accomplished by Jews — and have been a blessing to all of mankind. And one would have to be some kind of numbnut not to be horrified by the Holocaust. But, there is more to Jews than the iconic holy image of Anne Frank. But we are so enamored of the image of the Great Holy Jew that we don’t smell the Jewish stench even when Jews act like Sarah Silverman, Howard Stern, Abe Foxman, Roman Polanski, Bernie Madoff, Benjamin Netanhayu, William Kristol, Howard Kunstler, Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky(the denier of the Cambodian Killing Fields), and etc. Even when we recognize some foul Jews, we don’t see their badness as reflecting on the Jewish community. When Jews act like shit, we just dismiss them as bad individuals and continue to see the Jewish community as blameless and wonderful. But we don’t do this about white folks, yellow folks, Muslim folks, Russian folks, and etc. When we notice a lot of French individuals acting arrogant and nasty, we see them as part of the French character. So, even as we admire so much that is great about France, we also notice aspects of the French that are rather unpleasant. Same goes for the Chinese. Someone might visit China and see much to admire and revere about such a people and culture with rich heritage. But there’s also the China of corruption, pettiness, dog-eating, animal cruelty, chauvinism, rudeness, and etc. Would we just dismiss the negative things about China as the problems of some individuals who are Chinese and pretend that Chinese as a people are universally good and noble? Suppose someone visits Iran and sees both the good and the bad, and heaven know there’s plenty of bad in Iran, though nowhere near as in India, the unflushed toilet bowl of a nation. Every Iranian individual in all his goodness and badness represents a part of Iranian-ness. There is no pure universal truth about a people that is separate from the characteristics and behaviors of the individuals who make up that people. But there are romantic ‘universally positive’ notions about certain peoples that ignore all the negative particularities that are just as much a part of their cultures. Take the Gypsies. There’s this romantic myth of the essence of the Gypsy soul that is free-spirited, passionate, mystical, and magical in its celebration of nomadism. But in truth, a lot of Gypsies are good for nothing but stealing, cheating, kidnaping, and acting like disgusting louts and leeches. This isn’t to deny the colorful and even tantalizing — and tragic — aspects of Gypsy culture and history — so powerfully realized in Emir Kusterica’s TIME OF THE GYPSIES — , but actual Gypsy culture isn’t just crystal balls and palm-readings by mystical old ladies but host of nasty traits that have even turned off many European leftists who’ve lost patience with them. From afar, one can just watch a film like LATCHO DROM and pontificate about the wondrous Gypsy soul — as pompous Jonathan Rosenbaum did in his review of the film — , but of course, someone like Rosenbaum would never buy a house and settle in a community teeming with Gypsy thieves — or, for that matter, Negro thugs. It’s like the two French hippies in Louis Malle’s PHANTOM INDIA. In the early part of the film, the dufuses are so enthusiastic about India. They approach it as a universal essence defined by spirituality, purity, wisdom, and timelessness. It’s as if everything about India — even the cow dung — is full of sacredness and wonder. But later in the film, we meet up with one of the guys, and he’s visibly shaken by the experience. All the rosy illusion has gone from his eyes. He’s almost shaking with fear and exhaustion. He says he’s just about had enough of the place and wants to go back home. If the rich Beatles soon got tired of so-called sacred India, imagine how two young and naive French hippies without much money must have fared in that trash-pile-hell-hole-toilet-bowl nation. The French guy eventually saw the real India with all its particularities, and he learned the lesson not to universalize everyone and everything about India based on the holy image of India one sees and hears in songs, dances, architecture, and mythology. But when it comes to Jews and Negroes, we are pressured to admire every facet of their history and culture as if everything about them is radiant and wondrous. It’s like every little thing about Jewish people and culture is good and noble, and we must apply such an idealized view on everything about Jews. So, even if a Jewish community is nasty and hostile, we must pretend that they’re wonderful Jews. So, even if so many black communities are foul, we are supposed to believe that inside the soul of every Negro is a Magic Negro trying to get out. Of course, there’s a limit as to how much we can be fooled. Many of us can’t help but see a lot of nasty Jews and a lot of bad things about Jewish power and influence. And many of us can’t help but notice that many blacks are thugs and scumbags. But Jews who control the media and academia have cleverly manipulated us into thinking that even if there are plenty of bad Jews and bad Negroes, their badness is merely a neurotic byproducts of their suffering under white folks. So, if Wall Street Jews like Jordan Belfort act foul, it must be because their grandfathers weren’t accepted into some Wasp golf club. If Mark Zuckerberg pulled a lot of dirty tricks to get to the top, it must have been because he snubbed by a pair of Nazi Cone Twins — or so says Aaron Sorkin, the writer of THE SOCIAL NETWORK. Or if Negroes go around raping and looting, it must be because America still hasn’t done enough to redress the legacy of slavery. Supposedly, even bad Jews and bad blacks are really good but only have been corrupted and driven over the edge by far worse ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ whites. Thus, the bad deeds of many Jewish individuals and many black individuals don’t make a dent on the universally positive image of Jews and blacks. If a lot of Germans act bad, it is said to reflect on all of German culture, history, and collective memory. But if a lot of Jews act bad, it is never made to reflect negatively on the ideal image of the Jews as the perfect people. No matter how many whites are raped, robbed, and/or murdered by blacks — and no matter how much the history of ‘Jim Crow’ recedes with the passage of years — , the image of blacks will be that of noble saints and innocent victims whereas the image of whites will be that of sadistic ‘slavers’ like the ones shown in 12 YEARS A SLAVE. All the particular bad shit done by white individuals affect the general view of white history, but no amount of particular bad shit done by Jews and blacks will affect our image of them since Jews control the media/academia and have rigged the game of ‘truth’. It’s like Jews and blacks have been Teflon-treated historically. Nothing bad they do ever sticks on them.
Of course, another way to pass the buck is to characterize bad Jews as ‘bad whites’(thus creating the impression that white gentiles are the ones who are stealing and robbing on Wall Street and in Las Vegas) and to characterize black thugs as ‘youths’ and ‘teens’. Though there are so many foul Jews and blacks, the idealized essence of Jewishness and blackness is made to apply universally to every Jew or black. So, even a foul billionaire Jew is shrouded in the holy light of Holocaust victim-hood, and even scumbag Negro thugs act like they’re noble souls who’ve just been freed from the bondage of slavery — indeed, as if slavery hadn’t existed in Africa to begin with. Of late, of course, homos get the same treatment. Never mind all the sick particularities of the homo community with its narcissism, bitchiness, ‘sexual’ perversion, close ties with the pedophile community, snotty neo-aristocratism, and etc. Instead, just tell yourself that the radiant essence of homosexuality is rainbow colors, happy vanilla faces, clean-cut laws ala ‘homo fathers know best’, and the ‘new normal’. And this idealized and unrealistic image of homosexuals as the perfect saints and noble victims(as well as the whitest/cleanest narcissists) of our age is applied universally to all homos, even scumbags like Harvey Milk who had affairs with underage boys. Never mind all the hypocrisies, corruptions, deceptions, perversions, and transgressions of Jews, Negroes, and homos. Just think of the Holy Jew, Noble Negro, and homo saint, and then apply the perfect image to every Jew, every Negro, and every homo no matter how vile, ugly, and/or stupid he is. But if you still can’t help noticing something bad about Jews, Negroes, or homos, just blame the straight white gentile community. Just tell yourself that some Jews are nasty only because they were drive to desperation by antisemitic whites. And some Negroes are driven to rage because of ‘racist’ whites, though ironically enough, blacks seem to be as upset with Liberal whites as with Conservative whites in everyday reality. And if a whole bunch of homos died during the AIDS crisis, it wasn’t because they acted like disgusting monkeys but because straight society just didn’t care enough. Homo attitude is: "Leave us alone to boof each other in the ass all we want, but YOU(especially white Conservatives) are to blame for not caring that we contracted HIV by boofing one another." How more bratty, spoiled, bitchy, and asinine(or assinine) can you get?

We don’t say Christian history, culture, and identity is only about the positive image that Christians have of themselves and the perfect ideals expressed in the New Testament. No, Christian history, culture, and identity are also about everything the Christians did: the wars, the witch-burnings, the crusades, and etc.
Same goes for communism. Communism isn’t just what’s in the books of Marx. It is what communists really did with those ideas. It’s about the horrors as well.
US isn’t just about what’s in the Declaration of Independence but what Americans really did, like slavery.
A person isn’t to be judged only by his stated goals, self-image, or self-justification but what he really did.
Then, the same should apply to Jews and blacks. But Jews employ a proposition tactic when it comes to Jewishness. Never mind what Jews really did. We should just embrace the ideal image that Jews propose for themselves unto us. They say, "We are great, we are wonderful", so we must all agree that they are great and wonderful.

As for blacks, it’s as if their moral image ends in the early 60s. Stephen Jay Gould said no human evolution took place in last 10,000 yrs, and PC says no black evolution in black morality took place in past 50 yrs. Black morality has been frozen in the holy image of the Civil Rights Movement. True, blacks were once wronged, and they had a compelling moral case during the Civil Rights Era. But was there a ‘End of History’ in black moral development(or degeneration) since then? Since blacks were righteous at one point in history, should we judge them to be righteous for all of history? What about all the crimes, violence, and corruption blacks have committed since then. Once we start considering the dark side of black moral behavior since the early 1960s, there is no End of History of black morality. If anything, it’s been sinking lower and lower, what with black culture now consisting of Rap and ‘twerking’. But Jews and Negroes insist that our moral view of blacks must end with the Civil Rights era and not continue beyond that. We must keep returning to a time when blacks were on the ‘right side of history’. It’s as if the moral evolution of the relationship between whites and blacks are forever fixed in that time frame. So, no matter what terrible things blacks do, we must pretend that the moral dynamics is as it was 50 yrs ago. Nothing has changed. We must make believe that whites are still doing a grave wrong to blacks, and whites must find some way to apologize and redress the problem over and over and over. (Jews want the same thing with the homo debate. Just as Francis Fukuyama argued that the End of History came down on the side of liberal democracy, Jews and homos say that the ‘culture war’ has been won on the side of ‘gay marriage’, and there’s nothing more to be said about it, and that’s that. It’s over and finished so shut up. Of course, Fukuyama was wrong as the ‘end of history’ seems to be globalist oligarchy and libertine gluttony than liberal democracy. As for ‘gay marriage’, most of the world still opposes it, and in the West it’s been crammed down people’s throats through the force of laws and massive propaganda spewed by the Jew-run media. At the very least, Fukuyama wasn’t calling for an End of Debate. He was just positing a theory that some agreed with, some disagreed with. But Jewish supremacists really want an End of Debate on many issues. They want to play god and preach to us that if they say something is correct, it is and there’s more to be said about it.)

If there’s a key difference between secular white victimology and Jewish & People-of-Color victimology, the former tends to be situational whereas the latter tends to be eternalist. For example, white Americans, religious and secular, used victimological narratives from the beginning. Religious dissidents who fled the Old World for religious freedom — though they were quick to deny it to others in the new social order established by themselves — spun a victimological narrative about religious persecution. The American Revolutionaries who agitated against the British King were hyperbolic, demagogic, and even hysterical peddlers of victimology that was almost completely overblown. In no shape or form was the Mother Country of Britain exploitative of or oppressive toward the colonialists, which explains why only barely one third of the colonialists were persuaded to join the rebellion. Also, had the Revolutionaries not won the support of the French(then ruled by an absolutist Monarch), they would have never won against the combined forces of the British and the loyalist colonialists. The Revolutionaries won through a combination of dedication, inspired leadership, brilliant propaganda, and masterly use of alliances, mainly with the French but also with the Spanish and Prussia. But then, let’s recall it only took 1/3 of the German electorate to bring the National Socialists to power. Though the Declaration of Independence was written in lofty terms, it was a giant pile of BS. Indeed, the reason why there’s so much abstract vague-sounding rhetoric about ‘man’ and ‘rights’ was because when it came down to specificity of issues, the rebels didn’t have much of a compelling case against the King who’d been, if anything, very indulgent and supportive of the colonials. The lesson to be learned here is that the well-treated are often more likely to rebel than the harshly repressed. Indeed, consider how well the Wasps treated the Jews — especially in consideration of how Jews had been treated in other parts of the world — , yet, in many ways, Jewish invective and rage against Wasps — in both UK and US — have been more rabid and virulent than in other parts of the world with Jews. Why would this be? It’s just a fact of human psychology. We all find frustrations from so many areas of life, but at most times, we can’t express our anger because we’d get in trouble with the powers-that-be. So, if a worker has problems with his boss and others who have power over him(or gang up against him), he will have to hold in his anger. But suppose the angry guy’s father is a very nice guy man far from perfect. One day, suppose the father irritates the guy, and the guy blows up at his father with anger that goes far beyond what is justified in the situation. Indeed, suppose the guy blows up at his father like his father committed the worst crime in the entire world. Why would this be? Why get so angry at someone who’s most caring toward him while remaining better behaved toward others who are more hostile to him and don’t care about him at all? It’s because all the rage and frustration that’s built up inside him has one easy outlet in the father, an imperfect man but far from the worst. Same goes for the Jews and Wasps. Sure, there have been Wasps who were nasty toward Jews, but in the past 200 yrs, no people have been nicer to Jews than Wasps in UK and US. And yet, some of the most hostile Jewish resentment and rage have been aimed toward Wasps and waspized whites. Wasps may feel confused as to why, but it’s not difficult to understand the nature of Jewish behavior. In most parts of the world, the gentiles didn’t pretend to be fair and good. When Jews acted nastily, they clobbered the Jews and taught them a lesson they would never forget. Most Christian and Muslim nations kicked the Jew’s ass when Jews got out of line, which wasn’t uncommon since Jews had a tendency to look upon dimwit goyim as cattle to exploit. In contrast to such ‘boorish’ peoples, Wasps had better manners and loftier ideals. So, despite their snobbery toward Jews, at the very least they felt it was uncouth and unworthy for a civilized people to express brutal hostility toward Jews. (Also, as Wasp pride, honor, and hierarchy depended on superior wit, Wasps were loathe to upset Jews since Jews could counter verbally to greater effect: Witzkrieg. It wasn’t just chutzpah that made Jews so formidable. After all, Gypsies, Greeks, and Italians have something similar to chutzpah. Chutzpah without wit just seems stupid and hysterical. It couldn’t stand up to the razor-sharp dry with of smart Wasps. If Jews were mostly witless and just got angry and fumed, they would come across as flustered and desperate, especially as they aren’t physically up to the task of beating Wasps[like Negroes can]. But Jews had chutzpah and superior wit, so Wasps, whose pride centered so much on witty banter and repartee, became afraid of tangling with Jews. So, when push came to shove, Wasps tried to appease Jews so Jews wouldn’t snap too hard.) Wasps weren’t keen on having Jews enter into the innermost corridors of Wasp power, but they also didn’t feel like spelling their feelings[ranging from anxious to hostile]about Jews in bold letters. It simply wasn’t good form for Wasps to be so brazen in their hostility. A kind of ‘moral victorianism’ pervaded the Anglo and Anglo-American community that frowned upon people expressing their views too forcefully. Why, only unmannered Italian mama’s boys and Teutonic Huns into Viking helmets and breast plates in Wagner’s operas acted like that. The refined English Gentleman and common-sensed American gentleman always kept their poise. As with their sexuality, they checked all strong emotions, even hostile feelings. So, if certain cruder cultures blatantly told the Jews to get lost or step back, the Wasps allowed Jews to have the freedom and enjoy rights to a far greater extent than anywhere else. And even when Jews weren’t wanted in certain institutions or inner-circles, the antisemitic signals were subtle than ‘vulgar’ and blatant, e.g. ‘NO JEWS ALLOWED’. Even among a group of English ‘anti-Semites’ in high society, it simply would have been thought of as gauche for someone to say, ‘the bloody fuc*ing JOOS are taking over everything!’ Such breach of manners would have been enough to have him shunned even by his antisemitic colleagues. It’s like the university deans in THE CHARIOTS OF FIRE who make snide remarks about the Jew in diguised-dignified manner. As the discrimination wasn’t so blatant in the Anglo world, the crafty Jews could find ever more clever ways to inch their way into the corridors of power. As Anglos didn’t erect strict barriers but kept Jews out through a series of signals, unwritten rules, and manners, Jews figured out a way to master them and rework them to their own benefit. And as British relied so much on witty banter, Jews were at an advantage since no people were as good at verbal acrobatics and witty comebacks as the Jews. In America with much greater egalitarian ethos and hostility toward class hierarchy — at least in cultural outlook if not in reality — , Jews found even more freedom and opportunity. And with so many immigrants swelling the ranks of the new Americans, Jews could find many more allies. Of course, the funny thing was that the ethnic whites all came from nations with far more hostile attitudes towards Jews than held by Wasps. And even in America, ethnic Americans — especially Catholics — were far more likely to say nasty things about Jews, even openly. Indeed, if America has been founded and dominated by any group other than the Anglos, Jews would never have risen so high. It was the Wasps who, despite all their hypocrisies and manipulations, were most idealistic, principled, rule-of-law oriented, conscientious, reform-minded, self-critical, and sensitive toward others. Though there were plenty of Wasps with racial attitudes not much different from those of the Nazis, there were many more Wasps who, despite their snobbery and arrogance, found overt prejudice to be ugly and unworthy of White Civilization. This is why the white racialists of the early part of the 20th century didn’t get very far. It wasn’t mainly because non-Wasps and non-whites united against them but because most Wasps didn’t want any part of it, at least not directly. When the Great Depression hit America, Wasps Americans could have played the anti-Jewish card as well — and indeed some white Americans did — , but the Wasp establishment in both the Democratic Party and Republican Party had no stomach for overtly hostile Jew-bashing. They weren’t crazy about Jews but they’re weren’t crazily hateful toward them either. (To be sure, even most Germans disdained the kind of antisemitism peddled by the National Socialists, which is why the Nazis did poorly in elections until the second depression devastated Germany once again in the early 1930s. And even in 1933, the Nazis won just 1/3 of the vote, and even those who voted for the Nazis didn’t do so mainly out of antisemitism — which the party underplayed precisely to win over mainstream voters — but for order, stability, and jobs. It was really after the Nazis came to power and gained monopoly of government, media, and education that antisemitism began to spread all over as a national ideology due to Nazi monopolization of media, academia, government, and secret police. It was impressive successes of the National Socialist program with the economy and national renewal that persuaded many Germans to think that maybe Hitler had been right from the beginning: Jews had been the main cause of German suffering, therefore ridding Germany of Jewish influence was the primary reason for German revival.) When Jews complained to most other peoples, they told the Jew to just shut up and get lost. But when Jews complained to Wasps, they would at least get a hearing and enough Wasps were willing to admit that Jews did have a point about Wasp hypocrisy and privilege. So, all the frustrations that had built up in the Jewish soul all over the world and all through the centuries came to be directed at the Wasps. Not because Wasps were the worst toward the Jews but precisely because Wasps were the only ones willing to hear out the Jews without overt hostility. Also, Wasp were the only ones who were capable of genuine self-criticism and conscience. Following the example of Jews, we now have Hispanics, blacks, and Asians putting on the same show before the white audience. (If Jews got a lot of mileage by acting the way they did, why shouldn’t other groups?) In truth, blacks, browns, and yellows feel more hostility toward one another and eye one another with greater distrust, hostility, and prejudice than whites do toward them. But each group gripes most about whites and against whites. Why? Because whites are the only ones who will listen to them and take their criticism to heart.
Of course, there are other factors as well. As whites are perceived to be the most powerful and most privileged, they have the most to concede to those making the complaint. It’s like it’s better to sue a rich man who did you little wrong than a poor man who did you more wrong. Suing a poor man won’t get you anything whereas suing a rich man can get you a lot of money. Also, some of the more clever ‘progressives’ will argue that white niceness and compassion are, in and of themselves, proof of white oppression and privilege. The logic goes, because whites stole so much from other peoples, they can afford to live well and entertain naive notions of being ‘good’ whereas non-whites, having had to struggle in the world of poverty, prejudice, and oppression, never had the means to develop good attitudes and fine values. It’s like good table manners are for those with money, nice things, and no lack of food. In contrast, the poor are too hungry and desperate to have manners when they’re wrestling with one another over a single bean or a leftover bone with a bit of meat. So, even if whites are the most ‘progressive’ and ‘nice’, it’s only because they’ve hogged and enjoyed the privilege that allowed them the luxury of having compassion for others than just caring about themselves. In contrast, non-whites have led such a precarious and desperate existence that they only have survival on their minds, which means that they tend to be more tribal and distrustful of others. (For some reason, such perception doesn’t apply to ‘poor white trash’, whose prejudice against blacks and others might be rationalized on grounds that they never had no fancy learning to be ‘good and proper’ like gentlemen folks because they had no time for anything but picking cotton, working in coal mines, or toiling in factories. If anything, rich ‘progressive’ whites love to snub their noses at ‘white trash’ or ‘trailer trash’ who are demeaned as ‘racists’ and ‘bigots’. But this is more a recent development as the ‘poor whites’ — ethnic factory workers, white southern farmers, and etc. — had been the center of focus of the American leftism, indeed even if the interests of non-whites had to be sacrificed. But more recently, American ‘progressivism’ underwent a sea-change whereupon issues of class have been mostly replaced by issues of identity based on race, religion, or ethnicity. And indeed, the new ‘left’ much prefers the mania for ‘gay rights’ over issues of class inequality. Wall Street and the mainstream media had no use for the Occupy Wall Street Movement pitting the 99% vs the 1%. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Ivy League universities, the courts, and the federal government gave no support to the Occupy Movement. If anything, they did everything to discredit it, and even most ‘progressive’ news outlets hardly mention it or the issues of class. Tom Piketty the French neo-Marxist has been in the news lately, but the elites have warmed up to him since his solution for class inequities is the creation of a giant new bureaucracy that can easily be appropriated and controlled by the super-global-elites. Instead of class politics, the favorite cause of the super-rich and super-powerful is the ‘gay movement’. Wall Street backed it with big money. If the homo agenda is the most central issue of ‘progressivism’ and if Wall Street and homos are the best of friends, then it would be bad form for ‘progressives’ to attack Wall Street since it’s been so supportive of the ‘saintly’ homos. And with the top 1% — or the top 0.01% of San Francisco and Hollywood — also behind the homo movement, how could the urban super-rich folks be the ‘bad guys’ when they are so friendly with and so loved by homo activists. Homo activists love Steve Bezos and Tim Cook, so never mind that Amazon works its workers to the bone, never mind that Apple uses cheap Chinese labor that sometimes resemblers slavery, never mind that globalist policies that fattened blue cities have hurt the middle class and working class in small towns, and furthermore, never mind that most Americans share few common interests with the 2% of the US population that is Jewish and 2% of US population that is homo. By having 98% of straight people bow down before homos, the current ‘progressive’ mentality that embraces the ‘new normal’ basically mentally trains 98% of gentiles to bow down before Jews. Is it any surprise that the 99% of Americans so docilely bow down before the 1%? It used to be leftism embraced minority rights on the basis that minorities are deserving of the same freedoms and rights enjoyed by the majority. This sort of made sense since there was a time when minority populations in America had less freedom, rights, and wealth than the majority population of whites, especially Wasp whites. But today’s form of minority politics isn’t about minority gaining equal freedom and equal rights but about minority privilege and minority supremacism. Blacks are not struggling for legal equality anymore. Black men are vying for supremacist position to take white women from white men. Black men and mudshark white women are saying black men are racially-sexually SUPERIOR to white men who should accept their defeat in the Cuckold War and just accept their inferior lot as pansies and wussies. Jews are not fighting for equality but their entitlement to eternal supremacy over the majority. Jews are saying that it’s wrong for anyone to criticize or challenge Jewish power even though Jewish power is the most powerful power in America and the world. When Wasp elites had the power, Jews were all for pointing the finger of blame at Wasps, but now that they have the power, Jews say they don’t deserve to be criticized and scrutinized since they are an eternally helpless minority. But are Jews in America like Jews who once dwelled in the ghettos of Europe? Or, are they more like British imperialist minority elites that ruled over the vast majority of Asian-Indians? American Jews today are, of course, more like British imperialist minority elites during the Age of Empire. And homos aren’t content to be free to do their homo thing; they are saying they should have the power and privilege to change the meaning of marriage to serve the ‘sexual’ perversion of homos whose idea of ‘sex’ is two guys indulging in fecal penetration. Homos have hogged all the colors of the spectrum and made the ‘rainbow’ their symbol. Homo propaganda spread by Jewish media is so unrelenting that idiotic Americans think 25% of Americans are homo. If you go by the racial/ethnic composition of punditry, one might even believe that Jews comprise 50% of the US population. It’s Jews, Jews, and Jews on TV and News. It’s actually worse as 50% of pundits who are Jewish speak for Jewish power, and 50% of pundits who are gentile speak for, well, Jewish power. So, 100% of MSM is pro-Jewish though the majority of Jewish pundits and even their running-dog-gentile-colleagues are virulently anti-white. American media are made up of Jews and shabbos goyim. ‘Gay marriage’ is not about ‘marriage equality’ since it only privileges homos to change marriage laws. The push for ‘marriage equality’ doesn’t allow ‘incest marriage’ or polygamy. Also, incest-sexuals are not allowed to adopt. That privilege has been extended only to homos. It’s funny, ain’t it? Homos say they should have the freedom to lead homo lives, and they’ve been given that freedom. But no matter how much they bugger one another or grind vagina with vagina, they can’t produce a single human life. So, they demand that they be allowed to adopt children that were produced by real sexuality. Homos wanna grab orphaned kids who should be raised in a family that resembles and upholds the ideal of fatherhood and motherhood. If you have a father and mother, surely you know that what your father provided in masculinity, your mother couldn’t provide in her femininity, and vice versa. So, ideal parenting is a balance of yin and yang. Indeed, imagine if your father came home one day and told you that he and your mother are separating and that they’ve agreed that you will be raised by your father... and his homo lover who buggers your father in the ass. Would you want to be without your mother and be raised by your homo father whose idea of ‘sex’ is having some other guy stick his sexual organ into his fecal hole? Suppose your father and his lover — your ‘other father’ — are nice people and smile a lot and provide you with plenty of material goods. So, would that be okay? You might be told that it’s no big deal that your mother walked out of your life, because only a ‘reactionary’ opinion would uphold the ideal family as being composed of a father figure and mother figure. Or, suppose your mother says she’s a lesbian and leaves your father, and you must now live with her and her lesbian lover. So, you have ‘another mommy’ and you’re denied a father. Is that okay? As our society is increasingly okay with such socio-sexual perversion due to the media influence of the Jewish elites who are hellbent on pushing the ‘new normal’, we are truly living in a sick and demented age. It’s true that some people are born homo and should be free to be homo. Homosexuality is a natural abnormality. But where do homos get the idea that they have the right to associate their ridiculous ‘sexual’ behavior with the meaning of marriage that has deep roots in biology, culture, morality, and history? If homos want the freedom to reject the kind of sexuality that produces life, who are they to demand the right to adopt kids produced by real sexuality? And why should orphans be denied the right to be raised by the yin-and-yang of a father figure and mother figure? Why must they be put in a situation where they’re raised by two ‘fathers’ who indulge in fecal penetration or two lesbians whose idea of ‘sex’ is screwing a hole with a hole? What is this nonsense? But such nonsense has become the ‘new soul’ of American, indeed Western, ‘progressivism’ made possible by the total domination of the media and government by Jews.)
Anyway, because Anglo/American Wasps have been nicest to Jews, Jews use Wasps as an outlet and sounding-board not only for their grievances concerning Wasps but with everyone else. So, all the anger that Jews have about Russians, the Nazis, the Muslims, and etc.— and even blacks as many Jewish small businessmen had to deal with Negro customers — get dumped on sensitive Wasps who lend an ear. Similarly, Negroes dump all their anger about everything on Wasps since Wasps are the only ones who really care. If Negroes bitched about the Arab-Muslim conquest of African territories, Arab slave trade of blacks, and Muslim ‘cultural genocide’ over black Africans, Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa will just tell Negroes to go to hell. We saw how Libyan Arabs and Muslims treated blacks who’d migrated to Libya under the regime of Gaddaffi. The Arab majority forces of Libya rounded up a whole bunch of blacks and put them in cages like animals and then executed/lynched a whole bunch of them. If blacks complained to such people, nothing would come of it. Besides, Wasps got something that blacks want whereas Libyans don’t. Lots of money. Similarly, Wasps had — and, in part, still have — what the Jews always wanted more of. Jews wanted Wasp money, Wasp status, Wasp privilege, and Wasp power, and so Jews fixated on the Wasps as the main object of their complaints. Wasps probably wondered why Jews were so hostile to them when they were the least hostile people toward Jews on Earth. It’s because Jews had been kicked around by so many uncaring peoples who told them to go to hell and thus were brimming with all sorts of rages and resentments. No one paid them much heed, so when Jews finally found a sympathetic ear with the Wasps, they demanded that Wasps pay for the ‘sins’ of all that had been done wrong to Jews. This is why, for Jews, the mere fact that some Wasp golf clubs didn’t accept Jews is tantamount to another holocaust, or golfocaust. Jews arelike the actor-family in the TV series CENTENNIAL who exploit the sympathy of the local preacher against him to take his house and money. This is why showing kindness Jews is a fatal mistake. One may learn by studying the Jews, one may admire the talents and skills of Jews, one may appreciate the Jewish contribution to science, math, and literature, but one must never ever trust or sympathize with Jews. Jews will regard your sympathy as a sign of weakness, constantly bait for hypocrisies to exploit — who isn’t a hypocrite to some degree? — , and blame you for everything. Jews will say you and your people are evil and will propose a plan whereby you and your people can finally redeem yourself by submitting to the Jews. This is what the ‘proposition nation’ is all about. It’s about Jews defaming and erasing the pride and glory of the nation founded by Wasps and declaiming that white Americans can only be redeemed into ‘true Americans’ if and only if they submit to the new proposition or covenant handed to them by Jews. Jews are playing the role of God. Just as God made a covenant with Abram and promised the Jews their place in the sun if and only if they obeyed Him, Jews offer a propositional covenant with white Americans whereby white gentiles shall be redeemed and blessed (by holy Jews) if and only if they submit to the future as envisioned by Jews. If God required Abraham to circumcise his pud, Jews require all white males to castrate their balls, wave the homo flag, and surrender their prettiest women to Jewish Portnoys and Negro Mandingos.
Of course, Jews are correct to point out that white Americans hadn’t adhered to Constitutional principles in their crystalline perfection through American history, but then, which people ever practiced their principles to the letter? (Old Wasp America contradicted itself by emphasizing melting-pot assimilation-ism but then also enforcing racial segregation. The New Jew America contradicts itself by promoting anti-assimilationist multi-culturalism that says each cultural group should maintain its own identity/heritage but then by pushing for increased interracism among the races. How can each group maintain its own culture and identity if they’re mixing with other races and producing mulatto, mestizo, and Eurasian babies?) Have Christians ever followed everything Jesus said? Have Muslims always been faithful to the Koran? Have Jews been true to the Torah? Have Chinese followed Confucian texts to the letter? Have communists followed everything Marx said? Have Zionists remained faithful to their secular and socialist principles? Have leftist American Jews remained faithful to the working class — or are they too busy promoting all this homo stuff lately? How do Liberal Jews square the fact that while they were berating white rule in South Africa as an absolute evil, they’ve looked the other way and apologized time and time again for the much crueler and more ruthless Zionist oppression of Palestinians? After all, at the very least, white Afrikaners didn’t ethnically cleanse the blacks and, if anything, allowed blacks to grow into a huge majority. In contrast, Jews not only expelled 80% of the original Palestinian population of Palestine(and what became ‘Israel’) but continue to occupy and terrorize the West Bank areas where Palestinians are helpless to stop the ceaseless encroachment of Jewish ‘settlers’ — more like illegal imperialist invaders — on their territory. No people have ever been faithful to their foundational tenets for reasons that range from practicality to corruption to hypocrisy to whatever. Jews ought to know this since they’ve been experts at changing the rules of the game all the time. During the so-called McCarthy Era when Jewish leftists came under suspicion, the Jewish community invoked the Constitution to champion total freedom of speech. Jews were also for freedom-of-speech absolutism when it came to porn, an industry they controlled. But now that Jews control all the top institutions, the Jewish community is now changing its tune and saying that total free speech is bad idea since, well, some ideas — especially those that are critical of Jewish power and supremacism — are ‘hateful’, ‘toxic’, ‘noxious’, and ‘odious’. During the early years of the Civil Rights Era, Jews argued for ending racial segregation on the basis that the law must be equal to all. But then, a bunch of Jews began to argue for ‘affirmative action’ on the basis that we need institutionalized discrimination against more talented and skilled whites — usually white gentiles as Jews never have a problem with Jewish over-representation, especially in high places — in order to redress past wrongs. And if some of the things that Jews champion today are clearly against Constitutional principles, Jews sneer at the Constitution as a ‘dead document’ that has little validity in our so-very-complex world. So, all this stuff about ‘proposition nation’ is just a lot of baloney. If Jews are indeed sincere about fulfilling what’s written in the founding documents of America, why are they for illegal immigration and amnesty of illegals? Where in the Constitution does it say US should undermine its own borders and give amnesty to invaders? And where do Jews get the crazy idea that the Founding Fathers — and even Jesus 2,000 yrs ago — would have been for ‘gay marriage’? Jews tirelessly remind whites that even though the white Founding Fathers laid down beautiful laws and principles, neither the Founders nor their successors truly lived up to them... that is until the Jews arrived and gained control of America and began to enforce all those rules for the good of all. In truth, a lot of things that Jews have been pushing have no basis in the founding principles, declarations, or documents. Jews are just pulling things out of their ass to serve their own Jewish supremacist interests. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government should forgo its legal responsibilities, encourage people from all over the world to enter the nation illegally, and then offer then amnesty? Where in the Constitution does it say that homos should remake and reshape laws to serve the interests of decadent ‘gay’ privilege? Jews act like they’re on a mission to finally fulfill the noble propositions in the founding documents, but their propositions are made up by themselves. The Jewish proposition is a pure heresy of the founding principles of this nation, and it keeps changing depending on ‘what is good for the Jews’. Consider how Jews attack and denounce Wasp elites of the past for favoring immigration and close diplomacy with Northern European stock, and yet, these Jews are all in favor of US foreign policy especially serving the interests of American Jews and Israel over the interests of all other ethnic groups and their nations of origin. If indeed the new and better America should be a nation of immigrants that shouldn’t favor a single racial or ethnic group, why does American foreign policy favor a Jewish state over the rights and interests of dispossessed Palestinians? Surely, America has both Jewish-Americans and Palestinian-Americans. So, why is America so servile to the biases of Jewish-Americans but stone-cold-hearted to the interests of Palestinian-Americans? Why is US foreign policy silent about the overt repression of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia but so virulent about Russia’s refusal to allow ‘gay pride’ parades? Why do Jews bitch and whine about how whites are over-privileged and over-represented vis-a-vis blacks and browns but don’t say a peep about how Jews are way over-represented vis-a-vis white gentiles — and blacks and browns — in Hollywood, elite universities, top law firms, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and etc.? So, all this ‘proposition nation’ stuff is just a lot of crap. It’s just a ‘creative’ conning by Jews of the white population that is too dumb to see what’s being done to them. (Indeed, the notion of ‘American interest’ or ‘national interest’ was, is, and always be something of a myth since the ‘interests’ of any nation, America included — past, present, and future — , will be determined by the governing elites. In the past, ‘American interests’ were determined by the Wasp elites. Indeed, not even most Wasps got to decide what was in the interest of America. Rather, it was the Wasp elites that decided what was best for all Wasps. And today, it’s the Jewish elites that decide what is ‘in the interest’ of America. These interests are really for Jewish-American, Jewish-global, and Jewish-Israeli interests, but Jewish elites that rule this nation try their best to convince us that it’s in all our interest. Jews say that America was ‘racist’ and ‘unequal’ in the past because its national interests and foreign policy were shaped and determined by the white, especially Wasp, gentile elites. Jews say this is why American immigration policy had been geared to favor certain types of whites — and then whites in general — over other racial groups. There is, of course, much truth in this, but if Jews really feel that American national and foreign policy should serve all Americans equally regardless of race, creed, or color, then how come everything America does both domestically and internationally tend to favor, indeed by a huge margin, the interests mainly of Jews and homos? If US policy should be equal for all groups of Americans, then shouldn’t American foreign policy favor Palestinians as much as Israelis? After all, Palestinian-Americans surely side with Palestinians than with Zionists. And shouldn’t concerns be raised in the US government about the mistreatment — and even mass killings — of Christian Arabs in the Middle East as the result of US meddling there in wars stretching from Iraq to Libya? But the US government is almost silent about all the violence against Arab Christians while making so much noise about homo ‘rights’ in Russia and Africa. And if US is indeed the defender of freedom and justice all over the world, why does it focus so much on eradicating ‘tyrants’ in the Middle East but not in Africa and Asia? Isn’t it because Israel wants US to do the dirty work in ridding the regions of regimes Israel doesn’t like? And how come America is so silent about Chinese occupation of Tibet but used Gaddafi’s ‘violence against his own people’ as pretext for aiding the rebels there and toppling the regime? And even the change in immigration policy wasn’t really about ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ but about serving Jewish interests as increased diversity is useful to Jews as a divide-and-rule strategy against an increasing diverse goy population. After all, if Jews are indeed for equality of immigration for all nations on Earth, they should be calling foul on Mexicans for cutting in line and taking a lion’s share of new immigration into the US. Since Mexicans have cheated spectacularly, Jews should be reprimanding them for acting against the spirit of equal access for all peoples around the world. But Jews don’t care since they simply want more Mexicans to swamp the Southwest territories so that Conservative Anglo power will be destroyed there permanently. Furthermore, if the vast bulk of immigrants to the US were Jew-hating Muslims and antisemitic right-wing Europeans, would Jews be for more immigration or call for curbing immigration? Indeed, notice that European Jews are beginning to have second thoughts about open immigration since too many Muslims have been arriving in places like France and kicking Jewish ass. While it’s true that Wasps in the past used their power for their own interests, it’s the same new song with the Jews. At least when Wasps ruled the roost, they represented a vast population who were either like them or wanted to be like them through assimilation. But with Jews ruling the commanding heights of American power, what is ‘good for the Jews’ is definitely not what is good for white Americans. Indeed, it’s not even good for non-white Americans in the long run as an America that increasingly becomes less white will become more like Africa, Mexico, China, and India. Who wants to live in a Third-World-ized America? After all, why are non-whites leaving their non-white lands to come to places like US and Australia? Because whites, especially Northern European whites, have done a much better job of maintaining healthy and productive civil societies. These ‘people of color’ don’t want to be ruled by their own kind. Lots of yellows would rather be ruled by Australian Anglos than by Fu Manchu elites back home. But as America and the West become filled up with non-whites — and as non-whites are taught in school to hate and blame everything on whites — , what will become of America and Western Civilization? One thing for sure, if Jews had founded America and if they comprised the solid majority of Americans, no way would they have instituted new laws to bring in tons of gentiles to displace Jews as the majority. And no way the Jews would have allowed gentiles to gain control of the media, law, academia, courts, government, and elite institutions. Jews know what the game is really about, but white folks don’t seem to have a clue. White folks need to watch David Mamet’s films carefully to understand the extreme power-hungry soul of the Jew. So, beware of the conceit of ‘American national interests’ as such are really shaped and determined by the ruling elites of Americans than by all Americans. There is no equality of interests in ‘American interests’. Rather, the ones with the most power get to use American power to serve their own interests over the interests of everyone else. Do ‘American interests’ better serve the Jewish agenda & homo agenda OR the Polish/American or Turkish/American agenda? The most that Polish-Americans can hope for is that ‘American interests’ will throw some crumbs to the hapless ‘Polacks’. While each of the 300 million Americans has his or her sense of personal or ethnic interest, ‘American interests’ as a political reality is determined by those with the power in government, media, academia, and law; and only a darned fool would think that Jews who dominate those institutions are principled and color-blind in shaping and serving American power. Just ask yourself why US got involved in Ukraine. Which Americans gave a crap about the problems there? Greek-Americans? Chinese-Americans? Arab-Americans? Mexican-Americans? Black-Americans? Vietnamese-Americans? Italian-Americans? Scotch-Irish-Americans? No, it was entirely in the interest of Jewish-Americans, many of whom have ancestry in the Pale of Settlement and are hellbent on taking over Russia just like they took over US and EU. Of course, all the craven gentile Americans who want to win favors from Jews and be promoted up the echelons of privilege will spout the standard Jewish-approved line about the evil of Putin’s Russia — while waving the ‘gay flag’ — , but such cowards are neither serving their own ethnic interests nor genuine American interests that are good for all Americans. No, they, as greedy careerists, are merely serving a form of ‘American interests’ that have been totally hijacked by Jews who merely see gentile Americans as their cattle and America as their aircraft carrier of Jewish supremacy around the world.) And besides, who are Jews to pass judgement on the Wasps? What were Jews doing in the time period from 1776 to the early 20th century? Look at Jewish history and you find countless instances of exploitation, fraud, manipulation, robbery, scandal, and tons of dirty dealings. Besides, Jewish bankers financed many of the imperialist and colonialist expansions, and Jews did their share and more in the slave trade in both the Old and New World, so who are Jews to be acting holier-than-thou vis-a-vis white gentiles? In the 20th century, Jews played a key role in communism and killed millions of Christian Slavs. Zionist imperialists stole Palestinian lands. Jewish businessmen exploited black athletes and entertainers. Jewish Hollywood made a lot of movies that spread racial stereotypes. Jews controlled porn that used white women as sex meat and cum-buckets. Jewish leftist spies sent secrets to Stalin, the mass killer of Christian Slavs. Many Jews were followers of Trotsky, a dirty Jew who did his share of killing and repression when he was one of the big bosses of the Soviet Union. So, who the hell are Jews to be lecturing to everyone else? Oh, of course, Jews would have us believe that the Holocaust somehow washed away all their sins. Oh yes, the Holocaust was so veddy veddy tewwible that not only were the Jews washed of all their sins but we must make believe that Jews have been sin-free all through the ages; yes, we must make believe that in all the troublesome relations between Jews and goyim, it was always the fault of ‘rabid and virulent antisemitic goyim’ who set upon poor, helpless, innocent, and saintly Jews.
Given the mind-set of the Jewish community, when Jews heap abuse on your kind, never try to respond in good faith for the Jew operates only on bad faith where he or she is eternally morally superior to your kind. According to the Jewish way of thinking, you must prove yourself a ‘credit-to-your-race’ in terms of how worthy your kind is in the eyes of Jews. Jews look at us with the eyes of god, indeed as if they are god. Secularization of the Jews expunged God from the cosmos but planted Him inside the minds of Jews, indeed to the point where so many Jews think they are the ultimate arbiters of what is true and false.

For white folks, victim-hood is situational than eternalist. Though Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Americans don’t believe Japan is the forever-victimizer of Americans. Though 9/11 was horrible enough, most Americans don’t see America as the eternal-victims of the Muslims. Americans don’t use the Alamo as the basis for feeling as the forever-victims of Mexicans. And despite the hyperbolic rhetoric of the American Revolutionaries about King George III’s tyranny, America and Britain became good friends again, and Americans soon put aside bad feelings about the whole war. And though there was much white victimology about the ‘red savages’ attacking white pioneers, once the dust cleared and Indians were defeated, white folks sought peace with Indians and even felt a contrite for bashing the Indians so badly. Though the Western genre revived the Indians as aggressive savages, the Indians weren’t generally dehumanized as evil folks but just wild folks who happened to be in the way of the whites. The Indians weren’t generally vilified. They were presented as a threat than a force of evil.
Thus, once the wars were over and the dust cleared, white folks didn’t carry on forever with the victim-narrative. If anything, whites sometimes wondered if they’d gone a bit overboard in whupping the Indians too hard and dropping the two big ones on Japan.
This is in contrast to the eternalist bitterness and self-righteousness that marks the victimology of Jews and Negroes. To be sure, there’s been a huge divergence in the magnitude of tragedy between white victim-hood and non-white victim-hood in the Age of Empire. Though whites suffered setbacks in their wars against American Indians and Mexicans, they triumphed rather quickly and totally. Since the victory was so overwhelming, it would have been unbecoming of whites to make too big a fuss of their setbacks and victim-hood at the hands of the vanquished enemies. Anglo-white victories over the Mexicans, Indians, and the Spanish Empire were swift, certain, and total. The setbacks and victim-hoods could only be seen as situational as the general outcome was absolute triumph and victory. So, the narrative of victimology took a backseat to the pride of victory. But consider the case where Anglo-whites did lose a big one. Though the American South lost to another white power — Northern Anglos — , its defeat became almost the stuff of tragic myth-making. Even well into the 20th century, many white Southerners saw themselves as the victims of the Northern whites who’d not only denied their constitutional right to secede but had racially betrayed them by setting the dangerous Negroes free. And this rage bubbled over during the Civil Rights Era when federal laws that ended segregation seemed to be yet another Northern assault on Southern "states’ rights". Though the Civil Rights activists had the better constitutional argument in that the US constitution guarantees equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, creed, and color, southern whites also had a compelling argument for segregation since blacks were too numerous, too powerfully built, too aggressive, and too horny for white women. But as white males in the South were too proud to admit to their fear of the stronger Negro, they just acted nastily in front of the cameras by yelling ‘nigger’, and this gave the false image of racial reality in the south that was peddled by the Liberal Media controlled by Jews: that poor helpless peace-loving blacks were terribly afeared of whites when, in fact, segregation was protection of helpless whites against the bigger, stronger, and fiercer Negroes. The smarter thing for the white race to do back then was to elevate someone like Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X to the black pantheon and broker a deal with them for a wholesale racial separation between whites and blacks. If such had been done, Detroit would be a wonderfully productive and safe white city. If such had been done, white guys wouldn’t be a bunch of pussy-whipped ‘faggots’ who can only watch as Negro men walk swagger around publicly with white women who’ve lost respect for white men and who are turned on Negroes due to black domination of sports and funky music. Of course, the separate nation of Negro-America would have turned into another cesspool like Jamaica or some African country, but it’s just the nature of the Negro to mess everything up regardless of whether their ancestors sold slaves to whites or were sold to whites as slaves.
At any rate, though Jews bitched and whined about racial injustice, the fact is they themselves had no interest in integrating with blacks. With all their money, they moved to white neighborhoods and sent their children to white/Jewish schools. Also, Jews were never troubled by all the segregationist and discriminatory policies that Zionists forced on Palestinians. Of course, from a purely practical viewpoint, Zionists were no less justified than southern whites or white Afrikaners in South Africa in their harsh treatment of their enemies. When there’s a significant minority — or majority in the case of South Africa — that is potentially hostile to the ruling group, extra-legal ways will be necessary to keep them in line. As Israel proper has a large number of Arabs and as West Bank has far more Palestinians than Jews — even despite the flood of recent invasions and settlements — , Jews have used extra-legal and extra-constitutional rules to maintain their dominance. White folks in the South did the same thing for the same reason, but when they did it, it was supposedly evil, but when Jews do it, it’s just necessary and can’t be helped. And today, Jews use extra-legal means to take away our rights. The Constitution says no one shall be discriminated on the basis of his race, color, or creed — notice there’s nothing about sexual orientation — , but Jews now enforce laws at the federal and local level that deny people the right to have government jobs or do business in big cities IF their creed, conviction, and conscience deem that homosexuality is gross, naturally abnormal, foul, and whoopie-puh-poop. Even if such people are willing to work on a professional basis with homos, they can be fired and blacklisted simply because their creed, be it religious or secular, maintains that homosexuality isn’t something as wonderful as a ‘rainbow’. And of course, California and other states have passed laws forbidding the hiring of people who are hostile to Zionism. So, your creed better be for Israel and the Jews. If you, you are still forced to pay taxes but you cannot work for or do business with the government. And of course, AIPAC defacto weeds out any politician who may be in disagreement with Israeli policy. Though technically legal, the Jewish matrix of power in finance, media, and government makes it nearly impossible for anyone who is critical of Jewish power to get any traction. AIPAC sends questionnaires to all political candidates to fill out on the matter of Jews and Israel. If the politician refuses to answer the questionnaire or answers ‘incorrectly’, then the Jewish power machine in media, finance, courts, academia, think-tanks, and government will conspire to oust the candidate in favor of his opponent who can be bought. Jews do stuff like this in order to ensure that the 2%(of Americans who are Jewish) will control this nation as their own fiefdom, yet they have the gall to sing rosy songs about the ‘proposition nation’. What a shameless bunch of a-holes who are over-brimming with chutzpah and shitzpooh.

Anyway, because the American South suffered an epic defeat in the Civil War, its attendant myth of victim-hood were made near-eternal, so that even long after the war, many Southerners harbored self-pitying and self-righteous hostility toward the North. Jared Taylor writes of how his southern mother hardly felt any kind sentiment for the memorials to the fallen soldiers of the North. As a person with southern roots, her identity was entwined with the martyrdom of the South in the Civil War... despite her progressive politics and socialist leanings. So, even whites, when they lose in a big way, can fall into the dampened mood of eternal victim-hood, as if they’d suffered something so horrible that their victim-hood shall scar their souls and identities forever. There is something like this in the Russian remembrance of the Mongol invasion, which accounts for the power of yellow peril mythology among many Russians even today. It doesn’t help that Siberia is so thinly populated and just above China, a nation teeming with over a billion people who are hungry for more land and natural resources. Though the Mongol invasion happened long ago, Russians have never forgotten their sense of victim-hood vis-a-vis the Asiatic Horde. Some Greeks have similar feelings about Turks who’d ruled over Greece for three centuries. In both cases, the nature of the defeat was total, tragic, and devastating, indeed so much that it became the stuff of national/racial myth. Still, Russians and Greeks don’t respectively bitch about the Mongols and Turks as Jews and Negroes do about Christians, Europeans, and white Americans.
Time to Bury the Tomahawk. Indians have less animus against whites despite greater tragedy of losing their sacred ancestral lands. In contrast, Jews still seethe about being denied admission to Golf Clubs. But then, as Jews have great talent and ambition, they are touchier about being slighted by others. Jews have both superiority complex and inferiority complex vis-a-vis Wasps. When Wasps excluded Jews, Jews felt the bitterness of being thwarted by a classier and better-looking people. They felt the resentment of snubbed inferiority. But Jews also felt they were smarter than Wasps and therefore were being kept down by inferior dumb Wasps. They felt the resentment of repressed superiority.
(And Amerindians and Meso-Americans also don’t bitch about the white man as much as Jews and Negroes do even though they are, in fact, the most tragic peoples that ever lived since they lost their ancestral lands to foreign invaders forever. After all, Greeks reclaimed Greece, Russians reclaimed Russia, and black Africans now control all of Africa — and if black Americans ever want to return to Mother Africa, they can do so anytime and with my full blessing. But Amerindians, Meso-Americans, Inca-Americans, and Hawaiian-Americans must forever live under the rule of the foreign alien elites and foreign alien masses. Even so, most of them don’t seem to harbor bitterness and hatred of the eternalist kind that marks the Jews and Negroes. Indeed, even Negroes might not be so hostile if Jews in the 20th century didn’t take over the media and instilled the Negro with burning hatred of whites. After all, there were plenty of black folks who aspired to be good solid middle class folks instead of howling like crazy rabid baboons who wanna whup the white boy’s ass all the time. After all, Negroes in Cuba aren’t so hostile because the Castro-government has taught them that the new Cuba is a land of equality for everyone, therefore, Negroes should be respectful of the regime and authority. To be sure, Negroes were bound to be problematic sooner or later since they are stronger than whites and more aggressive, but Jews made it much worse for American whites by stoking the fires of racial animosity.
For revenge, whites should encourage blacks & browns to view Jews as over-privileged elites who exploit blacks and browns — often in divide-and-rule manner. Whites should also encourage Muslims and Palestinians to view Jews as a bunch of hate-filled Zio-Nazis whose policies have brought devastation all across the Middle East. Given what the Jewish people have done to the white race, all sensible white people should be willing to make any alliance with any group to bring down the Jew. It’s righteous revenge.) Part of the reason why Jews and Negroes keep bitching about the past is due to three main factors: (1) they didn’t gain total victories against their ‘oppressors’. (2) their former ‘oppressors’ admit their guilt and beat themselves on the head. (3) They remain as minorities in what has become their permanent homeland. Though Jews are now the masters over US(and EU), they are still a tiny minority who, if the winds of history were to turn, could end up losing much, even everything. Jews have immense power but not demographic power, and demography is often destiny. Since Jews can never be the majority of US and EU, they seek to reinforce their power via ‘diversity’, thereby ensuring that various goyim could be played against one another in ever-shifting alliances. It’s like globalist Jews will even side with ‘neo-Nazi’ Right Sector in Ukraine to undermine Russian power in the region.
Today, Jews goad most non-whites to side against whites, but in the future, Jews might use white against yellow, yellow against brown, brown against black. Indeed, increasing number of Jews in France have been shifting rightward in fear of the rising Muslim tide.
Since Jews will command the elite institutions and media, they will be the ones calling the shots. And as Jews control the elite academia, their views will trickle down even to grade schools, and everyone will be taught primarily to worship Jews and homos. So, even though Jews have won, it’s far from a total victory. Jews can never take it easy like Japanese can in Japan, which was, is, and will be Japan. Jews, in contrast, must always think ahead of everyone else and must command the social and political trends since if others who are hostile to Jews take control of the narrative, they could call on all gentiles to unite primarily against the Jews. Indeed, Jews are especially pushing this homo nonsense just when inequalities between Jews and gentiles are growing larger than ever. By homo-izing the political debate, Jews seek to deflate the issue of race and class, especially since the Democratic Party — controlled by Jews — is supposed to stand for class and racial equality, at least far more than the Republican Party that is a defacto white party. But as things are going, urban Jews get richer and richer while so many white working class, blacks, and browns are falling deeper into debt and having fewer prospects for success. So, Jews have invested heavily in pushing the homo agenda so that the main goal of ‘progress’ is to teach all children that fecal penetration is biologically and morally equivalent to real sex between men and women and that a man having his penis cut off and being fitted with a fake vagina has something to do with the ‘rainbow’. And since white Russia poses a counter-example of how a white majority can stand up for its identity and interests, Jews in the media have been working overtime to vilify Putin’s Russia as an evil nation because it doesn’t allow ‘gay pride’ parades. With the ‘gay rainbow’ as the new red, white, and blue, so many dumb and/or childish Americans — of both political persuasions — have fallen for the bait and welcome a ‘new cold war’ based on the narcissism of homos backed by billionaire Jews and their foul agents like Masha Gessen whose stated purpose is to destroy the family altogether. Jews are truly a foul and hideous people. And a powerful people. But they can never be totally powerful in the West due to their small numbers, and so, they must constantly control, shame, and humiliate the white race into feeling guilty so that white folks won’t even think of standing up to Jewish power. As allies against white Americans, Jews have encouraged blacks, browns(and even white Hispanics who are allowed to be ‘honorary people of color’ as supposed ‘victims’ of ‘yanqui imperialismo’), yellows, and Arabs/Muslims to promote their own victim-hood(mostly in relation to whites, of course). But Jews are worried that all this anti-white-privilege mentality among non-whites might, one day, morph into anti-Jewish rage because, after all, Jews are the wealthiest, most powerful, and most privileged people in the West. And besides, aren’t white Zionists oppressing all those people-of-color Palestinians? To suppress such feelings, Jews have made the Holocaustianity the new religion so that Jews shall be forever regarded as the main victims of ‘white evil’ for all time. So, even though Jews are now richer and more powerful than whites, they act like the eternal victims of whites; Jews act like they’re filled with the goodness of heart to be helping blacks, browns, yellows, and Muslims/Arabs rise up to challenge ‘white privilege’. This is somewhat problematic since yellows in places like California are outperforming whites in college admissions and Silicon Valley jobs, but of course, Jews will come up with new ways to make even yellows feel like victims through stuff like ‘micro-aggressions’(which actually sounds like failed sexual ventures of Asian men), the germ-freak idea behind which is that just about anything a white person says or does in the presence of a non-white person could be a form of racial animus. But then, there are Neocon Jews who manipulate white conservatives to feel that their well-being are threatened by yellow peril(via increased China-bashing) and Muslim terror(all the hysteria about the coming of Sharia Law in America). American Conservative cowards who don’t have the guts to stand up to Jews, Negroes, homos, and even illegal invaders from Mexico are pretending to be tough by badmouthing the insignificant presence of Muslims in the US even though most problems with Muslims/Arabs in both the Middle East and the West are the results of Jewish-controlled foreign and immigration policy.
Liberal Jews nakedly encourage non-whites to hate whites, and Neocon Jews make subtly suggest that white folks need to forge a stronger bond with Jews as both groups are threatened by the rise of color. So, Liberal Jews keep scare-mongering non-whites into fearing, loathing, and hating whites, and Neocon Jews keep wink-winking to whites that whites and Jews must form a stronger bond against the ‘rise of color’. While Neocons officially use the language of ‘anti-racism’, they use all sorts of subtle ways to imply that ‘Muzzies’ are the enemy of the white West. Regardless of the nature of relationships between whites and non-whites, whites need to wake up to the fact that Jews are the main enemy pulling the puppet-and-purse strings to ensure their own supremacy over all other groups. Anyway, because Jews will forever remain a demographic minority in the West, they can never feel as total victors, and so, their sense of victim-hood as self-righteous justification and as tool of control over the gentiles will continue unabated as long as Jews remain in the West. Though Jews are currently mainly fixated on bashing whites, they will attack other groups in new alliances if deemed to be threatening to Jews. After all, Jews not only accuse whites of being closet-Nazis but accuse swarthy Muslims, Arabs, and Persians as well. Since Arabs, Muslims, and Iranians aren’t happy with the state of affairs in the Middle East dominated by US-backed Israel, Jews have defamed Arab Semites as the ‘new Nazis’. Jews would like us to believe that the virus of ‘antisemitism’ traveled from Europe to the Muslims and Arabs in the Middle East. So, even non-whites can be accused of harboring ‘white evil’. Today, we are told that Muslims are infected with ‘white evil’ of hating Jews. Of course, Arabs and Muslims see things differently. They see Jewish Zionists acting like the new European imperialists and Nazis who are oppressing a poor and helpless non-white people, especially the Palestinians. And of course, the Jewish-led sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s killed up to 300,000 Iraqi women and children, suggesting that the mentality of American Jews isn’t much different from the mentality of Lazar Kaganovich who didn’t shed a single teardrop over the forced starvation of millions of Ukrainians, many of whom were women and children. Jews often refer to Palestinians and Arabs as ‘savages’ , ‘barbarians’, and ‘subhuman’, and yet, Jews dare condemn Muslims and Arabs as a bunch of haters.
Of course, there are plenty of Arabs and Muslims who are indeed the scum of the Earth. And heaven knows dumb Arabs and stupid Muslims don’t need outside interference to find ever new excuses to oppress, kill, and maim one another. Just watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Saddam Hussein was a scumbag who oppressed his fellow Iraqis. Indeed, if Arabs and Muslims learned something from Jews in Israel, they would be in a much better position to gain strength in the Middle East. Jews from diverse backgrounds in Israel all get along together and feel a sense of solidarity; this has something to do with most Israeli Jews sharing in the identity of exile. The European Jews who built modern Israel were intelligent men and women with excellent leadership and organizational skills. It’s like you can’t form a fist with only one finger or two fingers. All five fingers must clasp into a fist. People must organize into a unified force behind a powerful idea. It’s like the Founders of America constituted a powerful fist.
Founding Fathers as a Fist. What a Power! This is why Jews have sought to open up the White Fist and keep each finger apart from others. Break apart white intellectuals, white masses, white soldiers, white working class, white creative class, and etc. If different white groups came together and formed a fist, Jews would get a big fat lip.
And so, all Jews came to forge a common sense of brotherhood, sisterhood, and nationhood. To form a tight Jewish fist. In contrast, the stupid and petty tyrants of Arab nations treated their own people like shit, and the people generally all acted like shit. Arabs are like fingers tied into a knot than into a fist. So, most Arab and Muslim problems are of their own making.
Even so, Palestinians are a tragic people who were ethnically cleansed by the Zionists with the full backing of the two major superpowers. And even if Arabs and Muslims are tards, US(under rule of Jews) have no business interfering in the region to make things even worse. After all, just because there’s so much awful shit in Africa, Asia, and Latin America doesn’t mean that American government should be funding various groups to foment new wars and new crises. If things in some part of the world are bad, just leave it at ‘bad’. Don’t cynically interfere to make things even worse, as US and EU have done with Libya and Syria. Both those crises would have ended long ago if the West — under the rule of Jews — hadn’t stuck its nose into the region time and time again.
Anyway, another reason why Jews never got the satisfaction of full victory over goyim is because WWII was won by gentile-ruled Russia, UK, and US. Also, Germany, despite what it did to Jews, was allowed to survive and even prosper. Also, Jews feel that, right after the war, the US government went too easy on a lot of German war criminals — even using them as scientists in the US military and space project — while clamping down on Jews who were accused of communist sympathies. So, Jews still feel very wronged and slighted.

As for Negroes, despite their great victory with Civil Rights and in sports and pop culture, many blacks are still poorer than non-black Americans, and many felt betrayed and left behind even by the Democratic Party. So, they continue to feel oppressed, and being uneducated and not-too-bright, they have a very limited understanding of history; ‘Afrocentric’ history says the Egyptians were black, white Greeks stole everything from the ‘black Egyptians’, black slavery was the worst thing that ever happened, gazillions of blacks were lynched in America, and black males are still hunted by white ‘racists’, which is why black parents feel a need to have the ‘talk’ with their sons — even though, it’s their black sons who are actually causing most of the social violence and doing the bullying in schools and in the streets.

Victimology gains added traction if the side accused of past-or-current oppression is oh-so-sensitive — and even supportive — of the charges OR if the ‘victim group’ has the backing of a great power. For example, Palestinian victimological complaints don’t go very far since (1) Jews and Israel don’t much care or are downright hostile to Palestinians (2) America and other great powers don’t give a crap about Palestinians as they prefer doing business with Jews and (3) even fellow Arabs and Muslims haven’t really done much for the Palestinians. Saudi Arabians, for instance, give lip-service to the plight of Palestinians but work under the table with the US and Israel.
Another factor that helps boost the victimology of a particular people if they’re perceived as a talented people. As Jews produced so many great scientists, thinkers, writers, comedians, and composers, the admiration of — even reverence for — Jewish talent makes them a more sympathetic/revered figure to many people. Admirers of Bob Dylan, Woody Allen, J. Hoberman, Pauline Kael, Ayn Rand, Stanley Kubrick, David Cronenberg, and Philip Roth feel compelled to root for Israel and Jewishness. Indeed, if a people produce a lot of talent, they may be admired and sympathized with even if they’re ‘oppressors’. Because of the great achievements of the British, many Asian-Indians accepted Anglo rule with a measure of awe. It was when smart Indians who studied in Great Britain realized that they could be just as intelligent and talented as the British that the spell of British invincibility was broken. If Palestinians had produced many more people like Edward Said, there would have been far greater sympathy for Palestinians. But for most Americans — even ‘progressives’ — , Jewishness is associated with talent and genius whereas Palestinians are associated with funny-looking women making sounds with their tongues fliggering sideways and with poorly dressed kids throwing rocks. It’s like American Indians suffered a far greater tragedy than the Negroes, but Negroes get more sympathy/reverence since they are good at sports, funky music, and putting on the stud act. We feel a greater sense of tragedy when a genius is killed than when an average person is killed. The same dynamics apply to entire groups — and even ‘progressives’ officially committed to ‘equality’ feel likewise.
So, the effectiveness of victimology has much less to do with actual suffering or the volume of complaints than with the dynamics and factors that shape how the victim-narrative is perceived and understood by others. After all, why do we care so much about the victim in the German film THE LIVES OF OTHERS? He’s an artist-intellectual-bohemian, the kind of people that yuppies and hipsters admire. Suppose the film had been about some ordinary worker in East Germany. Who’d give a damn?

If white nationalists held power in the US and if they showed no sympathy toward Negroes and battered down any Negro complaints, there would hardly have been much of a Negro victimology in the US. Negroes would have thought, "Dang, the white man be badass. Bettuh do like he say and earn some favors." But naive white liberals and Jews took over the elite institutions, changed the laws, vilified white American history, defamed the white race for all the sins of the world, scapegoated whites for everything wrong with blacks, and encouraged blacks to bitch, whine, and threaten 24/7. Why don’t blacks in Castro’s Cuba complain even though they have no right to vote, no right to own property, no right to organize along racial lines, no right to promote black consciousness, no right to attack Hispanic-American history as a story of enslavement and etc? Only the Cuban government decides what the Negroes can think and say. So, the government will say, yes, there was racial discrimination against blacks by the Spanish long ago, BUT all white Cubanos, black Cubanos, and mixed-race Cubanos became as one people as victims of Yanqui Americanos, and with the triumph of Castro’s revolution, all traces of social injustice have been wiped out and that no one has any right to complain about anything in communist Cuba anymore. And most Negroes in Cuba just go along with this since it’s the only reality they know — also, the Cuban police(made up of whites, blacks, or mulattos)will ruthlessly crack any black head that says otherwise, and there is no media coverage of ‘police brutality’ and no independent lawyer to represent the ‘victim’. So, even though blacks in Cuba have much less freedom, rights, and property than blacks in the US, the latter complain and bitch a lot more.
Cuban Blacks in 'Paradise'
Or consider Greece and Turkey. Greeks may complain about the centuries of occupation under Ottoman rule — and the official policy of abducting Greek boys to serve as Janissaries and Greek girls to serve as concubines of Sultans — , but Turks don’t give a shit. Turks give the middle finger to Greeks and Armenians, and say, "Yeah, we did some bad shit, but so did you." Victimology takes two to tango, but Turks won’t play that game. So, there isn’t much brouhaha about the continuing Turkish occupation of Cyprus. Also, as Turkey has been a key ally of the United States, Americans have been reluctant to press Turkey on its historical ‘crimes’. That goes to show that victimology is also dependent on the hierarchy of power. Since Jews have great power in the US, everyone must recognize the Holocaust and weep and wet their pants over it. But when it comes to Armenians and Turks, well... Obama promised the Armenian community that he would recognize the genocide of Armenians during World War I, but once he was elected, he backtracked since his Jewish bosses told him he mustn’t jeopardize US relations with Turkey. So, even genocide becomes a mere ball to kick around in the game of politics. Since Jewish power has precedence over Armenian power in the US, if it serves Jewish interests to suppress the Armenian genocide and victim-hood, well, that’s just the way it is. Indeed, consider for how long the US tended to sidestep the problems of racial inequality in South Africa. As South Africa was a key ally of the US — and Israel — during the Cold War and as South Africa was the only nation other than Soviet Union to produce an ample supply of platinum, US tended to overlook the problem of apartheid, just like US looks the other way at the continued Zionist occupation of Palestine today. Of course, Jews have been making a lot of noise about the evil of apartheid since the final days of the Cold War, not least because they hope that their outraged complaints will distract world attention from the fact that no nation was as close an ally of Apartheid South Africa as Israel was — plus the fact that what Israel has done and is still doing to Palestinians have been immeasurably worse than what white Afrikaners did to blacks. Zionists say that Israel hasn’t been as bad since Arabs living in Israel have been guaranteed many rights denied to the black majority during Apartheid rule in South Africa. But what Zionists ignore is that Jews were able to be more generous ONLY BECAUSE they’d ethnically cleansed the bulk of Palestinian population during the war in 1948. Indeed, when we look at the situation in West Bank where the Jewish ‘settlers’ are a minority, what prevails is essentially Jewish military rule, a police state, and open discrimination against Palestinians. If the Palestinians hadn’t been ethnically cleansed in Israel proper and if Arabs — both Muslim and Christian — had constituted the majority in Israel, the ruling Jewish minority would have had to use the same strategies and tactics used by the South African Apartheid regime in order to keep the power. How could a ‘Jewish State’ remain Jewish-ruled if the majority are made up of Arabs who, under a democratic system, would vote for their interests? So, the Jewish canard that South African Apartheid was worse than the situation in Israel is just a lot of hooey. Imagine two scenarios. In the first, Germans invade Poland and drive most Poles out and create a democratic nation that is 80% German and 20% Polish. And the Polish minority, though not fully equal with the Germans, are treated rather humanely and given many rights that Germans enjoy. In the second scenario, Germans invade Poland but don’t ethnically cleanse the Poles, and Poland remains an overwhelmingly Polish nation ruled by the German minority. Suppose, in order to maintain their dominance, the German minority institutes an authoritarian system of apartheid whereby Germans are favored over Poles in many areas of power and life. One might say the Germans in the first scenario are more humane and nicer than the Germans in the second scenario, but what made the relative niceness of the Germans in the first scenario possible? The massive ethnic cleansing of Poles from their own homeland. That is what Jews did to Palestinians. In contrast, whereas the white minority in South Africa carved out white areas and black areas, all blacks were allowed to remain the nation of South Africa — and many more black Africans were allowed to immigrate to South Africa from neighboring African nations. Of course, Jews never allowed Arabs from neighboring nations to emigrate to Israel. But too many Americans don’t know how to think on their own and just let the Jews do the thinking for them. They just repeat the talking points planted inside their nitwit brains by the clever Jews.
Not all victimologies are given the consideration, and the hierarchy of victim-hood generally has less to do with the magnitude of what happened than with the Leninist ‘who, whom’ equation. While it’s true that the Jewish Holocaust must count as one of the most horribly tragic events in human history and deservedly belongs near the top, all the other victimologies really depend on who has the power. Indeed, even the importance/significance of the Holocaust varies from place to place depending on the prevailing narratives, values, and perspectives of the elites and peoples. Arab nations, being so angry with Zionists, don’t much care about the Holocaust. The Iranians and Syrians even question certain aspects of the Holocaust narrative. There’s less Holocaust-mania among Eastern Europeans than among Western Europeans. Chinese and Mexicans care less about it than Americans do. Among Americans, whites care about it more than blacks and browns do. Black Africans don’t much care, and indeed, there are many black Africans who never heard of Hitler and the Holocaust. In parts of Asia, even those who know of the evils of Hitler don’t associate him with a kind of all-pervasive diabolicalism that shrouds the Fuhrer in the West. Many Asians regard Hitler as most Americans regard Stalin and Mao — monstrous figures but not devil incarnate; also Americans feel free to use their images in pop iconography. Americans rationally know of Stalin and Mao’s evils but aren’t haunted by them emotionally. Similarly, for many Asians, Hitler was a bad guy but a thing of a past, something that can be made fun and Andy-Warhol-ized. They don’t have taboos against Hitler/Nazis whereas Western nations enforce laws(as in the EU) and employ socio-economic pressures(as in the US) to keep everyone very sober and sacramental about Jews and the Holocaust.
Furthermore, there are some parts of the world where people feel that even though Hitler wasn’t a good guy, he rebuilt his nation and lashed out against an exploitative alien elite. Many Indonesians who resent the success of the Chinese minority might sympathize with the German National Socialists than with the Jews who, like the Chinese minority in Southeast Asian, own and control ‘too much’. As for all other tragedies, their rankings in the West are purely a matter of ‘who, whom’ controlled by Jews. So, even though less than 2,000 blacks were lynched in the America in the 100 yrs from the 1860s to the 1960s, those horrors are considered a far greater tragedy than the Jewish Bolshevik killing of millions of Christian Slavs in a few yrs in the 1930s, mass deaths of tens of millions in China under Mao during the Great Leap Forward, the rubbing of American Indians in the West, the nuking of Japan, the ruthless sacking of Georgia by Sherman’s army, or the mass bloodshed in Philippines by American troops. Though Israelis killed many more Palestinian youths, the Jewish-controlled US media give far more coverage to relatively rare instances of Jewish deaths at the hands of Palestinians. Though bigger, stronger, and more aggressive black thugs have been going on a rampage all across America against all races, the Jew-controlled media suppress the victim-hood of non-black victims — unless they happen to be Jewish — while hyping even false stories of black victim-hood such as the Duke LaCrosse case and the fantasy KKK at Oberlin College. We are reminded year after year of the murder of the sexual harasser Emmet Till, but the Jew-run media have suppressed the story of the Knoxville Massacre where a bunch of foul Negroes abducted, raped, and horrifically murdered a white couple. Instances such as this should leave no doubt in the minds of white folks that Jews really hate and despise them and don’t feel an iota of sympathy for them, no more than Jews do for Palestinians, Russians, and Iranians — or the possibly up to 300,000 Iraqi women and children who were forced to starve or die of disease as the result of Zionist-controlled American sanctions against Iraq, a policy defended by the Jewish Madeline Albright as ‘worth it’. And don’t expect American Conservatives to call foul on this since they are even bigger ass-kissers of Jewish power than American Liberals are. Indeed, cowardly and craven American Conservatives are the first to scream loudest about instances of Jewish victim-hood EVEN THOUGH Jews are the ones most responsible for the suppression of white victim-hood at the hands of blacks, illegal invaders, and, of course, Jewish oligarches who rob this nation blind. Mainstream American Conservatism — and even some on the ‘alternative right’ sphere — still think that maybe Jews can be won over if they bleat on and on about how much they care about Jews. Jared Taylor is especially a sniveling coward in this regard. The lowlife weasel has the all the ‘courage’ in the world to bleat about Muslims but remains silent about Jews who’ve led the movement to suppress people like himself and Peter Brimelow. He defames Muhammad a psychopath while overlooking the fact that Jewish ‘heroes’ in the Torah would also be considered ‘genocidal’ freaks by modern standards. As for Taki the Greek Tycoon(who drinks and parties too much), he’s so admiring of the Japanese during World War II but so butt-hurt about all those nasty ‘Muzzies’. He reviles Muslims as barbaric but overlooks the fact that Japanese during World War II often acted like psychotic lunatics. Japanese killed more Southeast Asians in a few yrs during World War II than Europeans killed in their centuries of colonization in the region. Mention the Dutch to Indonesians, and they are full of smiles. Mention the Japanese to Indonesians, and they still wanna run and hide.
Some Alt Right idiots think the rise of the Right in Israel means that American Jews will likewise turn more to the Right and join with whites. They are too dumb to realize that both Jewish Conservatism in Israel and Jewish Liberalism in the US are part of the same game, two sides of the same coin. They are both Jewish-centric since it’s to Jewish advantage to be right-wing where they are the majority and to be left-wing where they are the minority. Why would Jews support the rise of majority right-wing in America and the West when it will mean the domination of white gentiles? So, despite all the superficial bickering between Liberal American Jews and Conservative Zionist Israelis, they are both on the same boat trying to harpoon the same whale: the big white whale. Though there are Liberal Jews — like Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss — who are genuinely critical of Israel’s rightward drift, they are no friends of white Americans. Though they denounce Israel’s history of ethnic cleansing and oppression of Palestinians, they look forward to the day when the white populations in the US and EU will be ethnically overshadowed — and even cleansed of entire regions — by Africans, Muslims, Asians, and Meso-Americans.

Every nation or people has its own central victimology. For Russians, there’s the history of the Mongol invasion. There’s also the more recent history of the German invasion. Indeed, the Great Patriotic War narrative is doubly useful to Russians for it combines great victim-hood narrative with great victor-hood narrative. If Russians merely succumbed to the Mongol invasion and lived under the Tatar yoke for over two centuries, Russians in WWII faced near total destruction but came from behind to win what was perhaps the greatest military victory in world history. It was like a national Crucifixion and Resurrection narrative, and it may have been why Stalin, possibly in superstitious/spiritual mode, brought back the Orthodox Church(at least in part) to inspire the Russians to rise up and fight for the Motherland. As the Nazis were surrounding Leningrad and attacking Moscow and Stalingrad, not only many Russians but the world thought it was Game Over for the USSR. But if any people clutched victory from the jaws of defeat, it was the Russians/Soviets, and it seemed a miracle to many at the time. So, even though Russians no longer celebrate the Revolution of 1917 and all that, they still honor the Great Patriotic War in a grand, almost religious, way. (This is why Jews and homos want to desecrate Russia with homo ‘pride’ parades.) Though most of Russian history in the 20th century was defined by communist rule, the event that most Russians identify with most today is what happened in the few years from 1941 to 1945. Of course, some Jews bitch and whine that this is a return to Stalinism; Jews complain that, under Putin, Russians haven’t been as soul-searching about their dark communist past as they’d been during the Yeltsin era — it’s rich coming from Jews who never took a honest look at their own involvement in communism. But Putin understood what the Jews were really after. Jews were trying to fill Russians with self-loathing and historical ‘guilt’ about the Soviet era just like they did with white Americans who were loaded with ‘white guilt’ about slavery and racial discrimination. Now, being critical of one’s history is a good thing, and necessary reforms are difficult without a courageous and honest reassessment of with the problems of one’s history. But Jews act in bad faith since they themselves are not only reluctant to approach their own history honestly but scream and rant when others do. Of course, Jews understand that it’s much more difficult for them to guilt-bait the Russian bear than it was to guilt-bait white Americans. After all, Wasps had been in control of America for most of American history and even for much of the 20th century. In contrast, Jews played a decisive and significant role in the victory of communism in the USSR, and many Jewish commissars took part in the mass-killing and mass-oppression of Slavic Christians and other gentiles. Conveniently for Jews in terms of historiography, Stalin eventually purged many of the top Jews in the regime and then turned fully anti-Jewish in his later years when Zionist Jews in Israel betrayed him and sided with the US despite the great Soviet aid in the creation of Israel. So, Jews rewrote the history of the Russian Revolution where they supposedly comprised only a small element in the government and were soon victimized by Stalinist persecutors. In fact, even after the Great Purge, there were tons of Jews working at all levels of the Soviet Union and commanding many of the secret police apparatuses and forced-labor camps. Dirty Jews likeJonathan Brent bitch and whine about Stalin but overlook the fact that so many Jews aided and abetted the mass-oppression and mass-killings carried out by Jews. Jews are the first ones to stress that Hitler ‘did not do it alone’. He has his ‘willing-executioners’. Well then, surely Stalin didn’t do it alone. He didn’t have superhuman powers that enabled him to fly from one corner of Soviet Union to another to carry out all his grim deeds, so who helped him? He had his own ‘willing executioners’, many of whom were ruthless and sadistic Jews. Granted, many such Jews were also idealistic and sincerely believed they were clearing the old ways to make way for the new. But they sure had a lot of blood on their hands, and their ideology ultimately turned out to be bankrupt and delusional. But the likes of Brent only focus on Stalin and the ‘Russians’, just like Jews love to bitch about ‘white privilege’ but enforce taboos that amply clarify that much of this ‘white privilege’ is actually Jewish.
Dirty Jew Jonathan Brent who bitches about Stalin but not about Stalin's Jewish 'willing executioners'.
What kind of self-righteous hypocritical scumbag is Jonathan Brent? In his book, he wonders how could anyone have done what Stalin did. Yet, in the very same book, he recounts a time in college when, as a fully grown young man, he told his girlfriend that the Bolsheviks had been entirely justified in wiping out the Tsar’s entire family. In other words, it was okay to even shoot the young daughters and the youngest boy of the family. (He doesn’t mention that the killers were Jewish, by the way.) I could understand why the Bolshevisk might have wanted to kill the Tsar and maybe his oldest son as heir apparent. And if we want to be generous, okay, we can sort of understand the killing of the Tsarina too since she’d exerted significant influence in the court. But all the children? Even the youngest? How is this different from the mentality of Stalin... or even Hitler? If Brent had expressed such feelings as a young boy, okay, we can mark it off as naive zeal from having grown up as a red diaper baby. But as a full-grown adult in college? And yet, Brent, who is so lacking in introspection, wonders how Stalin could have done what he did — killing so many innocent people without remorse. Later in the book, he wonders which American president could have done what Stalin did if he had comparable powers. And his answer is Nixon the paranoid. I won’t defend Nixon who was a shady character, but why not mention Roosevelt, who did more than any president to expand the power of the central government, racially targeted an entire people and sent them to prison camps, and divide up the world like a cake with someone like Stalin, a man whom Roosevelt trusted and admired far more than the sensible men of his administration did? Isn’t it ironic that World War II began with Hitler dividing Poland with Stalin, and World War II ended with Roosevelt dividing up Korea with Stalin? For a nation that takes great pride in the Civil War that ended slavery in the South, it’s rather ironic that it has no problem with Roosevelt, supposedly its greatest president, having consigned half of an innocent nation to Stalinist slavery that continues to this day. And yet, Roosevelt gets a break since he helped defeat Nazi Germany whereas Nixon is called America’s Stalin(and sometimes even Hitler) since he said some nasty but mostly true things about Jews in his secret recordings.

So, even though Roosevelt did more to advance Stalinism in the US — his administration was filled with Jewish spies who sent secrets to Stalin — whereas Nixon devoted most of his political career to fighting communism, Nixon is the one who is tagged with Stalin-ness. To be sure, Brent has a point at least in terms of personality. Though Roosevelt was a devious character, Nixon did have a darker personality, and ideology aside, one could argue that Nixon had more in common with Stalin than Roosevelt did in terms of animus and resentment, notwithstanding the fact that Roosevelt-ism was closer to Stalinism ideologically. Still, we shouldn’t over-state the psychological darkness of Nixon. If anyone in American politics had something like a Stalinist personality, it was Richard J. Daley of Chicago who was a ruthless operator of the bureaucratic machine. Indeed, Nixon was too unstable to be Stalin-like; and he was too opportunistic, which is why he was all over the map ideologically, especially in the latter part of his career. If Stalin had been like Nixon, he would have fallen from the top pretty quickly. All said and done, Nixon was more like Khrushchev, not in style but in carelessness and inability for self-control. Anyway, Brent the Democrat Jew would have us believe that the Stalinist ‘victims’ of ‘McCarthyism’ were like the victims of Stalin, whereas the crusaders against Stalinism like Nixon were like Stalin. That’s devious Jewish logic for you. So, if a Jew serves Stalin and if you oppose him and smoke him out, YOU are like Stalin and the exposed Jew is like a victim of Stalin. And yet, Jonathan Brent had the full support of William F. Buckley, a fact that should clarify why American Conservatism became to useless. Buckley was grateful that a Liberal American Jew was attacking Stalinism, thinking that it meant the Jews were coming over to the ‘right’. In fact, Brent was merely reworking and reframing the remembrance of Stalinism to associate its evils with Putin, Nixon, and Conservatism. Whether Buckley realized this or not, he merely heaped praise on Brent to sustain the delusion that former-leftist Jews were wising up the evils of ‘leftism’ and converting to Conservatism. Too many Conservatives, like the ghosts of SIXTH SENSE, just see what they want to see. They refuse to see the light and realize that Jews are VICTIM-SUPREMACISTS who say their victim-hood was the greatest of all time and, furthermore, use their victim-hood narrative to silence all criticism of their power. It’s about time the world broke free of this dumb habit, but Holocaustianity has become so ingrained in the West that all sides feel compelled to invoke the Holy Jew to justify their argument. So, Ukrainians say Russians are like Jew-haters, and Russians say Ukrainians are like the new Nazis, and even alternative right figures like the blogger named Earnest hilariously advise Putin to suck up more to Israel to win protection from American Zionist critics. (The article assumes that Jews know not what they do in their paranoid over-reaction, but in truth, Jews know exactly what they are doing. Jews don’t have a problem with Czar-ism as long as it serves Jewish interests. Obama’s amnesty by executive order was ‘Czarist’, but do you see Liberal Jews complaining? Why did so many communist Jews support Stalin to power? Because they saw him as a dimwit goy to manipulate.) It’s utterly ludicrous since Putin’s been doing just that forever but hasn’t reaped any reward for it. If Putin is smart, he would realize that Jews won’t be satisfied with anything less than total takeover of Russia — just like Jews totally took over America. Putin should realize that no matter what he does, the Jewish-supremacist media will make him out to be bad guy. If he tries to choose peaceful means, he will be mocked as ‘weak’. If he chooses to defend Russian minorities in Ukraine, he will be attacked as a new Hitler. With shameless shabbos goyim like John Bolton, John McCain, and Walter Russell Mead licking the boots of Supremacist Jews AND with Jews controlling most of the media, Putin needs to understand that he must never trust the Jews and that Jews play a dirtier game than one played by Stalin and Hitler. And it’s not just Jewish men but Jewish hag bitches like Victoria Nuland/Nudelman. Jews, men and women, are foul hideous creatures who are out to defame and destroy any nation until it bows down to Jewish power. If Putin thinks he can win true friends among globalist Jews, he’s forgotten all his training in Soviet intelligence. In any war, hot or cold, know who your enemy is and know the nature of your enemy. Jews are the enemy and the nature of the Jews is to be devious, cunning, ruthless, and contemptuous. Vile Jews like Victoria Nuland are the moral equivalents of Hitler and Stalin. They play with the lives of goyim as pawns on a chess board — just like the wicked general in PATHS OF GLORY did with the fates of other men for his power and vanity. It’s like what Kyle Reese said about the killer machine in THE TERMINATOR: "Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead." Of course, Jews are even more dangerous than the Terminator, which is more like a Nazi SS killer. At the very least, you knew where the SS henchman stood. He was out to kill Jews, and that was that. He didn’t pretend to be a friend of Jews or some paragon of higher morality. In contrast, even though Jewish supremacists are just as hideous and vile as the Nazis, they pretend to be humanitarians who are all about peace, love, understanding, and brotherhood. They pretend to bargain with you, reason with you. They pretend to be full of compassion and empathy. But in truth, Jews hold us goyim in utter contempt and see us as cattle. They believe that we should worship them, we should obey them, we should celebrate them, we should love them more than we love our own people. So, no memorial to goy victims in Israel but every goy nation should have a Holocaust Memorial.

Anyway, it is time for the White Right to develop a white narrative of victimology. They mustn’t reject the very concept of victimology since every people and nation have used it from the beginning of time. All forms of revenge has an element of victimology to it since the logic of revenge is ‘they did us wrong, so we must return the favor.’ Even animals that can’t think conceptually nevertheless FEEL a kind of victimology. If a pack of wolves were attacked by another pack of wolves, they do FEEL wronged and thirst for ‘vengeance’. Chimpanzee tribes never forgot whom their enemies are. They feel wronged by the enemy and try to get their revenge.
And revenge has been the central theme of history. Much of the Bible is about vengeance, whether it belongs to man or to God. The entire justice system is about victimology. The system exists because people are wronged all the time through fraud, deceit, robbery, rape, or murder. People are victimized and seek redress. Of course, victimology can become cancerous and turn into a kind of radical victimology or eternalist victim-hood that tries to hog the mantle of holy victim-hood for all time based on what transpired in a specific time and place. Most people don’t carry victimology that far, but Jews and Negroes have done just that. Though Russians still harbor fears about yellow peril, they don’t feel that they are the eternal victims of the Mongols. And Greeks still have some bitter feelings about the Turks, but they don’t go around acting like they are the forever-victims of Turks. Greeks know well enough that during certain times in history, it had been the Greeks who conquered other peoples and enslaved others. So, Greek leftism is a genuine form of leftism that can be critical of the history of the Greeks. It’s unlike Jewish Leftism that accuses other groups of cruelty and injustice but refuses to acknowledge all that has been brutal, venal, and tyrannical in Jewish history. When leftist Jews invoke conscience, it means other groups must own up to Jews, whereas when leftist Greeks talk about history and morality, they are all-too-willing to admit that Greece has done its share of bad things. So, even the cunning and devious Greeks are more genuinely conscientious than Jews who have a very warped view of morality and ethics. This is why increasing numbers of leftists are beginning to wonder about Jews and raise complaints about Zionism. Both the gentile right and gentile left are beginning to question the hypocrisy of Jews who claim ‘right-wing’ nationalism for Jews in Israel — and enjoy unprecedented power and privilege for themselves — while professing ‘left-wing’ values and agendas for everyone else, especially for Northern European gentile whites. Is the Jewish refusal to address this issue of hypocrisy the product of fear or arrogance? Are Jews aware of their own BS but afraid to air it out since the masses of gentiles might wise up about the true nature of Jewish power and agenda? Or are Jews possessed of such a powerfully arrogant and self-centered cultural personality that they are simply blind and oblivious to all the BS they pull on others? Is David Mamet fully aware — and proud — of Jewish perfidy & deviousness and resorting to angry rhetoric to intimidate critics of Zionism OR is he so myopic in his Jewish self-righteousness that he has simply conned himself into thinking that the Jews are indeed a people who’ve been wronged by everyone everywhere since the beginning of time, and therefore, all of mankind — including those who never interacted with Jews — need to kneel before Jews? According to hardline Christianity, only those who accepted Jesus into their hearts go to Heaven whereas everyone else goes to Hell. Even if a people never had access to the Gospels and never heard about Jesus, they too shall go to Hell and burn forever. Similarly, according to Holocaustianity, even people who never came in contact with Jews and had no part in the Holocaust are guilty of ‘antisemitism’ if they don’t honor, revere, worship, and obey the Jews.

The victimology of the White Right need not be so extreme, but the White Right must fight fire with fire. If Jews insist that they are the eternal-victims of white gentiles who must revere, apologize to, and obey Jews forever, then, as long as Jews are the enemies of the white race, white folks must return the favor and make Jews out to be the enemies, oppressors, exploiters, and genociders against whites from the beginning of time. Unless Jews change their ways and no longer pose a threat to the white race, the white race must hate the Jews just as much as Jews hate the white race. White folks must teach their young ones about all the horrible things Jews did to gentiles since the beginning of time. Young whites must be taught about the history of Jews as genociders, slavers, murderers, fanatics, finance capitalist thieves, communist mass-killers, Stalinist spies, porn kings, gangsters in America and Russia, and etc. Of course, young whites must also be taught of the great things accomplished by Jews as there’s much to be learned from Jewish achievement, and besides, credit must be given where it’s due. But whatever good Jews might have achieved, whites must learn, copy, and master the lessons for their own interests. Whites must think like the Japanese in the late 19th century when they were keen on learning from the West, all the while serving their own ethno-national interest. Japanese were filled with awe for Western power, but they ‘westernized’ and modernized for the sake of Japanese power and glory. Similarly, Jews learned from gentiles not out of any great love for the gentile-kind but to use the lessons for the sake of Jewish power. Countless Jewish musicians studied Richard Wagner, but it didn’t mean they liked him as a person or that they liked German people and culture as a whole. On the evidence of Steven Spielberg movies, he learned a great deal from the Nazi film-maker Leni Rifenstahl and ‘anti-Semite’ Walt Disney, but that didn’t mean he had to like those people as individuals. Similarly, we don’t have to like Jews to learn about them and from them. What came to be known as American ‘black music’ wouldn’t have been possible without blacks learning from whites. After all, American ‘black music’ developed nowhere else. It wasn’t indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. Blacks learned from white musicians and made their own kind of music with their own rhythms, and white rockers took elements of black music and made it their own. Chinese have been learning and imitating Western technology, but it’s not for the power and glory of the West but for their own glory. If indeed the West learned the craft of gunpowder and paper from China, they didn’t do it for the sake of Chinese power and glory but for their own. It’s like what ‘Mozart’ says in AMADEUS the movie. He acknowledges that the opera came from Italy but he says Germans should create their own form of opera that is better and transcends the conventions of the Italian kind. So, seeing the Jews as the main enemy doesn’t mean we have to shut ourselves to Jewish genius. After all, much of the internet is run by Jews, but we use the technology anyway. Indeed, even as Jews have felt such hatred and contempt for goyim, their success in modern times owes to the fact that Jews were willing to learn from, steal from, be inspired by, and/or improve upon the achievements of the gentiles — even or especially the kinds of gentiles who were known to be ‘anti-Semites’. This is why National Socialism was limited in its imagination and effectiveness. Unlike Jews, it shut itself from too many useful outside/alien ideas and influences that could have been used creatively by the ‘Aryans’ themselves. Also, the National Socialism’s ‘sterility-ism’ and ‘antisepticism’ were blind to beauty that organically grows out of the muck. Plants and flowers grow from moist dark earth than from ‘clean’ sand and rocks. Life, even the most beautiful kind, grows from the ‘dirty’ earth. Indeed, the very process of reproduction is pretty gross, especially as the baby squeezes out with all that goo. For any culture to flourish, it needs to allow space for the earthy and fecund as well as the beautiful, graceful, and noble. It has to address the issues of the impermanence of life and beauty and has to boldly underline the processes of life that continues through birth, growth, decay, and death. Stalinism, for all its limitedness, did allow some degree of humanist earthiness, which is why even the USSR under Stalin was culturally more productive than Germany under the Nazis. Nazi art was dead art for it was about aesthetic ideals frozen in perfection with little sense of origin, growth, and death. They were beauty petrified into the perfect form. They were like seashells without the living organism inside. If Nazi art suffered from the overt idealization of perfection — plus the simple fact that so many Nazi artists were second-rate to begin with — , communist art suffered from conformism with the mass ideal, which reached its most extreme forms in China under Mao. What makes art and entertainment — even of the leftist kind — interesting is the sense of individuality that makes their components, vision, style, and/or imagination stand apart from others. It could be that the characters are eccentric, special, or different in surprising ways. Or even if it’s a work of propaganda — like the early films of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Rifenstahl’s two grand films made for Hitler — , it may stand out as bold, original, or unique expressions, as indeed BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN and TRIUMPH OF THE WILL are. True art cannot be generic and standardized — interchangeable with whatever else is out there — , and even though generic entertainments can give us a good time, they are mostly disposable and forgettable. For this reason, genuine art and superior entertainment — whatever its ideology or purpose — are essentially elitist or rare-ist since so very few people possess high levels of imagination, inventiveness, and creativity. Almost anyone can write a song, but only a handful of people can write songs like "Bridge over Troubled Water" or "Who’ll Stop the Rain?" To the extent that so many English and Humanities Departments are less interested in this rare genius of great literature and would rather pontificate endlessly about ideological matters, it’s not surprising that much of the academia has gotten a bad rap — though I suspect there are still lots of diligent people doing worthy work who are simply ignored by those who stirring the ideological pot. Clearly, both Liberals and Conservatives prefer to focus on the kinds of schools and figures who stir up the loudest debates and ‘controversies’. But, when it comes to true art and creativity, it doesn’t matter what the religion, ideology, race, or culture is. Anyone who truly appreciates art and entertainment recognizes — and has the courage to admit — that artistic talent, while it can serve certain causes or ideologies, doesn’t play by ideological rules. A person with whom you disagree on just about every moral, political, and spiritual issue can be a great talent, and a person with whom you agree on just about everything could be a zero talent. This amorality of creative genius has made art a difficult issue for all sides. Even now, Jews wrestle with Richard Wagner’s irrefutable genius(as well as that of T.S. Eliot), and ‘anti-racist’ Americans still have trouble coming to grips with D.W. Griffith’s awesome THE BIRTH OF A NATION. And of course, the Nazis couldn’t come to terms with the genius of men like Gustav Mahler. To the extent that ideological systems — of any color — often favor the official line over individual creativity, they have a tendency to favor the second-rate ‘correct’ artist over the first-rate ‘heretical’ artist. So, Nazis elevated a lot of second-rate neo-classicist hacks, and much of communist art came to favor mediocrities who could reliably crank out the kind of stuff that pleased Stalin and Mao. Even so, Stalin and some of the elites of the Eastern Bloc weren’t entirely without artistic sense & taste — whereas Mao was — , and their systems did produce their share of worthy art that sometimes equaled and even surpassed the works created in the West. Could Hollywood have made something like ANDREI RUBLEV, COLOR OF POMEGRANATES, or THE RED AND THE WHITE? Does any Hollywood epic come anywhere near SIBERIADE by Andrei Konchalovsky? And how many political films in the West were as thoughtful as Andrej Wajda’s MAN OF MARBLE? And think of the wonders of the Czech Spring cinema. And it was under the communists that Emir Kusterica made his first masterpieces that put much of Hollywood film-making to shame. Besides, the West was hardly an equal opportunity paradise for just about any artist with talent. If one ran foul of the Jews, feminists, and homos since the 1980s, the entire art-and-entertainment complex could defacto conspire to lock you out. If a writer, film-maker, or musician was deemed a ‘racist’, his or her career could effectively destroyed no matter how talented he or she was. He or she wouldn’t be arrested, sent to prison camp, and/or shot in the back of the head — though Europe and Canada eventually came to fining and arresting people with ‘incorrect’ thoughts — , but he or she had less hope of working in the business than blacklisted communists during the so-called McCarthy Era. We know that it’s very difficult to break into many departments in the academia if one harbors politically incorrect views. And only reliable Liberals are given tenure in most departments. Even full-blooded Jews who run afoul of the ADL — such as Norman Finkelstein — have a difficult time getting teaching gigs — let alone tenures — as the colleges are hounded and intimidated with hostile action by the all-powerful Jewish elites that can make or break entire institutions financially unless they obey the dictates of the Jewish establishment. This is why there’s such ideological conformity in the academia. And even though the bohemian types sometimes bitch and whine about the state of affairs in colleges, they are no less PC and conformist-minded than the people who run the colleges. They too mindlessly attack and hound any idea that is deemed ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘homophobic’, and etc. Indeed, their main gripe seems to be that colleges are too ‘bourgeois’ and not ‘leftist’ enough. In many cases, it’s just resentment over the fact that others got the teaching gigs and tenures while they themselves didn’t. It’s often PC outsiders bitching about PC insiders.

That said, there’s some validity to people’s fears about creative-talent-outside-or-opposed-to-the-prevailing-values-of-a-social-order. There is something subversive about great creativity since (1) something so rare implies independence from the officially sanctioned norm and (2) a great work of art or entertainment has the power to spellbind and ‘corrupt’ a lot of people. This is why all social orders try to either suppress the power of individual creativity, win it over to its own side, or threaten & intimidate it so that it won’t serve the other side. Though Mel Gibson isn’t a great film-maker, he’s a man of some talent, and his PASSION OF THE CHRIST angered many Jews because its compelling manner of religious expression had the power to inspire millions of people, thereby undermining the narrative of Jesus’ death that is favored by Jews since the end of WWII: the killing of Jesus was entirely a Roman affair. If Gibson was a complete no-talent and nobody, Jews wouldn’t have cared what kind of film he made, but in fact, Gibson used his considerable talent and ample funds to make a film that came to attract billions of people all over the world. Especially as the film came out during the presidency of the ‘born-again’ George W. Bush, it freaked out a lot of Jews. THE BIRTH OF A NATION may well be the first great feature film of the art form that came to define the 20th century, and this was deeply disturbing to many people at the time and thereafter. Griffith was a great film pioneer — possibly even a genius — , but his talent was put in service of what some deemed as ‘racist’ and ‘bigoted’. If a great talent tried to make a film like that today, he would be hounded and destroyed even before he raised a single buck for the project. A remake of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, even if or especially if made by a film genius, would be just about the most subversive thing that could happen to the current PC order. So, all sides fear the power of genius, originality, and imagination. Art and entertainment have the hypnotic, orgasmic, or rapturous power override the rational and skeptical faculties of people. Art and entertainment have the sorcerous power to make even non-believers believe; they can convert even the skeptics to a new or alternative way of feeling or seeing things. (To be sure, it’s not easy to be a skeptic for it leads to discomfort in the human psyche, emotions, and drives. Skepticism is a lonely form of self-restraint. It’s like if someone puts an entire cake on the table, you should just have a slice. But after you eat a slice, you want more and more. You want to eat the whole thing. Cake is made in such a way as to make you want more of that sweetness and creaminess. Eating the whole thing would be unhealthy and make you fat or diabetic. But you want to eat more. You need self-control to restrain yourself. When America was a nation of self-restraint, people were mindful of how much they ate. But as America became more hedonistic and shameless, we have more gluttonous pigs, and that accounts for the obesity epidemic. Same goes for sex. When America was socially more repressive and shame-oriented, individuals were taught to think about values and reputations. This was always bound to cause some discomfort because the animal-orgasmic side of man wants more/bigger pleasure. As America has grown more porny and horny, there’s less restraint and people dance at clubs like they are having sex. Sexual behavior has turned from carefully finding your slice of cake to having the entire cake. Such wantonness has made for emotional shallowness, inability to develop self-respect except as pimp or whore, and relational immaturity. It’s no wonder that the culture of love and marriage is collapsing all around. Divorce rates may be down, but then it’s because fewer people are getting married. Skepticism means to maintain a part of your individual soul and consciousness apart from whatever that is beckoning you to surrender completely. Such restraint causes discomfort because things that seduce and tempt us offer us total pleasure or salvation. Pop culture is sugar and cream. It’s formulated and marketed to offer instant-maximum-pleasure like cocaine and meth. It’s meant to addictive, and of course, the appeal of acquiring a new addiction is it offers another means of finding a quick fix for a high. [Paradoxically, addiction acquirement is a form of increased pleasure through increased pain. If you have an addiction, you will likely feel more uncomfortable when you can’t have the fix. But the desire for the fix and getting the fix gives you great pleasure. It’s like if you don’t have a cigarette/nicotine addiction, you don’t suffer the pain of not-smoking, but then, you don’t enjoy the pleasure of smoking either. It’s like sexuality — a naturally existing form of addiction — makes people uncomfortable for not ‘doing it’, but there’s intense pleasure to be had while doing it. Indeed, give the amount of discomfort and pain caused by not having sex, one might think a lot of people would take up the offer of being ‘asexualized’ bio-chemically so that they won’t suffer from sexual craving anymore, but most people will reject such an offer since they look to the pleasure of sexual release. Then, it’s not difficult to understand why even smart people do stupid things like getting addicted to cigarettes, gambling, sugar binges, and etc. Though they know the risks and the increased discomforts/pains caused by such addictions, they also know of the greater pleasures by indulging in them at opportune moments.] The influence of pop culture is poisonous because of how it’s been formulated and how the human mind works. If humans had more sense, they would see pop culture for what it is and enjoy it now and done like a piece of candy or cake. But just like many people want to eat the entire cake, those into pop culture totally surrender to its power. It becomes their core experience of their identity, culture, and ‘values’. As pop culture is essentially consumerist, materialistic, narcissistic, amnesiac, and immoral, it cuts off one from a sense of biological, historical, cultural, spiritual, and national community. Instead, one is made to feel as if he or she will be ‘forever young’ to indulge in the orgasmic pleasures of the moment. Also, as pop culture is obsessed with the image of the ‘cool’ — which is just an illusion as nothing real is ‘cool’ — , people who’ve surrendered to pop culture lack a humanist respect for anything that is ‘uncool’, ‘unhip’, or ‘badass’. If anything, the new radical narcissistic mind-set feels contempt for anything that doesn’t smack of the latest hip fashions and status-mania. This is why we need to be wary of the poisonous effect of pop culture. It and the human mind conspire to make us sugar-binge on the entire cake than eat just settle for a slice and fill up the rest of our stomach with healthier food. Healthy/natural foods are a combination of various tastes. An apple is sweet but NOT only sweet. In contrast, junk foods isolate certain flavors such as sweetness or creaminess to the exclusion of everything else. As such, the pleasures of junk food is maximized — as with illicit drugs — , but their value as nutrition is greatly diminished or even entirely obliterated. Same is true of pop culture. It ‘refines’ and ‘purifies’ certain sensations that increase maximum fight-and-fuc* orgasmic pleasures at the expense of all else. So, if music in the past had a sexy component along with romance and love, much of today’s songs are about nothing but fuc*ing. And if movies in the past had character, plots, and moral issues as well as action, many of today’s action movies are little more than porny celebrations of violence, mayhem, and explosions. 300 and 300: RISE OF AN EMPIRE may be superior examples of such, but they are nothing but bloodbath orgasms, or gore-gasms. Personally, I like pop culture too, but unless we approach it with a ‘slice of cake’ attitude than ‘entire cake’ attitude, it will poison our moral culture, just like an entire cake is poisonous to the body. Sugary cake should not be the mainstay of anyone’s diet, just like pop music, action blockbusters, junk teen literature, porny stuff, and etc., crap TV shows like SEX AND THE CITY and GIRLS should NOT be the mainstay of anyone’s cultural life. But as such has become the core cultural life of many youngsters — even adults who won’t grow up — , so many kids are aping the likes of Justin Bieber, Kim Kardashian, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Eminem, Lena Dunham, and other trashy morons. [If you must have pop, have some decency to at least prefer Cady Groves and TWILIGHT movies.] This is true of religions as well. All religions say surrender your soul completely to God or higher truth. If you maintain a degree of skepticism, you are seen as uncommitted or even heretical. For full salvation, you must surrender completely. Same goes for ideologies. A kind of "If you’re not with us, you’re against us" mentality pervades both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’. The idiotic ‘left’ will shriek and howl about anyone who even questions a facet of the latest PC fad. And thick-skulls on the ‘right’ will deem as ‘unpatriotic’ anyone who won’t ‘support the troops’. Given that humans are social animals that evolved in close-knit tribes and communities, it’s not difficult to understand why people feel this way. Skepticism and individuality go against human nature. Indeed, what is truly pernicious about modern pop culture is that it sells conformism and total-surrender-ism as ‘individuality’. So, even though so many young ones are brainwashed into talking in the same rap-infected lingo and splattering themselves with ugly arm tattoos[in imitation of Justin Bieber, Lena Dunham, or some other freak], they think they are being ‘themselves’. Todd bless Bella Swan who isn’t into mindless shopping and consumer-conformism. Even as all of us have certain loyalties and leanings, we must safeguard a part of us that resists totally surrendering to the ‘entire cake’. Too much of anything is dangerous. Each us must find a way to a RESISTANCE FIGHTER against Pop Culture that is dominated and controlled by globalist Jews who seek to own and control our souls. But, this doesn’t mean we should totally reject pop culture because it does offer certain pleasures. It’s like we need to control our intake of soda pop, but we can have a can of Coke or 7-Up once in a while. Besides, puritanism and prostitutionism/pornographism are two sides of the same coin. Deny yourself too much pleasure in the name of purity, and it might lead to wholesale rejection of puritanism and total surrender to prostitutionism; but then, those who’ve debased and degraded themselves via excessive prostitutionism may go crawling to puritanism for salvation. It’s like, in order for people to have immunities against certain germs, they need to be inoculated with vaccines of those very germs. If you lack such immunities, you might fall prey to the germs. Look what happened to the natives of the Americas who had no immunities to Old World germs. So, parents who are overly protective of their children from junk culture may actually be making their children more defenseless against it. What are the best defenses against the poisonous nature of pop culture? Love of art, literature, and humanities. Real art, unlike ‘family values’ propaganda, deals with issues of the human condition, the problems of crime-temptation-nihilism, and etc. Also, grounding in philosophy makes people think about things instead of just falling for trends in pop PC ideology. Also, awareness of higher forms of art in painting and music broadens one’s perspective. If you know classical music and the rich traditions of folk music, you won’t see pop music as the greatest thing since sliced bread. It’s like if you’ve learned to appreciate real food and healthy drink, you won’t be so crazy about sugary junk and soda pop. And if you appreciate the depth of cinematic art, your idea of cinema won’t be limited to ‘tent-pole’ Hollywood movies and trashy junk on TV. Though cinephile community has a lot of looneys, I’d still wager that cinephiles, by and large, have better cultural sense than most fans of pop culture. Cinephilia, as an appreciation of cinema as an art form, cultivates qualities such as patience, curiosity, memory, mindfulness, and empathy. Art is a conversation between truth and artifice that reflects another truth, whereas mere entertainment is a matter of industry formulating a product to rake in maximum profits by giving people what they want or have been made to think they want. If movie buff culture is fixated mainly on latest big releases and Hollywood celebrity, cinephilia is interested in matters and issues all around the world as refracted through the lens of cinema. Also, it has a sense of memory as it preserves the canonical achievements of great film masters such as Carl Dreyer and Robert Bresson. It’s not just about what-is-hot-and-what-is-not. In contrast to cinephilia, much of music culture in the West is only fixated on Anglophone pop music, much of which today is just rap nursery rhymes about ‘muh dick’, ‘my ho’, and ‘shut up nigga’. Cultivation of serious culture is the best bulwark against the poison arrows of junk culture. It’s like those with the least culture are often most vulnerable to excesses of basic/debased appetites. American Indians had primitive culture and were defenseless against alcohol sold to them by the white man. In contrast, Jews, with a strong spiritual and literary culture, were impervious to such temptations. If anything, just as more advanced whites hooked primitive Indians with ‘firewater’, smarter Jews hooked less intellectual/serious whites with junk culture, porn, and pharmaceuticals. Chinese were able to stave off the onslaught of opium sales by British imperialists because they did have an advanced culture and a powerful sense of their heritage and identity; in contrast, less cultured Filipinos and Koreans are succumbing to pop-culture junk addiction. In America, educated whites are less likely to fall prey to stuff like meth and other drugs than lower class whites who tend to indulge in meth and moonshine. On the other hand, elites today have a weaker sense of seriousness. Their idea of Important Art is Andy Warhol, and their idea of ‘serious art’ is BREAKING BAD or THE WIRE, and their idea of a ‘public intellectual’ is Lena Dunham and Amanda Marcotte. Some of them even get tattoos and piercings. As for the voice of ‘millennials’, it’s morons like Jenna Marbles who is obviously missing a few marbles. Ross Douthat is an idiot who hates TWILIGHT and surrendered to ‘gay marriage’, but he made a valid point in discerning the difference between what successful Liberal elites do and what they say. Most of them do NOT raise their kids to become like Jenna Marbles or Lena Dunham, but they pay lip-service to hedonistic hipsterism because they are so anxious to be thought of as ‘cool’ and ‘hip’. Because moral judgement and ‘high brow’-ism have become associated with the Right and/or snobs of yesteryear, even Liberals who disdain much of pop culture tend to keep mum or mute their criticism. Oddly enough, Susan Sontag, who was often credited with subverting the dichotomy between high culture and low culture — though her role and intention in this has been greatly exaggerated as she was ALWAYS a serious thinker — , spent her energies since the seventies toward defending high/serious culture from the rising tide of frivolity as the new Culture of Importance. Still, while moderation is ideal in most cases, it must be said that certain things are impossible without obsessive total commitment. Some things cannot be achieved with a moderate sensibility. The great European voyagers who discovered and connected the entire world were bold visionary men willing to take great risks. Had Beethoven and Van Gogh been moderate in their commitment and devotion to art, they never would have achieved greatness. Some callings in life are extreme by nature. It’s like Evel Knievel would never have done what he did if he’d been more sensible and cautious about using his motorcycle. That said, we must make a distinction between individual extremism and collective extremism. Beethoven and Van Gogh were extreme but in the development of their individual visions. They weren’t surrendering themselves to an ‘entire cake’ but insisting on creating a better cake, and in that was a kind of nobility that collective extremists will never understand. It’s like what Stanley Kubrick said of the Icarus myth. One way to read the myth is that one shouldn’t try to fly to close to the Sun. But maybe another lesson, at least for men of greatness, is the challenge of building a better craft that can fly ever higher.) The morality/amorality of art has always been matter of great controversy. Consider the power that Richard Wagner had on an entire generations of Germans. Because so many artists and entertainers have been on the ‘left’ since the end of WWII, there’s this truism that Liberals are for creativity/talent whereas Conservatives just want stuff like the ‘family movie’ or ‘gung-ho movie’. So, creativity is ‘liberal and good’. But if a lot of creative artists were to express themselves through sounds and images that are hostile to Jewish interests, Zionism, & the homo agenda, Liberals and ‘progressives’ would have a big problem with creativity. Indeed, despite the fact that most artists and entertainers being Liberals or Leftists, the academic Left still continues to attack the notion of genius, originality, individuality, personality, and etc. (Part of the reason is that, even though most of today’s artists and entertainers are reliably ‘liberal’, most of the greatest writers and artists through the ages have been ‘white males’, the kind of people celebrated by Charles Murray’s book HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT.) They prefer schools of thought that are usually grounded in some leftist ideology. Ideology, after all, is more reliable than creativity and originality. A leftist is a leftist whether he or she is artistically talented or not. But there is no absolute guarantee that an artistic genius will be pro-Jewish, pro-Leftist, pro-homo, or pro-PC. There’s much about THE WILD BUNCH and STRAW DOGS that would make a lot of ‘progressives’ flinch and sick in the stomach, but they are powerful works made by a great film-maker. Art and entertainment have the power to enchant, enrapture, seduce, corrupt, hypnotize, convert, and transform people in an instant. It’s like Michael Corleone fell in love with Apollonia with just one look. As powerful as words and ideas are, the power of sensuality and thrills conveyed through film, music concerts, and mega-stage productions are like mini-Nuremberg rallies that has everyone screaming "Heil Hitler", "Heil Jew", or "Heil _____". Or it has the power to goad people into giving the middle-finger to the prevailing authority. Imagine if Charlie Chaplin’s THE GREAT DICTATOR had been screened all across Nazi Germany. Its magic might have broken the Hitler spell. Indeed, few things are deadlier to authority than having it reduced to an object of mockery. This is why Jews encourage us to laugh at their enemies, but we better not laugh at anything that is sacrosanct to Jews or their allies. The policy is "No Jokes about Elie Wiesel and MLK." Whether pro- or con-, all of us have been manipulated to be for something and against something largely on the basis of the movies, music, TV shows, and books we consumed — or were forced to consume as part of the school curriculum. So, the narrative of something like TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD has become almost sacrosanct, but suppose a great novelist writes a book about something like the Knoxville Massacre or some other horrific black-on-white crime. Suppose the author has no love for Negroes and believes in the right of the white race to defend itself and survive. Suppose he’s a man of genius and produces a very powerful work. Would Liberals, Jews, and blacks still favor genius and talent over ideology and political correctness? Or, would they say such a work is beyond the pale, a corruption of artistic talent? Or will they say it’s ‘bad art’ since there’s no way a good work of art can be ‘racist’? The Liberal establishment favors genius/talent over conservative culture/expression but favors Liberal culture/expression over politically incorrect genius/talent, though, to be sure, it isn’t always the case. It’s like the Liberal stance on ‘freedom of speech’. Liberals will favor freedom-of-speech principles over Conservative values, but will favor Political Correctness over freedom-of-speech principles. Whether it’s creative genius or freedom-of-speech, it has to be neutral or Liberal under the rules of PC, but if it happens to be overtly anti-Liberal and politically incorrect, Liberals will focus more on the evil of its ideology than on the genius of its expression. This explains why there’s no end to articles about how Wagner and Martin Heidegger should be denounced more for their political views than for their genius as composer or philosopher. But then, if some great artistic or intellectual talent on the Left was morally tainted, Liberals will tend to favor the admiration of his or her genius, insight, and vision than the denunciation of him or her for disgraceful political views. But if Conservatives held power over the elite institutions, they would likely act no different. It’s just a facet of human nature when it comes to power.

For Part 2 of this blogpost, CLICK HERE.